Code Red Consultants
  •  

Insights Category: Technical Information

In 2022, Edwards Fire Safety announced that it would discontinue support for the Edwards EST3 Fire Alarm Control Unit (FACU) due to challenges in sourcing electronic components. As of December 31, 2023, Edwards has stopped accepting new orders for UL/ULC-listed EST3 systems. While they intend to support existing installations with replacement parts as long as possible, the dwindling supply and eventual end of support are becoming increasingly evident.

The EST4, launched in 2019, offers backward compatibility with many Edwards Signature Series components, wiring, and control unit back boxes. For many facilities, the shift from an existing EST3 system to the newer EST4 system could seem straightforward; however, the transition comes with challenges that necessitate significant pre-planning to minimize impairments, particularly in occupied buildings.

Challenges in Transitioning from EST3 to EST4:
1. Component Compatibility: Many buildings with existing EST3 systems still include some legacy System Sensor devices and modules; the EST3 can interface with these legacy components via the 3-AADC1 loop card. The EST4 system does not support or provide an alternative to this loop card and, therefore, does not support such devices, which can complicate the upgrade process.
2. Network Integration: The EST4 and EST3 systems cannot share network communications directly, making multi-node system upgrades complex and necessitating a carefully managed transition plan to avoid extended operational downtime.

Strategic Approach for a Smooth Transition:
A comprehensive, building-specific migration plan ensures a seamless transition from EST3 to EST4, especially in active buildings. Here’s a structured approach:
1. Prioritize Upgrades: Start by identifying and prioritizing the critical steps in the migration process. Address high-priority tasks first to ensure essential functions are upgraded promptly.
2. Phased Installation: It is considered a phased migration in facilities where continuous operation is essential, such as hospitals or systems with multiple nodes. It is best to install the EST4 system alongside the existing EST3 system, allowing for a gradual transition. This phased approach enables circuit-by-circuit migration, reducing the impact on day-to-day operations.
3. Minimize Downtime: Design the upgrade process to allow EST3 and EST4 systems to operate concurrently at the various stages of migration. This approach maximizes flexibility and minimizes operational disruption during the transition.

Why Partner with Us?
Our team has extensive experience managing such upgrades, having successfully completed similar projects across the greater Boston area. We specialize in designing customized solutions to ensure that transitions are as smooth and efficient as possible.

Whether you’re planning a new project or need assistance with an ongoing upgrade, we’re here to help navigate the complexities of the EST3 to EST4 migration with expertise and precision.

Recently, there has been an increase in the construction of high-rise buildings designed for office and laboratory use. In new high-rise buildings in Massachusetts, 780 CMR requires all stairwells/elevator hoistways built over 70 feet tall to be equipped with a smoke control system. The laboratory environment in these high-rise buildings typically dictates specific ventilation requirements, which uniquely impact the required smoke control systems.

The required smoke control systems (usually stairwell and elevator pressurization) operate by providing supply air within the stair/elevator shaft to pressurize the shaft and keep smoke out while allowing the doors to open without undue force. These smoke control systems must achieve this performance on both Normal and Emergency (generator) building power.

There are two variables that contribute to the pressure readings in the stair/elevator shafts: 1, the amount of supply air provided inside the shaft, and 2, the airflow conditions in the building. In laboratory environments, the building airflow can vary significantly depending on whether the building is on normal or Emergency power. Typically, both supply and exhaust air run, creating a balanced/neutral environment. Regardless, under emergency building power, it is typical for the building supply air to shut down and only the building exhaust air to continue running, resulting in a negative airflow condition and potentially drastically changing the pressure and door force values.

Both the smoke control and lab air systems must function properly to ensure the safety of building occupants, requiring careful coordination and commissioning to ensure the systems work properly in all scenarios.

Laboratory environments typically need a minimum exhaust flow setpoint to meet the applicable ventilation requirements. To minimize negative impacts on the differential pressure and door opening force readings on Emergency power, the building exhaust air could be programmed through the Building Management System (BMS) to ramp down to this minimum exhaust flow setpoint (as established by the laboratory ventilation system design) on Emergency building power, rather than continuing to run at the Normal building power flow setpoint. This typically results in a building environment compatible with the required smoke control systems, as the building is not too negatively pressurized.

