Hurricane Harvey; an opportunity for giving back and moving forward

It has been several months since my last post. While my own life has been slightly more chaotic due to the arrival of Hurricane Harvey on August 25, 2017, it is nothing in comparison to struggles of those caught directly in its path. The past seven weeks have been eye opening and life changing for Millions of Americans. Harvey is only one of three storms that have wreaked havoc on the lives of so many.

I’m hoping that by sharing my own story, you may think about your own and how you could help more. In addition to speaking at several upcoming conferences, I will be posting additional information about challenges and successes here in Texas following Harvey, and continuing to educate about the same topics I have already started.

For the last 7 plus years of my career, I have narrowed my professional focus on the health, safety and welfare side of the architectural profession. After the recession in 2008 I took a position with the State of Texas as a state and federal surveyor / inspector for licensed long-term care facilities. As life safety is one of the prime concerns in nursing, assisted living and other healthcare occupancies, I began to focus more and more on code compliance and whatever was necessary to protect the lives of those that could not protect themselves. It was not unexpected that in 2010 I also joined the Texas State Guard. The TXSG is a non-federalized branch of the Texas Armed Forces with a civil mission to provide assistance in times of disaster through evacuations, shelter management, supply distribution, evacuee tracking systems and numerous other jobs. The TXSG was a purely volunteer group, but I received formal training in FEMA NIMS, NICS and other programs necessary to fulfill our mission. While my service in the TXSG was for only a short time, and I never had to put myself in mortal danger, I learned a great deal about disaster response and what it means to serve for your fellow citizens.

I personally lived in Central Florida in 2004 when Hurricane Charley made its way across the state (and directly over our home). Having seen the damage that even a category one storm could do (it made landfall as a category four), I knew that I absolutely had to assist in any way I could when Hurricane Harvey slammed into the coast of Texas. I couldn’t sleep for days; frustrated I was unable to help with first-response relief efforts in all of those areas affected. If the logical half of my brain had not stepped in, I was about ready to buy a boat and head to Houston to assist in rescuing stranded residents.

The morning I learned that the regional chapters of the American Institute of Architects (AIA) and the Texas Society of Architects (The State level AIA Chapter known as TxA) were organizing training sessions for members to assist in damage assessments, I began preparations to deploy for as long as needed. I’m sure I was on the edge of annoying when it came to calling and emailing the fantastic people at TxA to make sure I was ready. After a full day of official training and some phone calls to another agency already in the field, I was left the next morning for the Coastal Bend area which included Rockport, Port Aransas, Aransas Pass and surrounding areas.

Thanks to the incredible support of my wife Stephanie Gillen and my business partner and best  friend Will Davies, I was able to make a big contribution. Over a period of 12 days away from home, I performed individual safety assessments; met with local officials across three counties; presented in front of county EOC teams; assisted in writing formal state assistance requests; performed windshield damage assessments; created detailed aerial maps and organizational systems, and then coordinated teams of 26-32 volunteers at a time.

I am now involved in organizing training sessions, collaborating with the national AIA office on new educational and advocacy programs for emergency preparedness, and working to create new systems for training, education for local governments and whatever is necessary to mitigate this and future disasters. At home, I have even talked with my daughter’s Girl Scout troop about what kind of help and donations are the most effective. I have already returned to the Rockport area to work with fellow architects to develop new tools and collaborate with local officials regarding awareness and education. I hope that involvement on a national level could advance preparedness, education and reduce damages incurred for Texans and anyone affected by natural (or man-made) disasters.

I love being an Architect. It’s what I’ve wanted to be since I was in 5th grade. What I do as an Architect has at times been blurred; having no specific direction or purpose. Over the last 7-8 years my focus has become much more clear. I am privileged to have been given the family, education, and resources necessary to develop my skills and expertise. I now know that it is my responsibility to use that privilege to protect those who cannot protect themselves, educate those who can, and give a helping hand to those who have been knocked down and need help rebuilding their lives. I can do this by strengthening my firm and improving the facilities we design and build for our current generations. I can collaborate with other professionals to prepare for and mitigate damage from future disasters to assist future generations. I can also help convince other architects, engineers and contractors to donate their talents and put the safety and success of other people first.

The health, safety and welfare of all my fellow citizens is not just an acronym (HSW) in front of each of my continuing education courses each year; it is my purpose, and the primary reason I am an Architect.

Electricity: Part One

The first in an energetic series of posts on what electricity is and how it’s used, generated and distributed.

We don’t consume electricity; we use energy; transforming it into different forms to make our world brighter, warmer (or cooler) and make work easier. We strive to conserve and efficiently use energy, but in the end, we really only change energy from one form to another. Energy never goes away; it just finds another job to do.

If electricity is only the transportation system for the energy we use, then what is electricity and how does it work?

Although the Money Pit is one of my favorite movies, here is an example of how electricity does NOT behave.

https://youtu.be/VhrSzUm3zhU?t=16s

In the simplest of terms, electrical current is the excitement and flow of electrons. To understand what that means, we need to start with the most basic building block of all matter: the atom. All matter is made from a combination of atoms (either of one kind or multiple). Any substance that cannot be separated into a simpler substance by chemical means is considered an element. All known elements are cataloged within the ‘Periodic Table of Elements’, a table that has stressed out generations of high school chemistry students. The periodic table of elements describes the individual atomic characteristics of each element, and knowing those characteristics gives us more insight into how they all behave with each other. It’s not unlike knowing the personality types of your friends and co-workers.

Periodic-table
The Periodic Table of Elements
Each atom is composed of three basic particles: the electron, proton and neutron. Protons and Neutrons are located in the atom’s nucleus, with the electrons orbiting around in a series of concentric “shells”. Science has uncovered even smaller particles that make up and hold together each atom’s structure, but for our purposes it is the negatively charged electrons (or their absence) that hold the secrets of electricity.

Early scientists such as a Frenchman by the name of Charles Dufay realized that certain materials became attracted to certain objects, but were repelled by others. The forces of attraction and repulsion are described as either a positive or negative charge. As neutrons have no charge, each atom’s nucleus has a net positive charge. As Paula Abdul’s 1988 hit described, “We come together, cuz opposites attract”. Objects with similar charges are repelled from each other, and those with opposite charges are attracted to each other.

At this point, I know that many readers are beginning to have flashbacks to early childhood science class and are wondering, “Where is he going with this? It’s about as exciting as watching paint dry.”

