The Authoritative Source for Plumbing, Hydronics, Fire Protection and PVF
Sponsored by
| Discuss Page

Fire Protection

Sprinkler system "trade-offs" and common sense

By Richard Schulte

Schulte & Associates, Evanston, Ill.

Much of the space in this column is devoted to a discussion of the concept of "balanced" fire protection. What does the term <I>balanced fire protection<I> actually mean? Basically, it's a term that has been coined by lobbyists for passive fire protection interests to attack the reductions in passive fire protection features permitted in buildings protected by a sprinkler system. This reduction in passive fire protection is commonly referred to as sprinkler system "trade-offs."

A number of code change proposals to the International Building Code (IBC) submitted in the 2007/2008 cycle by the California Fire Chiefs Association (Cal Chiefs) make reference to the concept of balanced fire protection. The following are excerpts from the rationale of a few of the Cal Chiefs' proposals:

" ... The supporting statement for Code Change E25-07/08, which reinstated the sprinkler trade-off, indicated that sprinklers operate successfully 93% of the time for those fires in sprinklered buildings where the fire was judged large enough to have activated the sprinkler system. However, a more recent analysis of the sprinkler statistics compiled by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) as documented in a report by William E. Koffel, P.E. of Koffel Associates, dated January 2006, and subsequently verified by Dr. John Hall of NFPA, indicates that the overall operational reliability of automatic sprinkler systems based on the most recent data is 89%. ... This is a significant difference (>50%) and should seriously be considered when determining whether to allow such a sprinkler exception for the protection of occupants with disabilities." Code Change Proposal E30-07/08, Greg Lake, Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District, representing the California Fire Chiefs Association (Cal Chiefs)

“ ... We acknowledge that automatic sprinkler systems are an important fire protection tool, but they are not infallible. Like any mechanical system, they are subject to failure. In fact, a recent statistical analysis of automatic sprinkler system performance conducted by the NFPA has concluded that automatic sprinkler systems fail to activate in at least 1 out of every 6 fires that occur in sprinklered buildings. In our opinion, such a level of performance does not justify trading off built-in fire resistant protection for the means of egress in buildings where the occupants' lives are at risk in a fire emergency. A balanced design approach of providing built-in fire resistive protection in conjunction with automatic sprinkler protection, in our opinion, will go a long way toward assuring that the level of fire and life safety intended by the building code will be delivered during a fire emergency." Code Change Proposal E116-07/08, Proponent: Laura Blaul, Orange County Fire Authority, representing California Fire Chiefs Association

“We do not believe that such trade-offs are appropriate where life safety is concerned. In such cases, it is advantageous and desirable to maintain the built-in passive fire resistant protection, as well as to provide the active automatic sprinkler system protection, where life safety is involved. In our opinion, trade-offs are entirely inappropriate where life safety is concerned. We believe that a balanced approach should be used to assure that the appropriate level of life safety will be provided to the occupants of the building who must rely upon the corridors to exit the building." Code Change E119-07/08, Proponent: Greg Lake, Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District, representing California Fire Chiefs Association

Interestingly enough, code change proposals submitted by others in the fire service present an opposite viewpoint on sprinkler system trade-offs. The following are excerpts from code change proposals addressing the issue of sprinkler protection in dwellings submitted by the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC): "Given the proposed incentive package and prescriptive design option for multipurpose fire sprinkler systems being advanced this year in a proposal by the International Association of Fire Chiefs, it is entirely feasible that it will be cheaper to build some homes with fire sprinklers than without.” Code Change Proposal RB64-07/08; Proponent: Ronny J. Coleman, Retired California State Fire Marshal, representing IRC Fire Sprinkler Coalition

"Fire sprinklers are universally recognized as the most effective means of reducing America's fire losses and preventing firefighter deaths and injuries associated with firefighting operations. Both of these objectives are fundamental to the mission of the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC). Through this proposal, the IAFC hopes to encourage more widespread use of residential sprinklers by establishing a package of sprinkler incentives in the IRC that will appeal to homebuilders and consumers." Code Change RB67-07/08, Proponent: Tom Lariviere, Fire Department, Madison, Miss., representing Fire & Life Safety Section of the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC)