Alternatively, the HVAC systems could be programmed to shut down the supply air any time the smoke control system is active. This makes the normal power airflow condition and the emergency power condition match, allowing the stairs to be balanced, knowing they will meet the specs in both power conditions. Under this approach, care must be exercised to ensure that maximum door-opening forces have not exceeded due to negative pressure conditions.

In summary, stair or elevator pressurization systems within high-rise office/laboratory occupancies can introduce complications when commissioning the smoke control systems. By reviewing the potential issues during design and startup, the system can be adjusted appropriately to avoid problems and delays during final Commissioning and turnover. If you have questions regarding how these requirements apply to your project, please contact us at info@crcfire.com.

With the adoption of 527 CMR 1.00, the Massachusetts Comprehensive Fire Code, in 2022, the 2022 Edition of NFPA 241 is now incorporated by reference in lieu of the previously referenced 2013 Edition. This updated edition of NFPA 241 includes two new chapters that provide rules and regulations specific to construction operations in Tall Mass Timber Wood Structures (Chapter 12) and Large Wood Frame Structures (Chapter 13). Both new chapters reference the need to conduct a study that is defined as a fire exposure analysis prior to the commencement of construction.

Sections 12.3 and 13.3 of NFPA 241 outline a fire exposure analysis, “Before construction begins, a study shall be conducted to ensure that the installation of passive and active fire protection systems, combined with the separation provided between other structures on the same or adjacent lots, are adequate to allow safe egress and to prevent fire spread to the exposed structures.”

Per NFPA 241, Section 13.1.2, and the Boston Fire Department, a large wood frame structure is defined as a wood structure that meets one of the following:

  • Up to three stories and greater than 13,935 m2 (150,000 ft2) aggregate total floor area
  • Over three stories, or over 12.2 m (40 ft) above the lowest level of fire department vehicular access, and greater than 4645.2 m2 (50,000 ft2) aggregate total floor area

Specifically, the Boston Fire Department has announced the expectation of a fire exposure analysis to be submitted along with an NFPA 241 Fire Prevention Program to their email alias for any new construction projects that meet the definition of a large wood frame building (bfd241@boston.gov).

The BFD Fire Exposure Analysis Guidelines are included via the following link: https://www.boston.gov/sites/default/files/file/2023/09/Fire%20Exposure%20Analysis_0.pdf

Are you doing work in Boston or other communities in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and have questions about how this requirement may impact your project? Contact info@crcfire.com for additional information.

When considering doors that form part of an egress route, such as those in a common area or corridor, there is a common misconception that they can be locked as long as they automatically unlock upon activation of the building’s fire alarm system. However, this belief is incorrect as there are no such provisions within the 2021 IBC that permit egress doors to be locked and only released during a fire alarm event.

Egress doors are required to be readily available and operable from the egress side without requiring a key or special knowledge (2021 IBC Section 1010.2). This requirement ensures that in non-fire emergencies (i.e., natural disasters) requiring building evacuation, occupants can readily exit without delays caused by locked doors. Any listed exceptions to the above can be found in 2021 IBC Section 1010.2.

Understanding and complying with this requirement is crucial to ensuring the safe and swift evacuation of building occupants during emergencies.

Fire pumps are an important piece of life safety equipment, used to supplement water-based fire suppression systems where adequate water pressure is not available. They are often necessary to meet NFPA design requirements. This blog addresses the importance of fire pumps and how to determine if a fire pump is needed.

Does my building need a fire pump?
It depends. During the planning and design phases of a construction project, the fire protection designers should address this question. As a fire suppression system is designed, its water demands will be compared to the local municipality’s available water supply. A fire pump will be required if the available water supply cannot meet the system pressure requirements.

How are fire pumps designed and tested?
NFPA 20, Standard for the Installation of Stationary Pumps for Fire Protection, addresses the design, installation, and testing of Fire Pumps. Chapter 14 “Acceptance testing, performance, and maintenance,” requires that fire pumps must be formally commissioned and tested in accordance with the pump manufacturer prior to formal acceptance of the fire suppression system and prior to building occupancy.

This test is critical in confirming that the fire pump operates as intended according to the manufacturer’s performance curve and in line with the design specifications. Additionally, it provides transparency that the performance meets the approval of the manufacturer, installing contractor, building owner, engineer of record, and the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ). Once accepted, fire pumps are required to be regularly tested in accordance with Chapter 8 to make sure they continue to perform as intended. Depending on the type of fire pump (i.e. electric driven or diesel driven), specific testing criteria may vary..