Excitement is exactly what electricity is all about. The outer shell (known as valance electrons) of each atom contains between one and eight electrons. Each atom seeks stability by filling up its outer shell with all eight; a nice calm retirement of sorts. Some atoms like the noble gases Argon and Xenon start out with their outer shells full; they’re calm, unexciting and don’t over-react. Other elements such as gold, silver and copper have only one electron in their outer shell and are more than willing to dance the night away in an attempt to lose that electron and settle down into a more stable existence (a very unlikely outcome given their propensity to getting over-excited). The following animation shows a copper atom, with only one electron in its outer shell. The nucleus, comprised of 39 neutrons and 39 protons is shown as a single sphere at the center (To be honest, I didn’t feel like modeling all 78 spheres in the nucleus; my obsessive nature does have its limits).

Atom Model Moving - 25fps 640x480
Copper (CU),  Animation © DFD Architects, Inc.
At the risk of perpetuating stereotypes, we can group elements and materials by how they behave when excited. In terms of electricity, elements and materials (combinations of elements) can be put into three groups:

Conductors, Insulators and Semi-conductors.

Elements with 3 or less electrons in their outer shells are generally conductors (although the exact number of electrons does not always determine which elements are the best conductors). Because they have lots of empty room in that outer orbit, they are less stable and more likely to lose their remaining electrons when bumped around (The bump theory is a commonly held explanation for how electrons are passed from one atom to another). Insulating materials such as wood, glass and rubber are combinations of elements that fill their outer shells by sharing their electrons with other elements. These materials are composed of elements such as Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen and Hydrogen. Alone these elements are not very stable, but combined they have found comfort and stability. Selective elements such as Silicon and Germanium are termed semi-conductors, and have 4 electrons in their outer shell. With a little encouragement these elements can be persuaded to lose an electron or two and become negatively charged. These materials have become indispensable in the development of solid-state circuitry and computers in general.

That bumping around of electrons in a conductor is precisely where the transfer of energy via electricity happens. Like billiard balls on a pool table, when the energy is introduced at one end (the player hitting the cue ball), energy is transferred from one ball to the next. Not all energy is passed from one ball to the next however. In billiards, you’d hear the sound of balls hitting, and if measured, you could see the heat generated by the instantaneous collision. With electrons in a conductor, that energy release may be heat, light and almost always a magnetic field.

Magnets? I thought we were discussing electricity?

Everyone has played with magnets as a kid (or adult). Those of us old enough to remember iron filing and magnet toys such as “Wooly Willy”, have seen what a magnetic field actually looks like. The following image shows a magnet with a negative and positive end (or “pole”) often termed a North and South pole.  The iron filings align with the resultant magnetic lines of force (or ‘flux’). No we are not going to enter into a discussion of whether Santa Claus or penguins reside on either pole (maybe in a later post).

Magnet0873
Patterns of magnetic flux (iron filings and a magnet)
Magnetic fields, created by electrons flowing through a conductive material, are precisely what enables a generator or alternator to initiate the flow of electricity, and appliances such as motors to use that flow of electromagnetic energy to create mechanical movement.

This whole discussion can seem very theoretical, given that we can only see the results of what magnetics and electricity can do. So how do we measure that flow of energy across a conductor?

Before we talk about measuring electricity, it’s important to know why it flows at all. Electromagnetic energy will not flow through anything unless it has somewhere to go. OK, time for a few metaphors:

Everyone is familiar with water pipes in their house, or at least knows that water comes from somewhere when the faucet is turned on. Why doesn’t water flow continuously from the kitchen faucet? It doesn’t flow all the time, because without an open outlet (someone using that water), it will just sit nice and quiet in the pipe. Open a faucet, and the water begins to flow. Break a pipe or create a leak, and water will flow to places you don’t want it to. Electricity is very similar. Without a load, or something to use that energy, there is no need for the electrons to bump into each other and pass along their energy. Unlike the water in our pipes however, electricity wants to flow from a positively charged source to negatively charged one (this is according to popular theory, but let’s leave theory out of this for the moment as it gives me a headache). More often than not, that flow may be from a positive terminal of battery to the negative one, or a positive source to the earth itself (such as in a building’s electrical system). Without a complete “circuit” to follow, the electrons will have nowhere to go, and the flow of electricity will stop. If you provide a complete path for the electricity to follow, then it will happily oblige. There is a reason that they refer to the Formula One race car events as a circuit. If the road was open on both ends and didn’t connect, it would be a very short race. Yes, I’m aware that would be considered drag racing; metaphors have their limits.

Measuring the energy carried by electricity

Before I lose anyone, let’s talk about volts, amps and watts. In my next post we’ll talk about AC/DC, and by that I’m referring to Alternating and Direct Current, not the 80’s band from Australia. I’m sure everyone has heard the phrase, “It’s not the voltage you have to worry about; it’s the amps”. While partially true; why? It has to do with force and potential energy.

If electricity is the flow of electrons, then measuring energy carried by electricity must involve electrons right? Well, unless you have an incredibly powerful microscope, and someone who is really fast at counting, we’re going to need a standard to measure against for counting electrons. Here we learn about Charles-Augustin de Coulomb, a French physicist whom the standard imperial measurement of charge was named after (his story would be another post). One coulomb is equivalent to the charge of 6.242 X 1018 electrons. That’s a lot of electrons. In obnoxiously large numeric terms, that’s six quintrillion, two hundred and forty-two quadrillion electrons. That should be easy enough to put into an Excel spreadsheet, right? Well, instead of counting every electron over a period of time, how about we just divide the total number of electrons by a nice big number like a coulomb? Well it so happens that the volume of one coulomb per second is referred to as an ampere. Whoa! Amps are actually related to something physical?! Don’t get too excited, we’re still talking about theoretically numbers and some basic assumptions, but at least we have somewhere to start.

So if one ampere (normally referred to as an Amp), is a volume of electrons over time, then we should be able to measure the energy those electrons are moving with them right? Not so fast. Volume (or size) is one side of the equation, but we’re missing the other half. We need a push. We need that potential energy to work with.

Caution: Dangerous metaphors ahead.

