We frequently are asked to respond to questions about fire protection of mission critical facilities. From time-to-time we get a really great question and share our answer on this blog to benefit anyone else who may have a similar question.
“I am continuously looking for ways to reduce the cost of maintaining the systems in our buildings. What is one significant way I can lower the cost of the periodic Inspection, Testing and Maintenance program for my fire protection systems?”
In today’s business climate, Facility Managers are under constant pressure to reduce maintenance costs while at the same time improving the quality of service. While it may seem almost impossible to accomplish both of these objectives at the same time, it can be done. Using a Fire Protection Service Provider who offers online reporting of all your inspection reports can save you a tremendous amount of administration time while at the same time improve the quality of the inspection reports you receive.
Some service providers simply provide online inspection reports which are simply a scanned copy of a handwritten report and this really offers no improvement in quality. However, an effective online reporting system allows you to download high quality digital inspection documents. Additionally, these online reporting systems will allow the user to run analysis reports and will offer the ability to maintain a detailed inventory of every facility, every fire system and every system device. All reports can be easily accessed through a secured, password protected website. Managers, depending upon their level of responsibility, will have access to a single facility, multiple sites or all locations nationwide.
If you do not have access to online reporting, then you may want to ask your current fire protection service provider the following questions:
Do you offer an online reporting system for inspection reports and other documents?
If so, is there an additional charge for this service?
Is your online reporting platform your own proprietary system? If not, is there anything that could potentially affect my access to critical facility data?
What data will your online reporting system provide me?
Is there any software I’ll be required to install or maintain?
Are there any license or support fees I will incur?
At ORR Protection Systems, online reporting is just the way we do business and there is no extra charge for this service. If you would like to learn more about ORR’s online reporting capabilities, check out the NetSITE and NetREPORT sections of our website.
Last week I presented an Educational Session at the National Facilities Management and Technology conference in Baltimore, MD. Facilities Managers have the challenging responsibility of maintaining so many different building systems, including the fire systems that are so important to life safety and protection of the business operation. I shared with these Facility Managers 5 things they DO want to do and 5 things they DON’T want to do as they manage the Inspection, Testing and Maintenance of the Fire Protection Systems in their buildings. Click here to download a copy of the slides that accompanied my presentation.
DO these 5 things:
1. DO take responsibility for your fire systems
Often times, fire systems can be forgotten about and no one really takes responsibility for ensuring the ongoing reliability of these systems. NFPA 72, The National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code, makes it clear that the property or building or system owner is responsible for the inspection, testing and maintenance of these systems. Taking responsibility means being proactive and intentional about managing the ITM program and knowing what it takes to maintain a high level of reliability your fire systems.
2. DO understand how your fire system works
Do you know the difference between the Trouble signal and the Supervisory signal in your Fire Alarm system? What’s the correct response to these different signals? What button should you press? It's questions like this that many Facility Managers don’t know how to answer. It’s important that you find ways to learn how the system operates so you are prepared to interact with the equipment in the case of an emergency. I encourage you to make an effort to understand how your particular fire systems are designed to operate.
3. DO know the inspection, testing and maintenance requirements
The NFPA standards provide the minimum requirements for the Inspection, Testing and Maintenance of fire systems. Facility Managers should not overlook the importance of periodic visual inspections to verify all system components are in good operating condition, free from physical damage and nothing appears to have changed that would impact system performance. Testing should be performed on a periodic basis to verify the functionality of the fire system including simulating the events and conditions that are to be expected during an emergency situation. One must also remember those maintenance tasks that are necessary to keep the system in good operating condition. These include both periodic preventative maintenance activities and making the required repairs revealed by the inspection or testing of the system components. Take the time to learn what’s required so that you can be certain a proper ITM program is in place at your facility.
4. DO train your people
When it comes to training, Facility Managers must answer the following questions: Who should be trained? When (or how often) should they be trained? How can I train these people? Certain people should receive varying degrees of training depending upon their role. Some must understand how to operate the system so they can interact with the system when something happens. Others must simply be ready to react appropriately when an event happens. Some fire systems, like Clean Agent Extinguishing Systems have very specific NFPA requirements for training of personnel. If you decide that more training is needed, don’t forget to turn to your fire system service provider for help.
