Innovative Technology in the building construction industry presents new fire-protection challenges. It poses the question if those of us in the building fire protection industry are doing enough to develop innovative solutions to these challenges. But there are hurdles to overcome when adopting innovation.
Whilst the building and fire industry, in general, can be great adopters of innovation and new technology (one needs to look no further than the Sharjah’s Aljada megaproject) it could be argued that the same may not be said for the building fire protection industry.
By new technology and innovation, I’m not referring to the application of existing technology to new problems, such as adopting sprinklers for high bay storage, adapting smoke alarms to be powered by batteries for example, but rather new, innovative technology providing fire protection in a new and smarter way. That is, solving existing and new problems in an innovative way.
There are some examples of where this has been done. For example: the VESDA smoke-detection system, use of computer technology to track fire-system maintenance, using drones and robots to attack wildfires and building fires, and advances in materials for emergency services protective clothing.
One reason that could be reasonably argued for a lack of innovative advances is that the existing fire-protection systems have served us well for a long period of time. For example, fire sprinklers have had an excellent performance record; in many jurisdictions there are now cost-effective smoke alarms in domestic dwellings for early warning of a fire; and fire compartmentation and passive systems have served their purpose well for centuries.
But some traditional elements of fire-protection stalwarts are now deemed inappropriate and/or banned for use in fire protection, such as: halon gas, asbestos and HBCB as a flame retardant for materials.
I recall a statement made by a CEO of a building code writing authority that the building industry develops approximately 10,000 new building products, materials and systems each year!
One of the main reasons that Performance Based Building codes were developed was to solve this problem of overwhelming introduction of new products, and with the joint objective of permitting the use of innovative designs and systems. But many approval authorities do not embrace performance-based building codes willingly and can be cynical of them. The deemed to satisfy building codes provide more comfort to them.
Therefore, we are facing a significant influx of new building elements, products and materials technology that existing fire-protection systems may have difficulty in addressing. Such examples are electric vehicles, electric vehicle battery banks in car ports and garages attached to domestic dwellings.
A critical new issue is that some cities are, to reduce maintenance, lowering water pressure and flows in street mains. These street mains also serve fire-protection systems. In many parts of the world, water mains were installed centuries ago, or even decades ago. At the time of installation these water mains were serving well-spaced single or low-rise dwellings and buildings. These same water mains now serve those same streets but these streets are now lined with high-rise or medium-rise apartments and office buildings, containing sometimes hundreds of units and hundreds or thousands of people, where only a building serving one family, or twenty employees once stood. Now each unit is using far more water than the original building occupants used!
This issue may have a profound impact on fire sprinkler systems and fire hydrant systems designed and installed to perform to expected pressures and flows that may no longer be available and innovative solutions will be needed.
One of the most significant barriers to innovation is the approvals process. One of my areas of consultancy is assisting clients obtaining approvals for new and innovative systems, products and technology for import and export. There are often no standard tests for new products. An example I once had was a new watermist extinguishing system that had been tested and approved in other European countries, but the importing country did not have a standard test for watermist systems, only water spray systems. As there was no standard test and the approval body would not accept the new product unless it had passed a standard test in that country. Also, the approval body would not accept the test reports from the countries that had already tested and approved the system. It was a different test methodology but tested the same performance, only in a different way and with different apparatus.
One wonders of the logic that, if the product could put a fire out in one country, it wasn’t thought to be capable of putting a fire out in another country! One wonders if Fire and Water (great album by the way!) behave differently in other countries…
Therefore, we had to adopt other methods for proving performance to gain approval. I assure you this is not an uncommon problem. One will find it very difficult to get insurance if the product or system has not passed a recognised standard test.
But it is important to recognise that it is imperative that innovative systems and products must be able to prove that they will perform as intended.
But is the building fire protection industry too complacent to spend the time and effort to develop innovative ideas in new fire protection technology and applications? This complacency may come from such a long and reliable performance history of current fire-protection systems. But, as stated earlier, the ground is shifting on these assumptions.
If one peruses fire-science conference papers, presentations and publications, there is a wealth of innovative ideas available that are not investigated or pursued.
A reason for this apparent lack of adoption and development of innovative ideas could be a disconnect between fire-research establishments and the industry. In my time working at fire-research establishments, I noted there was a gap between the expectations of the building industry and fire-research establishments. Industry generally believes that when a research establishment has developed something innovative, that it is sitting on the shelf as a finished and complete product and ready to manufacture and put to the market.
But the reality is that the research establishments only have funding to discover and develop an idea and may at best only have a proof-of-concept basic prototype. In my experience, most industry ‘buyers’ on discovering this, shrug and walk away, it being too hard to develop and will stay with what they already have.
The opportunity here is that these research establishments can be the source of innovative ideas and the research and development centres for the building fire protection industry.
Other industries embrace these innovative ideas, develop them and put them to market. I wonder where we would be if Apple just decided to stay with their first computer model. It worked just fine, didn’t it?