What is potential energy? If your house was on fire, and you asked for a water hose; I’m sure you’d be rather upset if someone walked up with a garden hose connected to a hand pump. You’d prefer a fire hose connected to a rather large fire truck I’m sure. Why? The difference is in potential energy. Only so much water can flow through a garden hose. Given a bigger and stronger hose, you could push more water through it. Water is normally measured in volume over time; commonly gallons per minute. A garden hose can easily provide 10 gallons per minute, but so can a fire hose. The fire hose however has the potential to provide much, much more water if it is needed (which it usually is). Here’s another example: Let’s say you are sitting quietly at the base of ten-foot cliff, and a rock is perched very precariously above you. It’s not moving, but given a bit of a push, it could fall at any time. If that rock weighed a few grams, the potential for harm to your pretty head is minimal. If that rock weighed 10,000 lbs., then the potential for harm would be rather substantial. Unless it’s actually falling, both rocks are harmless. The 5-ton rock however has a much larger potential energy (it COULD exert a much bigger force).

Since electricity transmits energy, we need to know the volume of energy over time, but we also need to know the level of force with which it is delivered. In terms of water in a pipe, this potential energy is referred to as pressure (in pounds per square inch, or PSI). In the flow of electrons, this potential energy or pressure is called voltage. One Volt is the potential energy it would take to drive one amp of current against a given load (we’ll talk about loads in the next post).

Now we’ve brought energy and force into the equation. Flowing electrons mean nothing if they bump off a conductor one at a time, but if they flow in great numbers (along with their accompanying magnetic fields) with a large amount of force, then now we have energy we can use. With both volume and force, we can move almost anything.

So how do we measure the power or work that electricity provides? Enter the “Watt”. One watt is equal to one volt of potential energy times one ampere of flow. The watt is a measure of the real power that pushes, heats or illuminates. For comparisons, this would be similar to horsepower (735.5 watts), or foot-pounds of force per second (1.355 watts).

In electrical terms, the watt, is proportionately equal to the volts (the potential energy) times the amps (the volume of flow). 1 Watt = 1 Volt x 1 Amp. I know. Some of you just went… uh, duh, but the majority of people just had that little 13 watt LED light bulb (equivalent to a 60 watt incandescent bulb) go off in their head and said, “Oohhhh, I get it.”. You’re welcome.

So let’s stop there for the moment, because unless you’re an electrical engineer or a geek like me, you may need a week to recover from reading this post.

Next time we’ll talk about Direct Current, Alternating Current, Single-Phase Power, Three-Phase Power, generators and transformers. I know, you’ll have a tough time waiting, but it should be worth it.

In the meantime, here is your moment of Zen (Yes, I’m a fan of the Daily Show on Comedy Central):

https://youtu.be/Yzht2_41caU?t=2m

Comments!

I promise not to beg, but I would really welcome any comments; both good and bad (but constructive). The more feedback I get; the better my posts can be. Thanks!!

Copyrights:

The Money Pit, Copyright NBC Universal, 1986

A Christmas Story, Copyright Warner Bros. Home Entertainment, 1983

Magnet and Periodic Table images are public domain and are available on https://commons.wikimedia.org

Why is electricity so hard to understand?

Grasping the concept of electricity is easy once you accept a very simple idea:

Grasping the concept of electricity is easy once you accept a very simple idea:

Electricity is only a transportation system.

We don’t use electricity in our homes, schools and businesses; we use energy. We need energy to do work. Electricity allows us to move the energy we need to do work from one place to another. That work could be mechanical movement, or the creation of light and heat. How do you capture the energy of a strong wind in West Texas; transport it hundreds of miles to your front porch, and then use it to make your ceiling fan blow a gentle breeze on your face on a hot summer evening? You use electricity to move that energy. You’re home or business’ electrical meter is not measuring electricity; it’s measuring the amount of energy you are using. Have you ever noticed that nobody uses the term “Electricity Conservation”? Why is that? Because you can’t consume or conserve electricity. We strive to efficiently use energy. We don’t use up the road as we drive down it, and we don’t run out of water pipe as we take a shower. The medium, or transport method, is entirely different from what moves along it. We are moving and converting energy.

In the end, energy only changes from one form to another. Stored energy is released when fossil fuels are burned to create heat, which boils water to create steam, that spins huge turbines engineered to transfer that energy electromagnetically wherever we need it. Instead of burning limited quantities of fuel, we also use wind turbines to convert mechanical movement into energy we can store and move. Energy never goes away; it just finds a new form and another job to do.

Wouldn’t you like to know why that light comes on when you flip the switch and be able to explain to your child what electricity really is? No, I’m not an engineer or electrician (although having a great electrical engineer for a Dad does help), but understanding and explaining the basics is something everyone can do. Through a series of posts in the coming weeks, I’m going to explain the underlying concepts of electricity, how we use it to transform and move energy, and explain the systems and equipment that allow us to harness the unbelievable power our universe provides us. It will involve some physics, a little chemistry, some easy math, funny examples of what electricity does not do, and hopefully just enough humorous metaphors to lighten the load (pun intended). In the end you probably won’t be ready to install a distribution panelboard, repair the control board in  your flat screen TV, or be qualified to go anywhere near a high voltage power line, but I think it will change the way you look at the world around you.

I hope it sparks your interest.

Fire burns, but let’s be clear on what that means

Man is the only creature that dares to light a fire and live with it. The reason? Because he alone has learned how to put it out. – Henry Jackson Van Dyke, Jr.

Humans have learned to utilize fire’s power and enjoy its beauty and warmth, but yet we are still learning to protect ourselves from its destructive nature. In order to improve, there must be meaningful conversations and collaboration between those who study, design for, live with and fight against fire. To do so, they must all speak the same language. The English language has so many different words for concepts and ideas that are nearly identical, yet each conveys slightly different emotions, details or opinions depending on context and intent. The simple fact that each word has specific meanings allows you to (hopefully) understand what I have written here. When lives are at stake, there is no room for confusion or arguments resulting from improper use of a simple word. Knowing the exact and agreed upon definitions to certain terms used throughout the various codes and standards is also often the biggest stumbling block to understanding key concepts. The following terms are not interchangeable, and it is therefore critical that everyone understands them.

Flammable, Combustible, Non-Combustible, and Fire-Resistance

All four of these are common throughout dozens of codes and standards; the term “combustible” is used in some form almost 300 times in the IBC alone. They are also used in everyday news reports and on thousands of product labels. Once you have the real definition, you’ll be amazed at how often they are mis-used and actually lead to incorrect assumptions.