5. DO pay attention to recordkeeping
More times than not, system owners can’t put their hands on any of the documentation for their fire systems. When it comes to fire systems, there are several different types of records that are important to maintain. Every Fire Alarm System should have what is called a “Record of Completion” document that is maintained up-to-date with any and all system changes made over the life of the system. Other important records include as-built drawings, owner’s manuals, site-specific software, and a written sequence of operation. Facility Managers should also be certain to keep records of past inspections and service of the system.
DON’T do these 5 things:
1. DON’T ignore reoccurring problems
Some fire systems are plagued by reoccurring trouble conditions that just don’t seem to go away on their own. Common intermittent troubles include ground faults, circuit problems, battery faults and device failures. An experienced fire system service technician can track down the root cause of the problem and know how to make the necessary repairs. Resist the temptation to ignore these problems because of their sporadic nature. You may have a bigger problem than you think and your system may be rendered ineffective because of it.
2. DON’T let building occupants become apathetic to fire alarms
Maybe you have noticed this, but most people hesitate to respond when they hear the fire alarm evacuation signals in a building. Unfortunately, most of us have experienced more than one “false alarm” from a fire system in our lifetime and this has led many to be apathetic about evacuating. Facility Managers should do what they can to avoid false alarms, but when they do happen take steps to make whatever changes are necessary to prevent them in the future. When possible, inform occupants about the source of each false alarm in hopes of maintaining their future confidence in the system.
3. DON’T cause an accidental discharge
Many facilities will have one or more spaces protected by an automatic fire extinguishing system (i.e. FM-200, Inergen). Unfortunately, too many system owners have had to deal with an accidental discharge of a system. Facility Managers should take steps to avoid this at all costs. Without question, the most common reason for a false discharge is human error. It’s important to put in place and enforce procedures and policies that will minimize the chance for this sort of error. The single biggest contributor to the prevention of accidental discharges is training the personnel who work in and around these spaces. You should also continuously monitor operational changes that could have a negative impact on these fire suppression systems.
4. DON’T allow unqualified personnel to service your fire system
Who is qualified to service your fire system? The NFPA standards have a lot to say about this. Facilities Managers should ensure those who are performing these tasks are trained on the equipment they are servicing. I would also suggest you look for personnel who are certified by NICET in the specific type of fire system being serviced. NICET has certification programs in Fire Sprinkler, Fire Alarm and Special Hazard Fire Suppression. Facility Managers should not hesitate to ask not only the service provider, but also the specific technician about their level of experience in the type of work they are performing. The reliability of your life safety and business continuity is depending upon this person.
5. DON’T forget to consider the fire system when your facility changes
One thing is for certain, your building will eventually change and each time it does the Facility Manager must not forget to evaluate the impact those changes will have on the fire systems protecting the building. The need for this was highlighted in Lee Kaiser’s recent blog titled Clean Agent Fire Suppression: When rooms get smaller, recalculate. Other types of fire systems and components will no doubt be impacted including detector placement, notification appliance location, sprinkler coverage and obstructions to manual pull stations. When you realize your building will be undergoing a change, begin planning up-front for the necessary changes to the fire systems.
Morning with the EXPERTS Seminar:
Our Morning with the EXPERTS seminar series Fire Protection Game Changers 2.0 will be coming to a city near you over the next few months. Feedback from the Irvine, San Francisco and Las Vegas seminars has been very positive and indicates that it is one of our most popular programs of the past 8 years. This year’s seminar is focused on fire protection trends and emerging technologies. For more information and to register visit orrprotection.com and click on Seminar Registration.
February:
Atlanta, GA – Tuesday, Feb. 28th
Charlotte, NC – Wednesday, Feb. 29th
March:
Rutherford, NJ – Tuesday, Mar. 27th
May:
Kansas City, KC – Tuesday, May 8th
St. Louis, MO – Wednesday, May 9th
Bloomington, IL – Tuesday, May 15th
Indianapolis, IN – Wednesday, May 16th
Cincinnati, OH – Thursday, May 17th
Chicago, IL – Wednesday, May 23rd
Conferences and Expos:
ORR Protection System is also participating in several conferences and expos over the next few months.