Why are fire pumps important in high-rise applications?
City water supplies often do not have adequate pressure to supply water to tall buildings, and a pump is frequently required.  The pump must be capable of providing water to the highest portions of the building to serve both the sprinkler systems and the standpipes for firefighting operations (both of which could be operating simultaneously).   High-rise system design requires careful consideration of pump, piping, flows, and pressures to ensure proper operation of systems in all areas and all levels of the building.

To learn more about fire pumps or for assistance with fire protection system design, email us at info@crcfire.com.

With the increasing number of laboratory buildings of varying sizes, ages, and conditions, the pending 10th Edition of the Massachusetts State Building Code (780 CMR) continues to generate industry excitement regarding the Laboratory Suite approach. This new chemical compartmentalization approach will allow for more significant quantities of flammable and combustible liquids within R&D laboratories than the Control Area approach recognized by the currently adopted 9th edition of 780 CMR.

In a previous post, we introduced the concept of Lab Suites and the associated implications for new construction (link to the article is provided at the end of this post). What about using lab suites in existing laboratory buildings that currently employ a Control Area approach?

To implement a Laboratory Suite approach in an existing building, several critical protection features are anticipated to be required for prescriptive compliance and may necessitate upgrades to existing building infrastructure. Such features include, but are not limited to:

  • Rated interior partitions
  • Rated floor assemblies with supporting construction
  • Automatic sprinkler protection
  • Laboratory ventilation
  • Standby power

Consideration should also be given to the following items when evaluating the feasibility of using a Laboratory Suite approach within an existing building.

(a) A Lab Suite approach can be partially or wholly implemented on a floor(s) in existing and new buildings. Partial implementation may lessen any infrastructure upgrades necessary within existing structures.

(b) Fitout projects planned to be permitted under the 10th edition can prescriptively utilize the Lab Suite approach within base buildings that have been (or are anticipated to be) permitted under a previous edition of the MA Building Code. Before this occurs, the building infrastructure will need to be evaluated to determine if the features required to support a Laboratory Suite are provided or if the building can support the necessary features.

(c) Implementation of Laboratory Suites before the adoption of the 10th Edition of 780 CMR would necessitate local AHJ approval or a state variance.

Previous Blog Post Link:

https://coderedev.wpenginepowered.com/insights/10th-edition-updates-laboratory-suites/

“Do I need smoke detectors at doors on magnetic hold opens?” This is a frequently asked question by designers who are faced with the challenge of creating open circulation in portions of buildings where doors are required for fire protection purposes. A common solution for this problem is to put those doors on magnetic hold opens so they don’t interrupt these circulation paths and site lines unless there is a fire condition where they need to be closed. Unfortunately, the installation of the magnetic hold opens isn’t as simple as installing the magnets and connecting them to the fire alarm system such that they close on activation. A compliant arrangement also requires examination of the location of the detectors themselves which tell those magnets to release the doors so that they will shut in a fire condition.

Unfortunately, the answer to where to install those detectors is “it depends”.

The International Building Code as well as NFPA 101, the Life Safety Code, references NFPA 72, National Fire Alarm Code where you can find the detailed requirements for installation of smoke detectors. Chapter 17 Initiating Devices of NFPA 72 provides compliant options for smoke detector layouts for door release devices including various ceiling height scenarios.

Option 1:

The first option is to utilize complete area detection, where the entire space (i.e. corridor) is protected throughout by smoke detectors that are commonly spaced at 30-foot intervals. This option does not require any special detectors near the doors since they will be told to close if a smoke detector anywhere in the department is triggered.

Option 2:

Option 2 uses an approach where it only requires a detector or detectors near the hold open door. The challenge here is that the header depth above the door can create different airflow patterns for smoke to travel across the door. To ensure detection will be located in an area where smoke is likely to exist, NFPA 72 has varying requirements on if the detectors are needed on one side of the door or both, depending on that header depth. Section 17.7 Smoke-Sensing Fire Detectors of NFPA 72 has a table (Figure 17.7.5.6.5.1(A)) that designers can use to locate the detectors properly.