The International Building Code (IBC) and NFPA 101 actually avoid defining three of these terms in a simple sentence or paragraph because in order to be classified under one term or another, the material must be tested in a recognized manner. If the definition of what combustible meant was summarized by a highly interpretable paragraph, nobody would ever fully agree on whether something was or was not combustible. Basing a definition on whether something has passed a consistent and widely accepted set of criteria and even testing helps to reduce interpretation errors.

The first two are often used interchangeably, but should not be:

Flammable versus Combustible

Here are some official definitions. Note that I’m including the definition of noncombustible because combustible is defined as anything that cannot be called noncombustible. Yes, I know the thought, “Well, Duh…” entered your head, but it’s actually an important point.

Flammable: capable of being easily ignited and of burning quickly – Merriam-Webster.com (1)

Flammable Material: A material capable of being readily ignited from common sources of heat or at a temperature of 600°F or less. – 2015 IBC

Combustible Material: A material that, in the form in which it is used and under the conditions anticipated, will ignite and burn; a material that does not meet the definition of noncombustible or limited- combustible. – 2012 NFPA 101

Noncombustible: A material that complies with any of the following shall be considered a noncombustible material:

(1)*  A material that, in the form in which it is used and under the conditions anticipated, will not ignite, burn, support combustion, or release flammable vapors when subjected to fire or heat

(2)  A material that is reported as passing ASTM E 136, Standard Test Method for Behavior of Materials in a Vertical Tube Furnace at 750 Degrees – 2012 NFPA 101

There are three key differences in these terms:

  • Flammable material ignites from common heat sources or at a temperature less than (or equal to) 600°F. Combustible material is ANYTHING that ignites, burns, supports combustion, etc… at any temperature or from any fire.
  • The term flammable is most commonly used to refer to fabrics, furnishings, decorations, clothing, and other such non-building related components. Combustible is more often used to describe a building material or finish that will burn.
  • Combustible materials are defined as those that would FAIL the ASTM E 136 test.

Using these definitions: All flammable materials are also combustible. Combustible materials are not always flammable. Whoa… what did he just say? Let me give an example:

A product that has been a big part of recent headlines is the metal composite material (MCM, or ACM) Reynobond PE®. It is composed of aluminum sheets (a non-combustible material) with a polyethylene foam core. Polyethylene foam ignites at a temperature of 340℃ (644℉) (2). Because the foam ignites at all it is considered combustible. The panels however would not be considered flammable as the aluminum skin does not burn (keeping flame away from the inner core under “common sources of heat”), and below 600℉; the foam core does not ignite. In this particular case, the material is NOT flammable by definition. It IS combustible. I would encourage you to read my first blog post for more discussion on the Grenfell Tower fire.

Ok, so flammable and combustible are different, but it’s just semantics right?

Noncombustible and Fire-Resistance

Let’s look at the other two terms: Noncombustible and Fire-Resistance / resistive. These unfortunately are used in similar ways, but do NOT have the same meaning.

Noncombustible: A material that complies with any of the following shall be considered a noncombustible material:

(1)*  A material that, in the form in which it is used and under the conditions anticipated, will not ignite, burn, support combustion, or release flammable vapors when subjected to fire or heat

(2)  A material that is reported as passing ASTM E 136, Standard Test Method for Behavior of Materials in a Vertical Tube Furnace at 750 Degrees C

– 2012 NFPA 101

Fire-Resistance Rating: The period of time a building element, component or assembly maintains the ability to confine a fire, continues to perform a given structural function, or both, as determined by the tests, or the methods based on tests, prescribed in Section 703. (Those tests are ASTM E 119 or ANSI/UL 263) – 2015 IBC

A material that will not ignite or burn in any way, such as steel, is considered non-combustible. Steel on its own however, does not maintain its structural strength when subjected to high heat, and therefore has a very low (if any) fire-resistance. It may sound hard to believe, but a heavy timber column (say 12 inches x 12 inches in dimension) will remain structurally sound much longer in a fire than the same size steel column.  Another common example is cementitious siding (known by the brand name HARDIEPANEL®). This product is non-combustible (3), but does little to confine a fire as it can quickly fall apart when subjected to an actual fire reaching more than 1,500℉, and therefore has little to no fire-resistance.

If you want to protect and separate the occupants of a building from a fire, you need materials and systems that are fire-resistive. They actually remain in place and hold together long enough to keep the fire away or hold the building up. There are fire-resistive systems constructed of non-combustible materials and just as many that are made with combustible materials.

Fire-resistance is not an issue of will it burn or not (combustible versus noncombustible); it is determined by how long a material or system will resist the fire and protect a building’s occupants.

It’s impossible to design, construct, or correctly maintain a building that protects its occupants if these terms are used incorrectly; besides, you’ll sound smarter using the right one.

More Information:

There are plenty of other terms related to building codes that are mis-used or mixed up that I know we’ll discuss later.

For additional information on fire-resistive properties of Aluminum Composite Materials (ACM) and the fire-resistant testing procedure ASTM E 119, please take a look at the following videos from Alucobond® and National Gypsum®.

https://youtu.be/Ku79wNywrDU

https://youtu.be/lgqDx646s-U

Footnotes:

  1. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/flammable
  2. Q & A on Fire and Fire Prevention of Rigid Polyurethane Foam, May 2009, Translation into English by JUII Fire Safety Committee from revised Japanese text, December 2011, Japan Urethane Industry Institute (JUII). http://www.urethane-jp.org/topics/doc/Q&A_on_Fire_and_Fire_Prevention_of_Rigid_Polyurethane_Foam_REV1.pdf
  3. ICC-ES Report, ESR-1844, HARDIEPANEL® (PREVAILTM, CEMPANEL®) SIDING, HARDIFLEX® SIDING AND HARDITEX® BASEBOARD https://www.jameshardie.com/JamesHardieMainSite/media/Site-Documents/TechnicalDocuments/Reports/ESR-1844.pdf

Automatic Sprinkler and Fire Alarm Systems

Don’t believe everything you see in the movies; here is a layman’s guide to fire sprinkler and fire alarm basics.