NFMT
March 13-15, Baltimore, MD
Visit us at booth 1936 and don’t miss Steve Carter’s educational session The Do’s and Don’ts of Fire Alarm/Suppression Inspection, Testing and Maintenance on Wednesday, March 14th at 9:00am
Data Center World
March 20-21, Las Vegas, NV
Visit us at booth # 407
IFMA Facility Fusion
April 11-13, Chicago, IL
Visit us at booth # 408
Florida Bldg. & Facility Maintenance Show
April 25-26, Tampa, FL
Visit us at our booth and don’t miss Rick Reynolds’ educational session Fire Alarm: What you need to know about Inspection, Testing and Maintenance on Wednesday, April 25th at 9:00am
We hope to see you at one of these upcoming events!
Posted by
Lee Kaiser on Mon, Mar 12, 2012 @ 10:33 AM
Change happens. This is most certainly true about our buildings. Changes in the workforce, changes in technology and sometimes even changes in opinion can drive us to remodel our facilities. Usually the benefits of the change and practical realities of construction are what garner most of our attention. When present, fire protection and suppression systems should also get our attention when planning the changes to the building. Ignoring those systems can sometimes have unintended consequences – negatively impacting both performance and safety.
Recently we examined an inert gas fire suppression system for a data center space that was getting smaller. The needs of this business had changed and due to changes in technology suddenly they found themselves with a much more efficient data center space. Don’t assume that “more agent is better” when it comes to protecting a room with a clean agent fire suppression system.
In this case, reducing the room size without adjusting the quantity of inert gas would result in an agent concentration three times higher than the upper limit permitted by the applicable NFPA standard. In the event of a discharge, the room oxygen content would have been too low for human respiration. The good news is the owner of the data center recognized the potential problem and approached us to recalculate the agent concentrations, piping and nozzles. Ultimately this led us to remove some of the inert gas cylinders and to revise the distribution nozzles. The resultant change allowed the space to remain safe for human occupancy in the event of a clean agent discharge.
Is your building changing? Don’t forget to consider how these changes might impact any of your fire protection systems! Always involve your fire protection partner in the planning process. We are here to help.
We frequently are asked to respond to questions about fire protection of mission critical facilities. From time-to-time we get a really great question and share our answer on this blog to benefit anyone else who may have a similar question.
QUESTION: “I manage 200+ mission critical facilities all across the country. I’ve been given the assignment of standardizing our fire protection system service. What are the most important factors to consider when choosing a fire protection partner? What are the pit-falls I should watch out for?”
The biggest challenges that an organization with numerous facilities across the country will face are the result of having to work with multiple vendors each having various levels of expertise. Another struggle they have is with tracking and filing all of the inspection reports for hundreds of different types of fire systems. From my experience, there are 3 key factors that make or break a national service program and these must be considered when selecting a fire protection partner.
1. Single Point of Contact: What this means is that every one of your facility managers at every location across the country can call the same phone number and speak to the same person who has the assignment of coordinating all of your fire protection services. This allows you to go to one place to get any and all questions answered or problems resolved. Whether it’s scheduling routine service, getting an invoicing question answered, or any other issue that needs resolution – the buck stops here. This will alleviate any chance for miscommunication or finger-pointing.
2. Experienced, well-trained Field Technicians: It is not uncommon for an organization like yours to have dozens of unique make and model fire systems in your many facilities across the country. On top of that, you probably are relying upon several unique types of fire protection equipment (fire alarm, sprinkler, portable fire extinguishers, etc.) for the protection of these facilities. It takes well trained and experienced technicians to properly inspect, test, and maintain all these different fire systems, not to mention troubleshoot and make repairs when there are problems.