Who says that current and existing standards and test methodologies are developed and adopted by rigorous and independent research and then thoroughly reviewed by the oracles of our industry? In some cases this is the process, but sometimes it is also that half the committee wants the pass mark to be four and the other half wants it to be six, and so they settle on five!
New tests methodologies are based upon existing available resources due to the capital cost. Often these new testing methodologies are developed using the existing testing equipment and modifying it.
Who deicides if the fire regulations and fire-testing standards of one jurisdiction are better than those of another? Possibly refer to the fire statistics of those jurisdictions. The unreliability and inaccuracy of fire statistics is a well-documented problem, as is fire systems baseline data for maintenance purposes.
I was fortunate enough some years ago to visit many different regulatory jurisdictions on a research-gathering exercise. One of the most interesting findings was that every regulatory jurisdiction was adamant that their fire regulations and fire standards were the best in the world. It still fascinates me how different jurisdictions have different requirements. I noticed in a Japanese hotel I was staying at that the exit signs were on the corridor floor. Smoke rises and obscures the ceiling and tops of the walls and we bend low and crawl to evacuate. This does have some rationale to it. But bring this idea up in another jurisdiction and eyes roll! In a hotel in St Petersburg in Russia, there was a hose reel in every hotel room with the hose attached to the cistern of the toilet! Again, there is some rationale to this as well. Better than a fire extinguisher and it is within the room so no finding and dragging hose reels from the corridor. There are more examples of this but mention it to a regulatory body for adoption in their own jurisdiction and it is not even given any consideration – our building code is the best in the world!
This is the same for innovative products. The only way to overcome this is to try and get an internationally recognised testing body to approve it – but they often say the same thing. We need to test it ourselves to provide a report, but we do not have a test for that. The other option is to commission a research facility, university or an engineering company to undertake some specially developed test for proving performance, do the analysis and provide a report. This costs a lot of money and can take years, only for the approval authority to say, ‘That is fine in theory, but it has not passed a recognised standard test.’ Yes, I am being a little melodramatic and there are sometimes solutions to this, but I assure you this is not an uncommon problem. You will find it very difficult to get insurance if the product has not passed a recognised standard test. There is no doubt that new ideas and products must be able to be proven to perform and be safe, but we are not talking medicines here.
Even with standardised tests undertaken at recognised laboratories with testing methodologies that are from the national standard or ISO, and with the added review, verification and report from an accreditation body, there is no guarantee of compliance and performance.
It is a circular argument – develop an innovative product – needs approval – many countries have their own approval criteria – no standard test available – develop a performance test – might not get accepted – test in one country but results not accepted in another – may need to repeat again for other countries.
Performance-based building codes were developed for this very reason, that is, to accommodate innovative new products, as well as bespoke for a building design. One of the major hurdles with getting a performance-based alternative solution approved is that the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) needs to have the expertise to assess and approve. Not all AHJs are keen on performance-based solutions, even if the building code permits them. So, approval can be arduous, lengthy and expensive.
Hurdles to innovation adoption:
Not all authorities suffer from the below. I have worked in AHJs, building code drafting and testing and accreditation schemes.
- Commercial blocking: Competitors denigrating the product within that industry and regulatory bodies.
- Agenda blocking: Not on the agenda as to the direction of the AHJ. A view by some AHJs that the current provisions are adequate.
- ‘Nose out of joint’ blocking: Someone of influence wat not consulted on this, so will teach a lesson.
- Fear of responsibility: If a person or authority approves it, then they wear the responsibility. This is not an unfair concern. One can guarantee if a product does not perform as intended, the first thing the manufacturer will do is point to the Approver and say, ‘but they approved it!’
- Because I can: There are those, and I have seen this personally more than once, that will block something just to show that they have the influence and power to do so, regardless of the merit of the product or idea. This can happen even if their feedback has been positive!
- ‘Not my idea’: different from the above, you may have consulted and done everything else you can, but it was not their idea and they will not support it.
- ‘Oh dear, I may have been wrong’: Having spent a lot of energy blocking it, especially those who do it publicly, even if they then come to see the benefit, find it very difficult to walk back from their position.
- Regulatory blocking – for the advantage of their own national interest.
Some jurisdictions have a requirement for a test report from an accredited registered testing laboratory and also require an accreditation certificate or similar for the same product confirming that it did pass the test.
It does make one wonder if there are statistics showing if the fire data from one jurisdiction are better with strict testing in country and accreditation have better fire statistics? Possibly a more stringent auditing system would do the job better.
We should design fire-safety systems and develop regulations that are relevant to human behaviour and not building design.
About the Author
John has over 40 years of senior executive experience and technical leadership in the testing, certification, fire and building industry. He has a unique background starting as a professional firefighter with the Melbourne Fire Brigade, building surveying and senior roles with the Australian Building Codes Board, Building Research Association of New Zealand, Commonwealth Science and Industrial Research Organisation and Norman Disney and Young. These roles have taken him through building code reform, fire research, emergency management planning, product testing, product certification/accreditation, change management, international building code development, investigation and assessment, fire safety engineering consulting, risk engineering and business development in Australia and internationally.