The myths and misconceptions surrounding fire alarm and fire sprinkler systems in movies and television is pretty staggering. As a design professional, I roll my eyes every time I see a character activate a manual pull station resulting in every fire sprinkler going off. Of course you might say, “It’s a movie; lighten up!”. On one hand; you’re right. It is only fiction. On the other hand, the consistency in which fire alarm and fire sprinkler systems are incorrectly shown actually leads to complacency and misunderstanding. In the not so distant past, I actually explained how a sprinkler works to a coworker, and they were floored that what they’d see in the movies was not correct. Entertainment is fine; I’m a big movie person myself. When no one actually explains how the systems really work to the average person, and the movies are all they know, it could actually lead to a delay in evacuation or other events that could put a person’s life in danger. I’m not suggesting changing the movies; let’s just talk about how the systems actually work. I’ll try and do so in the least technical way possible. To start, here’s some examples (from two movies I actually like) of movie imagination with regards to fire alarm and sprinkler systems. After the show, I’ll follow with some basic concepts and history for you:

Concepts and History:

Automatic sprinkler and fire alarm systems are two crucial components of a building’s life safety systems. They are what’s known as active protective systems. Passive protective systems such as fire-resistive construction, protected stairways, smoke barriers and fire walls are intended to be the main line of defense in the protection of occupants against a fire. Fire alarms are there to actively notify occupants of a fire so they can evacuate, and automatic sprinkler systems are intended to help suppress the fire long enough for the fire department to arrive and extinguish the blaze. While typical light-hazard sprinklers may often extinguish a small fire, their purpose is to keep it from growing; not put it out. More specialized systems are actually designed to fully put out a fire, but those are normally reserved for high hazard occupancies such as large storage buildings, hazardous material handling and very large mercantile buildings such as big box stores like Home Depot, Costco or Walmart.

Automatic sprinkler systems have been in existence since the late 1800’s, beginning with Henry S. Parmelee’s invention of the first sprinkler head in 1874. While improvements have been made in sprinkler design and the various system components, such as valves and piping; the basic concept of automatic sprinkler systems has not changed that much in almost 150 years.

The earliest fire alarm systems involved nothing more than a person keeping watch in the streets who would then alert the fire brigade. With the invention of the telegraph in the early 1840’s by Samuel F. B. Morse, cities such as New York began to construct municipal alarm systems of communication between fire stations and government buildings. This reduced the time needed to alert the fire brigade and improved response time through better directions. By 1880, manual fire alarm signal boxes had been patented by John Gamewell and his brother-in-law James M. Gardiner. At that time, the Gamewell Company held a 95% share of the United States market for fire alarm systems. William B. Watkins designed the first electric fire sensor / heat detector in the early 1870’s and in 1873 formed the first private fire alarm company, Boston AFA; known today as AFA Protective Systems.

In the early 1900’s, leading fire alarm and fire sprinkler companies such as ADT (American District Telegraph), Holmes Protective, AFA, Grinnell and Automatic Fire Protection (AFP), established contracts with each other to supply detection equipment, sprinkler systems, sprinkler system supervisory equipment and central station monitoring services.

In 1939, Swiss physicist Ernst Meili invented an ionization chamber which could detect combustible gases in mines and a cold cathode tube that could amplify the small signal generated to a level sufficient to activate an alarm. By 1951, the first ionization smoke detectors were sold in the US. The photoelectric (optical) smoke detector was then invented by Donald Steel and Robert Emmark of Electro Signal Lab in 1972. The technologies and devices used in fire alarm systems have continued to advance, but the basic concepts remain the same.

Fire Alarm Systems: The Basics

Fire alarm systems are required to be installed in accordance with NFPA 72, the National Fire Alarm Code. (Disclaimer: The following explanations are in layman’s terms and intentionally omit and generalize some technical details, devices and system components for clarity).

Fire Alarm Systems are made up of three basic categories of devices:

  1. Initiating
  2. Notification
  3. Control / Transmission

Initiating Devices:

These components do exactly what you think they would; they initiate an alarm. They include both automatic and manual means of activating the alarm system. The most common manual device is the “Manual Pull Station”. This would be the red device on the wall labeled “Pull in case of fire” or something similar. When the handle of this pull station is moved it literally flips a switch inside the box that tells the system to go into “Alarm”.

The three most common automatic initiating devices are smoke detectors, heat detectors and sprinkler system flow switches. The first two are self-explanatory. When a smoke detector sees (or senses) smoke, it tells the system to go into alarm mode. If the heat detector senses a rise in temperature above a set point, it also tells the system to go into alarm mode. The third item is a component that few people outside the construction, design, or fire protection industries even know exists; the flow switch. A flow switch is a device installed into the piping of the fire sprinkler system just after the water pipes enter the building. The typical flow switch has a round “paddle” or disc that is directly inside the pipe and connects to a lever and electronic sensor. When the sprinkler system activates, water begins to flow through the pipes. When the water moves, this ‘paddle’ also moves; raises the lever and sets off the sensor. This tells the fire alarm system that a sprinkler has activated; also resulting in an alarm.

In a typical light-hazard occupancy sprinkler system ,which are the most common, this is the ONLY interaction between the sprinkler system and the fire alarm system. When water flows; the alarm goes off. It does NOT work the other way. Setting off the fire alarm DOES NOT activate any or all of the fire sprinklers. Unless the system being discussed is for very unusual situations like hazardous materials, locations with jet fuel, etc.; the fire alarm system and sprinklers are not set off electronically in any way. We’ll discuss how a sprinkler system works next.

Notification Devices:

These include two main appliances, commonly referred to as a horn and a strobe. The horn is what it sounds like; it’s that really loud and annoying noise maker that lets you know there is a fire and to GET OUT. The strobe is the light emitting device that flashes when the alarm activates. Strobes are there in case occupants are hard of hearing or ambient noise levels are high enough to prevent people from hearing the horn. The horn can also be a recorded announcement in some occupancies. These two devices are there to let you know a fire or another emergency is present and you need to act accordingly. Very commonly both devices are combined into a single appliance called… you guessed it: a horn-strobe. We look for humor in this subject matter wherever we can find it.

Control / Transmission Devices:

This is my own general category for the main Fire Alarm Control Panel (FACP), Fire Alarm Annunciator Panels (FAAP), and automatic dialing devices. All of the initiating and notification devices are connected to the FACP. When an initiating device is tripped, the FACP activates all of the notification devices to let people know there is a problem. If any systems are required to shut off when an alarm is activated (mechanical units, electronic door locks, magnetic door hold-opens, etc.), the FACP will send signals to that equipment accordingly. Most modern FACP’s also include the auto-dialer device. This is literally a phone / modem that calls a monitoring service and says, “We have an alarm. The following initiating devices were set off….” The monitoring company will then notify the fire department. As all of this is done electronically, there is very little delay between when a device is set off and when the fire department is notified. The FAAP (as shown below) is basically a twin to the control panel from the FACP that can be located at strategic locations without having to install the larger control box in public areas.