3. Online Reporting: When the local fire marshal walks in the door, will you have the necessary inspection reports at your fingertips to prove your facilities are in compliance with local codes and standards? Will they be legible or understandable? One of the most valuable services a quality service partner can provide you is to maintain ALL of your fire protection equipment records in a secure, online database which is accessible to you 24/7. What you need is a system that gives you anywhere, anytime access to an up-to-date inventory of every component of every fire system at all of your sites as well as detailed inspection reports of the most recent and all past inspections. Simply put, this will result in saving you time, money and will contribute to assuring your facilities are protected.
Are these three things all that is needed to successfully manage a national service program? Not necessarily, but I can assure you that without these three key items you will be jeopardizing your program’s success. This is simply a suggestion of where to start and these elements should be the foundation for your company-wide service program.
Click here to learn more about ORR's National Account Program.
Maintaining reliability throughout the entire life cycle of a fire alarm system involves three distinct and equally important tasks which must be performed on a periodic basis: (1.) visual inspections, (2.) functional testing and (3.) maintenance activities. Many overlook the need to visually inspect the fire system and concentrate only on the functional testing of the components. However, each of these tasks are necessary and contribute to the assurance of a fire system that is ready to perform in the case of a fire.
Periodic Visual Inspections
A periodic inspection is a visual examination of the equipment to verify that nothing has changed from the initial design and installation that would affect its performance. Those charged with performing an inspection should be looking for a number of conditions which might affect the system’s ability to perform when called upon. A proper visual inspection should consider whether building modifications or occupancy changes would have an impact. A fire alarm strobe light designed and located to disperse light throughout an entire room may now be ineffective due to a reconfigured floor plan. Another important consideration is a change in environmental conditions. Increased cooling systems to support greater heat loads might be producing airflow rates impacting the need to adjust the design spacing of the ceiling smoke detectors. Building owners should also ensure that a visual inspection of the equipment includes identification of changes such as physical obstructions, device orientation, physical damage, degree of cleanliness and any other obvious problem that may not be indicated by the control panel automatically through electrical supervision. A minimum standard for these periodic visual inspections can be found in Table 14.3.1 Visual Inspection Frequencies of the National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code (NFPA 72).
Periodic Testing
Periodic testing is intended to validate the functionality of the fire protection system. Tests are performed by operating each component of the system to assure it performs as required in the case of an actual emergency event. A simple example of this sort of testing is to pull the lever of each Manual Fire Alarm Pull Station to ensure it performs as intended and initiates the required alarm condition. A proper testing program should also include testing the operation of all Emergency Control Functions in the system such as elevator recall or HVAC shutdown. NFPA 72, the National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code (2010 Edition), requires these functions to be tested at the same frequency as the device which initiates the action. For instance, if corridor smoke detectors activate the closure of fire doors, then this function must be tested annually to match the testing requirement of the smoke detector. Beyond just a simple functional test, the test method for many components may also involve the use of calibrated test equipment. One example of this is a duct smoke detector used to control the spread of harmful smoke. A proper test of this device not only must verify smoke will initiate an alarm, but also that the airstream of the ductwork is effectively being sampled. So in addition to the functional smoke entry test for the smoke detector, a pnumometer is used to measure the airflow from the sampling tube. This measurement is then compared to the acceptable range published in the manufacturer’s instructions to determine if the device is performing as designed. A minimum standard for these periodic tests can be found in Table 14.4.5 Testing Frequencies and Table 14.4.2.2 Test Methods of the National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code (NFPA 72).
Maintenance
Maintenance is the work necessary to keep the fire system operating properly. One form of maintenance is simply a response to a failure identified by a visual inspection or a test of the equipment. Service personnel should notify the system owner immediately whenever deficiencies are found during routine inspection and testing procedures. Considering the fact that life safety and/or mission continuity may be at risk, repairs should be made as soon as feasibly possible by qualified personnel. Whenever repairs are not made immediately, a temporary alternative means of protection should be put in place until the fire system is returned to an acceptable level of readiness. Another important form of maintenance is of a preventative nature. Many components in a fire protection system will require preventative maintenance at a prescribed frequency. These maintenance activities address components that degrade over time, have a finite lifespan or require periodic resetting or calibration. For example, most fire alarm systems utilize lead-acid type batteries as a secondary (backup) power supply. Although NFPA codes require routine testing to verify voltage levels are at an acceptable level, a preventative maintenance requirement exists requiring their replacement at 5 years from the date of manufacture. Another important preventative maintenance task involves regular cleaning of smoke detectors. Typically the detector manufacturer’s published instructions will provide both the recommended frequency and method for cleaning, but consideration should be given to adjusting these based on the environment where they are located.