With the influx of new and repositioned life science buildings coming to market in recent years, a key attribute leading to the success of these buildings has been the ability to maximize available quantities for tenant chemical storage. To achieve this, centralized chemical storage rooms are often provided (designed as either Control Area or Group H, High Hazard storage rooms), allowing chemicals to be remotely stored without detracting from the maximum allowable quantities (MAQ’s) of chemicals available for use within tenant spaces.

Within such rooms, a component that requires significant thought and coordination is the ventilation systems used to mitigate dangerous vapor accumulation. Chemical storage rooms that accommodate small, normally closed vessels may not need as robust of a ventilation system as rooms containing large vessels and/or dispensing operations. Of the latter, two distinct ventilation system types are often found in the larger chemical storage applications:

  • Group H Exhaust (per International Mechanical Code [IMC] Section 502.8), for rooms with large chemical quantities, and
  • Hazardous Exhaust (per IMC Section 510), for rooms with open use operations that generate dangerous vapors.

Group H Exhaust (IMC 502.8.1) is required for any indoor storage area where the quantity of chemicals exceeds the MAQs per Control Area. The requirements for a Group H Exhaust system are outlined in IMC Section 508.1.1, and include, but are not limited to:

  • Exhaust rate of 1 CFM per square foot of room area
  • High/low exhaust (within 12” of the ceiling/floor depending on the weight of expected fumes),
  • Manual ventilation shutoff switch exterior to the room,
  • Continuous operation of equipment, etc.

Also note that specific hazards such as compressed/cryogenic gases, fumes posing health hazards (and associated point-collection systems), and other unique hazards may require additional protection.

Hazardous Exhaust (IMC 510), on the contrary, is not dependent on the MAQs. Rather, IMC 510 is applicable where any one of the following thresholds may be exceeded during normal operations, in the absence of the exhaust system running:

  • A flammable vapor, gas, fume, mist, or dust is present in concentrations exceeding 25 percent of the lower flammability limit of the substance at the expected room temperature;
  • A vapor, gas, fume, mist, or dust with a health-hazard rating of 4 is present in any concentration.
  • A vapor, gas, fume, mist, or dust with a health hazard rating of 1, 2, or 3 is present in concentrations exceeding 1 percent of the medial lethal concentration of the substance for acute inhalation toxicity.

One of the major features of a Hazardous Exhaust system is that it must be independent from other ventilation systems, typically requiring separation by rated shaft construction and/or fire-rated ducts.  Other design requirements may include internal duct suppression, redundant fans, standby power, etc., which should be reviewed with respect to the installation and design goals.

The misconception we often see with the two system types is that they are either thought of as one in the same, or mutually exclusive. To help clarify some ambiguity surrounding these system types, we offer the following:

  • A Hazardous Exhaust system (IMC 510) may sometimes be required in a non-Group H (i.e. Control Area) occupancy, depending on the operations taking place.
  • A Group H room with Group H Exhaust (IMC 502.8) may sometimes also require a local Hazardous Exhaust system (IMC 510) given the operations taking place within.
  • Where both types of systems are warranted, it’s possible to achieve both goals with a single HVAC system designed to meet both criteria.

Existing accredited healthcare facilities are required to maintain the fire-resistance rated walls identified on their Life Safety Plans as part of the ongoing maintenance for Life Safety per the Joint Commission requirements. During State of Condition surveys of existing healthcare facilities, it is common to see citations associated with fire-resistance rated walls or smoke barriers. More specifically, deficiencies associated with opening protectives such as doors, dampers, or penetrations of fire- or smoke-rated walls.

This blog post specifically addresses commonly observed issues associated with dampered ducts penetrating a fire-resistance rated wall. Often, issues are cited relative to the installation of intumescent firestopping applied around the annular space of duct penetrations where fire dampers are installed. A vast majority of fire dampers are not permitted by their fire tests to be installed with an intumescent product in the annular space around the duct penetration. This is caused by the nature of the intumescent firestopping itself – when the product expands in elevated temperatures, as designed, it can deform the duct work and prevent proper closure of the fire damper.

Another common deficiency observed are dampered ducts that do not have angle irons installed. All fire, smoke, or combination fire/smoke dampers are required to be installed per the manufacturer’s listing for its specific use, which typically requires the use of angle irons to rigidly support the duct from deforming. It is common for listings to require non-intumescent materials to be utilized in the installation of the damper, but in some specific listings a firestopping material may be permitted. However, if the installation instructions for the model of damper do not permit the installation of firestopping, it will need to be removed to maintain the listing of the damper.