Fire Alarm Systems

Those are the fire alarm basics. Although the wiring, programming and code requirements surrounding what devices are required, where they go, and how they must work are more complex, the basic concepts of initiation, notification and transmission are pretty simple.

Fire Sprinkler Systems: The Basics

Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems must be installed in accordance with NFPA 13, NFPA 13R or NFPA 13D. 13R is generally for multifamily and hospitality occupancies like apartments, condos, hotels, motels and dormitories. 13D systems are for single family homes or duplexes. The NFPA 13 compliant system is what you would normally see in any commercial, institutional, educational or other public type building. The 13R and 13D systems use the same types of sprinkler heads; they just have less restrictive requirements in where sprinklers are required, and what kinds of equipment and other devices are installed.

The central component to a sprinkler system is… no big surprise: the sprinkler.

Fire Sprinkler
Typical ‘pendant’ type sprinkler head

The most typical sprinkler installed has 4 main parts:

  1. The cap: a disc that covers the hole the water shoots out of;
  2. The thermal linkage: the colored glass tube or metal piece that bursts or melts at a certain temperature. The linkage holds the cap in place;
  3. The deflector: The metal disc or plate that the spreads the water out, and
  4. The frame: the “arms” of the sprinkler head that hold the deflector, cap and linkage all together.

So how does a sprinkler go off? Its rather simple. The most common thermal linkage you will see today is a glass bulb with a colored liquid inside. That liquid is a mixture of water and alcohol or glycol with a colored tint. The color indicates the temperature at which the bulb is designed to burst. Per NFPA 13, bulbs that are red in color activate at 155°F. Other colors such as green, yellow, or blue indicate higher temperature ratings.

When a fire gets large enough to raise the air temperature in a room (at the head itself) to a level equal to or above the head’s rating; the glass bulb bursts. With nothing to hold it in place; the water pushes the cap out of the way; water rushes through the opening (called the orifice), and then spreads out in a pre-defined pattern as it hits the deflector. That’s how a sprinkler gets activated. There are no electronics, no manual levers or special keyed switches. The bulb gets hot; it breaks; water comes out. The only heads that will go off in a fire are those that have been heated to that specific temperature.

If EVERY head went off in a building at once (as the movies like to show), the amount of water necessary would be as much as fifty to a hundred times greater than any normal building has available. Sprinkler systems are designed to have no more than 4-6 heads go off in a fire (that is a very general statement I know; the exact number of heads is a code requirement and up to the system designer and is dependent on a number of different factors). What you see in the movies is just not physically possible in any typical building. There are specialized systems in which a large number of heads are activated at the same time, but those are not used in any building the general public normally occupies.

There is of course more to a sprinkler system than just the sprinkler heads. Every head is connected to pipes made of steel or CPVC (specially designed plastic pipe). The pipes with heads on them are commonly referred to as branch lines, while the larger pipes that feed the branch lines are called mains. The single big pipe that supplies the mains is called the riser. The riser is located inside the building right after the main water pipe enters the building. The riser typically includes shut-off valves, pressure gauges, test valves, the flow switch (connected to the fire alarm system as mentioned above), backflow preventers, and other devices needed to maintain and test the system. A typical NFPA 13 system will also have a Fire Department Connection (FDC) at the riser (or a remote one that connects to the riser) which allows the fire department to connect a pump truck and supply the system with a higher flow and pressure than the normal water system may be capable of.

IMG_6090
Main riser with valves, main drain and pressure gauges

The kind of system described above is known as a “wet” system because the pipes are always full of pressurized water. Water freezes however, so another common system known as a “dry pipe” system is often used in attics or other areas where no heat is available during winter months. In this system, the heads are actually the same, but the branch lines and mains are filled with compressed air. The water from the utility provider is kept at bay in the riser, by a special valve and the compressed air in the system itself. When a fire causes the sprinkler head bulb to burst, the process is the same, except the system has to first purge itself of the compressed air, and then the water comes rushing in behind. Same concept; it just slightly delays the water actually hitting the fire.

The basic concepts and components of a fire alarm and fire sprinkler system are not difficult to understand. In fact, they are simple enough that everyone should know how and when each system would go off, and how it generally works. Knowing these basics makes using them that much easier and safer.

Would you like know more?

This is a VERY broad overview of fire alarm and fire sprinkler systems. What components or requirements of these systems would you like to know more about?

Sources, Disclaimers and Copyrights:

  • Fire Alarm System Research – Where it’s been and where it’s going, Wayne D. Moore, P.E.

http://www.nfpa.org/~/media/files/news-and-research/proceedings/firealarmsystemresearchwmoorekeynote.pdf?la=en

  • Sprinkler image: Courtesy of http://www.vikingcorp.com
  • Fire Alarm device images are the property of Potter Roemer Fire Pro., Copyright 1937-2016
  • Fire alarm control and annunciator panels images are the property of Silent Knight, by Honeywell, Copyright 2017.
  • Excerpt from Lethal Weapon 4, Copyright Warner Bros. Pictures, 1998
  • Excerpt from Casino Royale, Copyright Columbia Pictures, 2006
  • Fire Truck Image is the property of the City of Leander Texas Fire Department (actually one block from my office; thank you gentlemen).
  • Fire riser image is by DFD Architects, Inc., Copyright 2017.

All images and videos included or linked to are for reference and educational purposes only. All copyrights are the property of their respective owners.

Disclaimer: I am not a licensed fire alarm or fire sprinkler RME (Responsible Managing Employee) or installer. All fire alarm and fire sprinkler systems shall be designed and installed by appropriately licensed professionals in accordance with applicable state and local laws. The above commentary is from my personal experience and code knowledge, but should not be substituted for advice and direction from trained and licensed professionals in fire alarm and fire sprinkler design and installation.

 

Codes 101

Understanding the intricacies of building and life safety codes is simply a matter of learning why they exist, how they are used, and where to get started.