In a survey conducted by the California State Board of Fire Services, building owners were asked about the current operational status of their fire systems and about the factors contributing to failures. 73% of the respondents cited a lack of maintenance as the cause for system failures. The truth is a proper inspection, testing and maintenance program will benefit not only in money savings over time, but even more importantly, will minimize an organization’s risk of liability.
1 Source: “Report to the Legislature in Response to House Resolution No. 14, Fire Alarm Systems,” December 30, 1983, Office of the State Fire Marshal, Sacramento, CA 95823.
ORR continues to grow its service footprint by expanding into our newest location, Las Vegas, Nevada. Since 2007, ORR’s west coast presence has grown beyond our expectation from Southern California, then in 2009 to Northern California and now to Nevada in 2012.
Randy Hardman, VP of the West Coast Region, was recently quoted saying, “ORR’s national customers have pushed us to expand our services to Nevada for nearly two years, but before we made the move, we felt we needed to walk before we could run. That required for us to make sure we had the right people in place with the support they need to ensure our customers received the quality of service and response times they have grown accustom to expect from ORR. I have been in the “Mission Critical Fire Protection Industry” for over 25 years and the last 5 years with ORR, but since coming to ORR, I have been amazed at the professionalism and technical knowledge they expect from their technicians. Simply put, that is why we delayed our move to Nevada. We believe, our patience to find the right experience technicians will prove to be our winning formula moving forward. So from all of us on the West Coast, we are truly excited about our move to Nevada, Here we GROW again!”
Fire Alarm, Detection, and/or Suppression System design, installation, emergency service or test and inspection services are just a phone call away for our newest Nevada location.
Phone: (877) 265-9705
e-Mail: lasvegas@orrprotection.com
When a building has a fire, its occupants rely upon the fire protection systems to perform successfully. However, all too often building owners are faced with the consequences of a fire system that has failed. What causes these failures? And what can be done to avoid another failure in the future? Having a suitable program of inspection, testing and maintenance (ITM) is one of the more important steps to be taken to assure the success of the fire protection system. The truth is, when an appropriate level of inspection, testing and maintenance is taking place, this activity will directly contribute to the high level of reliability expected of a fire protection system. But how does one determine just what is the “appropriate” level?
It all begins with having a proper understanding of the purpose of your ITM program. Its purpose is to discover failures of components that would prevent the fire system from operating as necessary during an emergency event. And of course, the goal is to discover and repair these failures prior to such an event. When developing a program, keep in mind that NFPA and other fire codes provide a minimum standard for ITM methods and frequencies. However, you may also want to consider other factors. For instance, a facility with increased risk or history of fires should consider more frequent intervals of testing or preventative maintenance. Also, a facility which supports mission-critical operations would require fire protection systems with a much higher degree of reliability than the average office building. Unfortunately, most building owners take a one-size-fits-all approach by allowing their decisions to be influenced only by the minimum requirements of the applicable fire code.
It is also important to remember that fire protection systems are the sum of many individual components, each one having the potential to fail. As you might expect, some components simply have the potential for a greater rate of failure than others. (For more on this topic, read my paper titled Inspection, Testing and Maintenance: A Window into System Reliability.) That’s why NFPA standards will prescribe a method and frequency of ITM for each individual component which is a part of the fire system. For instance, for a fire alarm system, the manual pull stations are required to be functionally tested annually, while the tamper devices supervising each sprinkler system valve must be tested semi-annually.
So, what’s the purpose of your ITM program? If it is simply to keep the Fire Marshall off your back, then you will most likely be focused on doing whatever the minimum requirements of the codes and standards. But hopefully your purpose is much greater than that and will be focused on achieving a highly reliable fire protection system, ready to respond when it is needed most.
