Fire Detection and Suppression in Condominiums
Bob Burns, P.E., R.S.
What level of risk are you accepting for fire protection for your buildings? Risk perception is a subject to which we probably don't give a lot of thought. How many of us get an annual head to toe physical? A case could be made that one of the many complex reactions that 9/11 has given birth to is the shattering of our sense of safety within a free society. It has forced us to look toward protecting ourselves in places we always assumed contained little risk. Where the common interest is involved, i.e., public assembly in buildings, the civil jurisdictions will specify required protection. But where private residences are concerned, personal freedom and self-perceived risk takes over. And yet statistics of the National Fire Protection Association tell us that 70% of the fire deaths in the US occur in homes and garages. Change is underway, however. Many municipalities now require hard-wired smoke detectors in new construction of common interest structures. Retrofitting of fire protection systems is another indicator of expanding actions by municipalities. San Francisco will now require back fitting of sprinklers in existing commercial buildings above a specified height. The State of Florida has similar intentions in pending legislation. In both cases, apartments and condominiums are exempt. The concept to freely perceive your own risk in your own property is a very strong one. One Florida fire chief in commenting on the movement to exempt condominiums and apartments suggested that the legislators "Are living in a fantasy world”. The design of fire protection systems has, historically, responded to two code-engendered approaches. Prescriptive code systems will, with specificity, position and size fire detection and suppression systems to combat the degree of danger that may reasonably be expected from the use of the building and what is routinely done or stored within it. Buildings are placed in categories and the intensity of a potential conflagration will dictate what protection must be provided. The task of the design engineer is to interpret the specifics of the client's building and overlay the code requirements on them. The performance-based approach says, “Here is the end result that must be achieved”. The level of protection provided, for example must guarantee that the occupants have sufficient time to get out of the building before conditions in the building become unacceptable and life is endangered. It's up to the design professional to devise an arrangement of materials and building configuration that will attain that result. However we feel about public intervention in private (read common interest) housing it would seem more than appropriate for those responsible for managing such buildings to take a fresh look at their existing level of protection from fire. A three tier approach might be appropriate - detection, suppression and interaction. What devices are present to detect heat or smoke? Are there sprinklers in place for fire suppression and are they positioned to protect escape routes? Is the water pressure in your sprinkler main the same as it was when the system was installed or has expanded development in the area reduced pressure? How will a fire be reported to the responders - by phone? Is that acceptable? Should there be a common electronic system that detects, suppresses and reports? A comprehensive analysis that reviews your detection and suppression systems and how they and you interact with your responders would seem like a good place to start.