The codes and standards used to regulate the construction, maintenance and general use of nearly every structure in the United States can seem confusing, frustrating and even occasionally contrary to common sense. Like so many other aspects of modern life, specific skills and knowledge are needed when dealing with highly specialized subjects. It isn’t reasonable to expect everyone to amass the in-depth knowledge of biology, anatomy and chemistry needed to be a doctor; nor is it possible for everyone to have the skills and talent needed to compose, conduct or play the violin in a classical symphony. While music may require more talent than architecture and construction (in my opinion), they both require practice and a lot of learning. Understanding the intricacies of building and life safety codes is simply a matter of learning why they exist, how they are used, and where to get started. Although seemingly complex, once you have the basic concepts down, the code is something akin to the “Choose Your Own Adventure” book series produced by Bantam Books in the 1980’s and 1990’s. Given one set of decisions, the codes send you in a specific direction for requirements and additional choices to make. Maybe there was a reason I enjoyed those stories as a kid, because as a self-described Code Geek, I find it rewarding to track down code requirements and learn new things everyday (sometimes with negative results, but often with positive ones). Codes are critical to protecting the health, safety and welfare of the public through consistency and minimum levels of quality and protection. The codes were not created in a vacuum by politicians trying to increase tax revenue or regulate just for the sake of control. Every code and standard in use today began with individuals and groups getting together when agreed upon standards were needed; often in response to tragedies and failures that could have been avoided. The codes exist because of one reason; people caring for the safety of others.

What is a code, and who can enforce one?

The building and life safety codes today are published documents, rule books if you will, that provide guidance and limitations on a wide variety of topics and disciplines. The codes are generally written by both non-profit and private groups, and then published for use. The codes themselves are only words on paper until they are actually adopted by a jurisdiction that has the legal right to do so (such authority is typically given through federal, state, county or local government laws).

This is the single most important concept to understand: A code must be adopted by a governing body such as a federal, state, county, city or other such jurisdictional entity in order to be considered actual law.

Once adopted, that Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ), is now responsible for enforcing the provisions and requirements of the code. AHJ’s may also include taxing entities like water and utility districts, emergency service districts (fire and police services) and health departments. Once adopted, the code is the law of that jurisdiction and they are now responsible for not just enforcing it, but also the interpretation and even amending of it to suit their specific needs.

Most jurisdictions will also rename it to become their code. The City of Dallas, Texas, has adopted the 2015 edition of the International Building Code, and in doing so renamed it as the “Dallas Building Code”. (1) Technically under Texas state law, and many other states as well, a jurisdiction could write their own code from scratch so long as it meets the minimum safety standards as a published code. I’m not aware of any municipality willing to spend the time and money necessary to write their own code in lieu of starting with a nationally published one. In the end, although originally published by various organizations, those groups are not responsible for its enforcement, and do not have any authority to officially interpret the code; only the AHJ has that authority. Most AHJ’s will look to the original publisher for guidance, but it is the AHJ that makes any decisions needed. The key idea to remember is once adopted, it is their code.

An abbreviated history of US Life Safety Codes:

Prior to the 1890’s, no formal codes, standards or even guidelines existed to maintain consistency among the early pioneers and inventors of two burgeoning industries; Fire Sprinkler Systems and Electrical Systems. Following the invention and patenting of the first sprinkler head by Henry S. Parmelee of New Haven, Connecticut in 1874, and significant concerns surrounding electrical installations at the Chicago World’s fair and across the United States in 1893, interested groups began to meet and discuss the need for standards and rules for such systems. As expected, any early attempt at consolidating personal opinions and solutions would be unlikely, and at the end of 1895, there were five distinct electrical codes in the United States and no defined standards for sprinkler systems.

In 1896, and again in 1897, several national organizations met in New York in an attempt to consolidate the various standards, and in 1897, the “Joint Conference of Electrical and Allied Interests” established the “National Electrical Code of 1897” which was adopted and issued by the National Board of Fire Underwriters. This would eventually become NFPA 70, the National Electrical Code (NEC)

Also in 1896, a separate meeting was held in New York City by parties trying to consolidate standards for fire sprinklers; their release of sprinkler installation rules entitled, “Report of Committee on Automatic Sprinkler Protection” eventually became “NFPA 13”.

In November of 1896, a new organization known as the “National Fire Protection Association” (NFPA) was formed from many of the same members previously involved. The long history of NFPA and its members is a tribute to the thousands of individuals who have volunteered their time to establish rules and standards. (2)

The NFPA would then continue to play a large part in the development of new safety standards. As is the case with many codes, tragedies such as the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire on March 25, 1911 in which 147 people perished led to the development of the “Building Exits Code”, which would later become NFPA 101, The Life Safety Code. Although it existed at the time, the Building Exits Code was widely ignored, and further tragedies occurred such as the 1942 Cocoanut Grove Fire in Boston, Massachusetts in which 492 people died, and the 1958 fire at the Our Lady of Angels School in Chicago in which 90 students and 3 nuns died. Established criteria in the Building Exits Code prohibited the unsafe conditions in both buildings which led to the high loss of life. The Code was reorganized and renamed the Life Safety Code in 1966. Even with the codes existence, and attempts by the NFPA and other life safety professionals to affect public policy and concern, subsequent fires continued such as the 1977 Beverly Hills Supper Club in which 164 people died and the 2003 Station Nightclub fire in Rhode Island in which 100 concert attendees perished. Every tragedy has led to changes in the code, but in each case, significant loss of life could have been avoided if the rules of the code had been followed. (2)

What about the Building Codes?

As in any free society, many people with the same positive intentions cannot always agree, or for various geographical or societal reasons cannot centralize their ideas. Such is the history of building codes in the United States. Three major organizations published building codes beginning in 1927 (earlier editions did exist for one of the three in 1905).

The three major codes were:

The Basic / National Building Code (BBC), first published in 1950 by the Building Officials and Code Administrators (BOCA); used primarily in the Midwest and Northeast United States

The Uniform Building Code (UBC), first published in 1927 by the International Conference of Building Officials; used primarily in the Western states, and

The Standard Building Code (SBC), first published in 1945 by the Southern Building Code Congress International (SBCCI).

In 1994, the three model code organizations created the International Code Council (ICC) to create a single set of model codes that would provide uniformity across not only the United States, but to help facilitate international use and promote innovation worldwide regarding new testing, research and products.

The ICC published its first set of model codes in 2000, consisting of the International Building Code (IBC), Fire Code (IFC), Mechanical Code (IMC), Plumbing Code (IPC), and others. These model codes have since replaced the BBC, UBC and SBC nationally, and are even used outside of the US. (3)

So what is the difference between the Life Safety Codes and Building Codes?