Posted by
Lee Kaiser on Thu, Feb 02, 2012 @ 11:41 AM
Advances in computing technology, worldwide growth in data consumption, and the need for more efficient cooling of IT equipment is driving data centers to change rapidly. A significant part of these changes include the use of Hot Aisle or Cold Aisle (HACA) containment systems. The partitions that form these containment systems are affecting fire protection systems in these spaces. In the first part of this series of blog posts, I introduced how HACA systems are changing fire protection approaches in data centers. In this second part I will continue the discussion of how HACA systems are specifically challenging both fire detection and fire suppression systems in the Data Center.
Challenges to Fire Detection
The National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code (NFPA 72) gives guidance to engineers on the spacing of smoke detectors in rooms with different air change rates. The fire alarm code only provides data for smoke detector spacing in rooms up to 60 air changes per hour (ACH); this equates to data centers loaded to roughly 5 kW per rack. According to the Intel Corporation, HACA containment systems are implemented in data centers with densities of 12 kW per rack and higher. With cooling airflows sufficient for typical HACA cooling loads, air change rates within the contained aisles range from 500 to 1000 ACH and higher. These high airflows will challenge ceiling mounted spot smoke detectors due to the velocity of the air and dilution of smoke.
It has been common for fire protection engineers to specify air sampling smoke detection (ASSD) in rooms exceeding 60 ACH because of their increased sensitivity to smoke. Because of higher velocities experienced within contained aisles it makes even more sense to utilize ASSD. Engineers should consider installing ASSD sample pipes/ports arranged to sample the hot return/exhaust openings in the contained aisle. This would be done in the same manner as is commonly applied to traditional CRAC unit return air grilles.
Data center designers would do well to take notes on best practices of semiconductor manufacturing clean rooms where ASSD is often employed. Clean rooms have similar challenges of high velocities, turbulent air flows, and directional routing of air. There is an easy translation to data centers where air sampling detectors should be installed at the return air inlet to air handling units and somewhere immediately downstream of the hot side of the server at the ceiling level.
Despite the fact that more research is needed on how to detect fires in high airflow environments, many professionals believe that the detection techniques needed are already available to the industry.
Challenges to Fire Suppression
Whether the barriers included in HACA containment systems are applied horizontally, vertically or both, they can affect sprinkler pattern development and clean agent dispersion. NFPA 13: Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems is very explicit in how to apply fire sprinklers to overcome obstructions in the protected space. These rules should be applied to sprinklers where HACA barriers exist in Data Centers. Many of these containment systems have provisions for “automatic” removal when a fire occurs; usually by means of a fusible link. For removal to work, the fire must grow to a point where it can melt the link(s). If the link that removes the barrier is not positioned perfectly over the location where the fire starts, the fire must grow larger to build heat in the location of the link. This also applies to systems that require fusing of multiple links for barrier removal. Be wary of containment systems that require a large fire to remove the barrier before the fire sprinkler system is given the opportunity to activate.
Plastic drop out ceiling panels, used most often in cold aisle containment systems, are another type of barrier that “automatically” removes. These panels are UL listed and melt around 135°F so that the sprinklers above the panels can operate. Data center managers should know that these panels are designed for use with standard response sprinklers that operate at a higher temperature near 155°F. Unfortunately, this sprinkler type is not installed in data centers; usually quick response sprinklers which fuse at 135°F are installed. The temperature difference is important and could lead to issues with sprinklers operating before these ceiling panels have dropped out. Installing quick response sprinklers inside the contained aisle may be the best way to avoid this issue.
In Data Centers protected by clean agent fire extinguishing systems, containment barriers must be removed prior to agent release. Containment systems which rely upon fusible action for removal are a problem because of the large fire size needed to obtain the action. Clean agent systems in data centers most often activate upon detection of smoke, not heat; and are designed to extinguished small developing fires. The problem of barrier removal can be overcome by adding extra clean agent nozzles within the contained aisle.