"The use of incentives to encourage the installation of fire sprinkler systems is traceable in model building codes for at least 80 years, and today these incentives are woven into the text of nearly every ICC code. Likewise, in communities throughout the United States where residential sprinklers are required, incentives play a critical role in developing and maintaining community support for sprinklers." Code Change RB67-07/08, Proponent: Tom Lariviere, Fire Department, Madison, Miss., representing Fire & Life Safety Section of the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC)

“Overall, IAFC believes that the package of incentives contained in this proposal will significantly enhance the safety of buildings constructed in accordance with the IRC, and, ultimately, we expect to see more homes protected by fire sprinklers once these revisions are published in the IRC. Although individual items in this package may be viewed by some as too liberal, while others will say that they are not liberal enough, IAFC believes that each of the suggested changes is reasonable and justifiable for a sprinklered dwelling." Code Change RB67-07/08, Proponent: Tom Lariviere, Fire Department, Madison, Miss., representing Fire & Life Safety Section of the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC)

"Because residential sprinklers will slow fire growth and often completely extinguish a fire, the fire challenge to townhouse separation walls is expected to be significantly delayed, reduced or eliminated. ... Clearly, the overall level of safety and best chance for a favorable outcome in the event of a fire is through the use of fire sprinklers with a one-hour wall versus no sprinklers and a two-hour wall." Code Change RB67-07/08, Proponent: Tom Lariviere, Fire Department, Madison, Miss., representing Fire & Life Safety Section of the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC)

"The value of smoke alarms with respect to life safety is well recognized. Nevertheless, code requirements associated with how many smoke alarms must be installed in a dwelling and where they must be located were developed without respect to the presence of fire sprinklers. It is widely known that the addition of fire sprinklers to a dwelling will provide a significant improvement to life safety and property protection versus having smoke alarms alone, so eliminating a minimal number of smoke alarms as part of a package to gain sprinklers is a reasonable approach." Code Change RB67- 07/08, Proponent: Tom Lariviere, Fire Department, Madison, Miss., representing Fire & Life Safety Section of the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC)

"To those who might regard egress windows as a safety feature that should not be equated to sprinkler protection, consider that the IBC already allows elimination of escape windows in Groups R-1, R-2, R-4 and I-1 occupancies (IBC Section 1026, Exception 1) based on the installation of fire sprinklers. It simply makes no sense that sprinkler protection should be considered as providing adequate safety without escape windows in fraternities, apartments, hotels, adult care, child care and assisted living facilities, among others, but not in one- and two-family dwellings. ... Recognizing the high level of safety that will be provided in homes that have both smoke alarms and sprinklers, providing adequate time for occupants to escape a fire using the normal means of egress, and with so much code precedent and a high incentive value, it makes sense to extend the sprinkler allowance for escape windows to include one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses." Code Change RB67-07/08, Proponent: Tom Lariviere, Fire Department, Madison, Miss., representing Fire & Life Safety Section of the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC)

According to the rationale supporting trade-offs for sprinkler protection in dwellings, "fire sprinklers are universally recognized as the most effective means of reducing America's fire losses and preventing firefighter deaths and injuries associated with firefighting operations." If that's the case, why would the Cal Chiefs be opposed to code provisions that are intended to encourage the installation of sprinkler protection (in non-residential and multi-family residential buildings) by reducing sprinkler installation costs utilizing trade-offs? Good question. The answer to that question is that passive fire protection interests have utilized data published by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) to conclude that sprinkler systems are an unreliable form of fire protection, and some in the fire service have just accepted the sprinkler reliability statistic as fact.