Lastly, it is commonly observed that damper access panels are not labeled. Damper access panels are required to be identified with the words “Fire Damper”, “Smoke Damper”, or “Fire/Smoke Damper” in letters not less than one inch in height, as required by NFPA 80.

If you have any questions or would like assistance with fire and life safety code compliance related to life safety deficiencies your facility might have, please do not hesitate to contact us at info@crcfire.com.

Atriums are one of the grander features that can be incorporated into a building design. Still, they introduce several design considerations that should be taken into account as a project progresses through design and into construction. This post will present an overview of some of these major considerations.

Sizing and location of the smoke control exhaust and make-up air are paramount

Typically, the exhaust is located at the top of the atrium, and make-up (or supply) air is located toward the bottom of the atrium, such that the airflow path facilitates smoke being efficiently removed from the space. The goal is to clear enough smoke to maintain visibility for exiting occupants at walking surfaces and egress paths. The number and location of exhaust inlets, as well as the location and distribution of supply air, are both critically important to developing a solution suitable for maintaining a tenable environment for those in the atrium. CFD (computational fluid dynamics) computer modeling can often be used to help simulate the various effects of these design factors. CFD model results can also be helpful visual aids when discussing the evaluation with a building or fire official. For more details on makeup-air considerations, please see our prior blog post on the topic found HERE.

What is the atrium boundary and how is it determined?

All spaces within an atrium are required to be separated from any areas not included within the atrium (IBC Section 404.6). This can be accomplished in two prescriptive ways:

  • 1-hour fire barrier walls
  • Sprinklers on glass achieving an equivalent 1-hour fire resistance rating

Additionally, there may be an option to utilize smoke curtains listed under UL 10D & 1784 (with building official approval). These options can also be mixed and matched for flexibility in the overall design. Also of note, the code allows for atrium separation to not be provided between the atrium and the adjoining spaces of up to three floors, if the spaces or rooms are accounted for in the design of the smoke control system.

Are there any specific sprinkler or fire alarm features required for the atrium?

Atriums are required to be provided with both automatic sprinkler protection and a fire alarm system. Both the sprinkler and fire alarm initiating devices serving the atrium are required to be appropriately zoned in alignment with the atrium boundary. This is done so that a fire event outside the atrium does not activate the smoke control system (exhaust fans, makeup air, sprinklers, etc.) within the atrium and vice versa. Therefore, establishing and clearly documenting the atrium boundary within design documentation is important for the success of the project.

Is the smoke control system able to be controlled via the Building Management System (BMS)?

The smoke control system is permitted to be controlled by either the fire alarm system or the BMS; however, splitting controls between multiple systems should be avoided.  In either case, the controlling system is required to be listed in accordance with UL 864 and specifically, subcategory UUKL.

Determining the most cost-effective means to control a smoke control system generally depends upon the complexity of the system, whether the equipment is dedicated to the smoke control system, as well as other design considerations.

What about the smoke control panel?

Every smoke control system requires a firefighter’s smoke control panel, which annunciates equipment status and provides manual control of system components. The smoke control panel for the fire department is required to be in the fire command center if the building requires an FCC. If the building does not have an FCC, the panel is required to be located at a location approved by the AHJ and is often adjacent to the building fire alarm panel. It is always a good idea to consult with the local fire official on the location and design of the smoke control panel before releasing it for production.

What are some other requirements for an atrium outside of the overall design?

Not to be forgotten, a typical requirement for atrium smoke control systems also includes smoke control special inspections through IBC Chapter 17. Special inspections require a comprehensive understanding of system design, performance, and construction schedules to support rather than obstruct the process. Code Red Consultants has experience stemming from dozens of smoke control special inspection projects, should you need such services.

Additionally, depending on local or state requirements, an independent third-party review of the atrium smoke control design may be required. For example, a third-party review of the project’s smoke control rational analysis (which is required to be developed by IBC Section 909) is required in Massachusetts via state code amendments. The third-party review is completed to establish that the design of the atrium smoke control system is consistent with the generally accepted/established principles of engineering and code requirements relevant to the design. The third-party review should be submitted along with the permit application.

In summary, atriums are a desirable but complex part of building design (and construction). We are happy to bring our atrium and smoke control experience to bear to support the design and/or construction side of your next atrium project. Please contact us at info@crcfire.com for more information.