Clean agent nozzles have several of the same obstruction distance requirements as sprinklers. When retrofitting an existing Data Center with HACA containment, a qualified fire protection firm should be consulted to ensure the required extinguishing concentration can be obtained given the new barriers installed in the space.
It is a valid assumption that clean agents will disperse to spaces which are not in line-of-sight of the agent nozzle, such as the ability to reach the inside of server cabinets. The high airflows associated with containment systems challenges our current assumption and more research must be done on this topic.
While more research is needed to address these new challenges, one thing is for certain; hot aisle/cold aisle containment systems have the attention of data center managers, designers, and fire protection professionals. All are working to ensure a reliable means exists to detect and suppress fires in these environments. If you have added HACA to your data center and not had a qualified professional evaluate your fire protection system, you could be risking higher losses than what your business can tolerate. To learn more on this important topic, download my article that appeared in the 7×24 Exchange Fall 2011 Magazine.
Posted by
Lee Kaiser on Tue, Jan 31, 2012 @ 03:23 PM
Fire Protection System installations in Data Centers are being challenged by computing density increases and the push for PUE improvements. High cooling loads and reducing cooling energy cost is driving data center managers to change the physical structure of their rooms. Hot Aisle and Cold Aisle (HACA) containment systems in the various flavors they come in are very efficient at improving cooling efficiency and can often have short payback timeframes. Most newly constructed data centers these days include HACA containment and many existing data centers are being retrofitted as well. It is obvious that the HACA strategy is here to stay and for good reason.
HACA containment systems affect fire suppression and detection in many ways. They can make fires more difficult to detect and the obstructions they create can make them more difficult to control or extinguish. Those who have employed HACA strategies in their data center but have not made adjustments to the fire protection of the room will most likely have a problem and it may be bigger than they think.
This is the first of a two part series of blog posts describing how HACA systems affect conventional approaches to fire protection in the data center environment and considerations to make when designing a room with HACA systems. The truth is the fire protection community has not kept up with the pace of change in technology rooms. Often code development follows behind changes in technology. However, the good news is that experts within the fire protection industry are taking aim at this challenge today in order to develop guidance for the changing data center.
Common Misconceptions
There are two common misconceptions that lead some data center operators to ignore the impact of HACA containment on fire protection. The first misconception is that fires don’t happen in data centers, but the truth is they do. Businesses are often silent about fires in their IT facilities, in hopes of maintaining a positive image. Additionally many fires that do occur in these buildings are successfully controlled or extinguished by fixed fire suppression systems and are thus hardly newsworthy. These facts make it very difficult to monitor fire activity in data centers; yet we know they occur. Fire protection service organizations respond several times a year to re-arm suppression systems that discharged because of a fire. In the interest of client confidentiality these service providers do not share information about fires.
The second misconception is that the HACA containment system has features to address every possible fire protection issue. Manufacturers of containment systems are aware of the potential impact on fire protection and have often made assurances that their system will work with existing fire systems. Some of these claims are misleading and are result of an oversimplified understanding of how fire detection and suppression systems operate, rather than being based on solid fire science, experience and testing.
Containment Systems as New Barriers in the Data Center
When you start to break down the concepts employed by the various types of containment systems they are essentially barriers or new partitions within the space. These barriers serve to direct the cooling airflow to where it is needed most at the face of the computer server.
Many people assume that if a barrier added as part of a containment system is transparent, it will not affect the fire protection in the room. However, these barriers create three conditions that change the approach needed for fire protection in a medium to high density data center:
- The airflow pattern changes and disrupts the normal development of the smoke plume.
- The airflow velocity in the room increases within the contained aisle and can be a challenge for conventional means of smoke detection.
- The barriers act as obstructions to sprinkler spray patterns and clean agent suppression nozzles.
When thought of as barriers, the need for a professional analysis of the room’s fire detection and suppression system becomes well warranted.
In the second of this series of blog posts, I will discuss the challenges these containment barriers present to fire suppression and detection systems. I will also share about some of the progress being made by the fire protection industry to address the changing data center. To learn more on this important topic, download my article that appeared in the 7×24 Exchange Fall 2011 Magazine.