Is sprinkler protection as unreliable as the passive fire protection interests and the Cal Chiefs say it is? One only has to look at the fire safety statistics collected by the NFPA to begin to have doubts. Some of these statistics include the following:

  • Between the years 2000 and 2004, the average number of fire fatalities occurring annually in office buildings in the United States is one (excluding 9/11).
  • Between the years 2002 and 2005, no fire fatalities occurred in any educational occupancy in the United States.
  • In 2005 and 2006, no firefighter fatalities occurred in any building protected by a sprinkler system.
  • "Sprinklers operated in ... 98% of the apartment fires in 1999 - 2002 in which the fire was large enough to activate them." (Source: Kimberly D. Rohr and John R. Hall, Jr., U.S. Experience with Sprinklers and Other Fire Extinguishing Equipment, Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection Association, Fire Analysis and Research Division, August 2005, pp. 17-19.)

Trade-offs in passive fire protection permitted for high-rise buildings have been in place for more than 30 years and providing sprinkler protection in low-rise buildings has become more commonplace since the middle 1970s. Would the fire fatality statistics cited above be as good if sprinkler system failures were as common as the Koffel statistic seems to indicate? Hardly. Given that the sprinkler system reliability statistic is being used to attack one of the most fundamental concepts of the International Building Code (and other codes used in the United States), it would seem that the reliability of the statistic ought to be verified before we rush to assume that this statistic is actually a fact.

With respect to "balanced" fire protection, just what is "balanced" fire protection? The way the passive fire protection interests want to define it, it's a combination of both passive fire protection and active fire protection (sprinkler protection) with the passive fire protection features necessary to protect the occupants and firefighters determined based upon the assumption that the sprinkler system will fail. Obviously, this is an extremely conservative approach to building fire safety and, based upon the excerpts cited above, an approach that the IAFC appears to reject.

In my mind, a better definition of the term balanced fire protection comes from the general goals and objectives outlined in the Life Safety Code (LSC), which indicates that buildings should be designed to provide "protection of occupants [who are] not intimate with the initial fire development." The LSC further indicates that buildings should also be designed to improve "the survivability of occupants [who are] intimate with the initial fire development." In order to accomplish these goals, the LSC specifically states that multiple fire safety features should be provided so that the protection of the occupants of a building does not rely on any one safety feature. In other words, "balanced" fire protection can be defined as a combination of egress and other fire protection features necessary to implement the general goals and objectives of the LSC.

Does this mean that every building should be provided with both active and passive fire protection features, in addition to egress facilities, so that the design is "balanced"? Absolutely not. What it means is that the fire protection features necessary to accomplish the design goals will vary depending upon the type and number of building occupants and the height of the building. It should be noted that, while the LSC contains numerous reductions in passive fire protection when sprinkler protection is provided, not all of the passive fire protection features are permitted to be eliminated when sprinkler protection is provided. For instance, exits serving multi-story buildings are required to be enclosed in fire resistive construction, regardless of whether or not sprinkler protection is provided. In a similar vein, the LSC typically permits travel distance to be extended in buildings provided with sprinkler protection; however, the travel distance in sprinklered buildings is not permitted to be unlimited. In other words, the LSC does not allow all of the required passive and egress features to be eliminated in sprinklered buildings, nor does the IBC.

The manufacturers and installers of passive fire protection have chosen the term balanced fire protection to promote their products, because this term appears to be a "reasonable" approach to building fire safety. This "reasonable" approach is designed to influence those who aren't aware of the origins and history of trade-offs. In other words, the term balanced fire protection is nothing more than a slick marketing appeal. The fire record in the United States clearly shows that the concept of sprinkler trade-offs works and, as with sprinkler protection in dwellings, is simply a common sense approach to providing building fire safety in non-residential buildings. Hopefully, the Cal Chiefs will spend some time studying the former California State Fire Marshal's and the IAFC's code change proposals to the International Residential Code (IRC). Sprinkler "trade-offs," not the "balanced fire protection" approach (as defined by the passive fire protection lobbyists), is the reasonable approach to building fire safety.

Richard Schulte is a 1976 graduate of the fire protection engineering program at the Illinois Institute of Technology. After working in various positions within the fire protection field, he formed Schulte & Associates in 1988. His consulting experience includes work on the Sears Tower and numerous other notable structures. He has also acted as an expert witness in the litigation involving the fire at the New Orleans Distribution Center. He can be contacted by sending e-mail to rschulte@plumbingengineer.com.