Building codes strictly control the allowable size, number of stories, height and structural systems used in any new building. They deal with gravity, wind, earthquake, snow and rain loads. The building codes deal with materials and systems with regards to structural integrity, water intrusion, durability, energy efficiency, accessibility and myriad of other topics. They also include many of the same requirements as the Life Safety Code with regards to fire protection, egress systems, fire sprinkler and alarm systems, etc.

Life Safety Codes such as NFPA 101 do not dictate building size, structural requirements, overall building area, or initial permitting. The Life Safety Code is concerned with one thing; the safety of life. I know it sounds repetitive, but the Life Safety Code is concerned with protecting the occupants during a fire while they stay put, or protecting them long enough to evacuate from a building or structure. While the building codes also prioritize the safety of the occupants, the Life Safety Code focuses solely on that idea.

So why can’t we just use the building codes?

This is a subject of great contention amongst those who design and construct any building that may have more than one AHJ. I believe it comes down to jurisdictions not stepping on each other’s toes. I will use healthcare in the United States as the example, because it’s easier to explain and is the focus of my own career. Every nursing home in the United States that wishes to receive federal funds under the Social Securities Act (whose programs include Medicaid and Medicare), must meet the federal requirements administered by the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS). They must also be licensed by the state in which they are built. CMS is a federal agency, and therefore its rules must cover every situation that may arise in every state, county and city. While some people would not want a federal agency telling them how to build or maintain their facility, you can guarantee that if a fire occurred in a nursing home which received federal funding, someone is going to look at the government for answers as to why it wasn’t safer.

So, why not let the local AHJ handle that safety issue on their own? The simple answer is that it’s not always possible. There are millions of Americans who live in areas of the country that have no adopted building code or even a local government capable of adopting or enforcing one. Texas is a prime example, in that areas outside of a city’s jurisdiction are not required to have a building permit and county governments are only allowed (not required) to adopt fire codes and not building codes. Trust me, I was as shocked to learn that one as many of my readers will be.

Remember, that a code is just words on paper unless a governmental agency adopts and enforces it. If no local enforcement agency exists, then CMS in this case MUST have a set of standards to meet. You can imagine the disaster if CMS only enforced safety standards for some areas of the country and not others. CMS is also kept from enforcing a building code as, there again; imagine the issues with a federal agency issuing and granting permits, and inspecting all construction in the United States on every single project it funds (even indirectly). I don’t care what your political affiliation may be; that’s just not a good idea.

Keeping the building codes and Life Safety Code separate allows for various AHJ’s to protect their citizens, without overstepping their bounds (too much).

So where do you get started?

Sounds like a good idea for my next post; a basic primer on the IBC and Life Safety Code. If there are other general topics regarding codes you have questions on, please leave a comment.

References / Footnotes:

(1) City of Dallas, Texas, Building Inspection, Construction Codes

http://dallascityhall.com/departments/sustainabledevelopment/buildinginspection/Pages/construction_codes.aspx

(2) History of NFPA, NFPA.org

http://www.nfpa.org/about-nfpa/nfpa-overview/history-of-nfpa

(3) Building Codes, IMUA, 1998

http://www.imua.org/Files/reports/Building%20Codes.html

Copyrights:

All NFPA Standards, Cover Images and references are copyrighted by the National Fire Protection Association®, One Battery Park, Quincy, Massachusetts 02169-7471. All references and images reproduced above are for educational and reference purposes only.

The International Building Code® and all other similar codes referenced above are copyrighted works by the International Code Council, Inc., 4051 West Flossmoor Road, Country Club Hills, IL 60478. All references and images reproduced above are for educational and reference purposes only

Architects are their own worst enemies

From my own experience, the public’s opinion of architects in general is still a positive one, but the architect’s reputation within the construction industry and among those who inspect various building types is not complimentary. Why is that? Have architects created an unreasonably high opinion of themselves?

Few professions can be described in a single word (or two). Those that can often date back hundreds or thousands of years into history. Every profession that spans centuries is going to change and adapt to changes in culture, science, technology and the needs of society in general. The job of an Architect is no different.

So what is an Architect?

“architect: a person who designs buildings and advises in their construction”(1)

The preceding definition is a much more modern summary of an Architect’s role and responsibilities than the concept of a “Master Builder”; the predecessor to the Architect of today.

“Master Builder: a person notably proficient in the art of building; the ancient Egyptians were master builders; specifically:  one who has attained proficiency in one of the building crafts and is qualified or licensed to supervise building construction”(1)

Many Architects would like to think of themselves as following in the footsteps of the Master Builders of the Greek, Roman and Renaissance eras where the roles of designer, builder and craftsman were commonly embodied in only a select few. Early famous architects such as Vitruvius, Palladio, and later figures such as Thomas Jefferson gained notoriety and respect through experience, reading, apprenticeship and self-study. As the world population increased and people’s skills became more specialized, the role of the Architect moved away from the actual construction of the built environment to a focus more on design and took on an advisory role in construction. Considering the increase in size of projects and complexity of materials and systems used in construction today, this isn’t a surprising development. Many architects today however have become distanced from the realities of construction, with some college graduates unable to draw the most basic of details regarding framing or similar trades, and many architects never even stepping foot on a construction site until well into their careers.

In 1857, the American Institute of Architects (AIA), the primary professional organization for architects in the United States was founded to “promote the scientific and practical perfection of its members” and “elevate the standing of the profession”. (2)

Prior to the founding of the AIA, “anyone who wished to call him-or herself an architect could do so. This included masons, carpenters, bricklayers, and other members of the building trades. No schools of architecture or architectural licensing laws existed to shape the calling”.(2) The architectural profession evolved out of those individuals with the knowledge and experience to design and construct a building.

Prior to 1897, no legal definition of “architect”, nor any requirements for an architect’s education or licensing existed until Illinois became the first state to adopt architect licensing laws.(1) Today, all fifty states, through joint efforts with the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) and the AIA use a mostly standardized system of certification and testing for the task of licensing architects. While the original goal of setting standards for what defined an “architect” was in the best interests of the general public, the modern definition of an architect and the profession was founded on the desire to promote for the improvement of those calling themselves architects and to elevate the profession itself. Please do not misinterpret this as a statement against the requirement of licensing architects. On the contrary; I fully believe that it has, and will continue to be, of the utmost importance.

Today, the objects of the AIA, “shall be to organize and unite in fellowship the members of the architectural profession of the United States of America; to promote the aesthetic, scientific and practical efficiency of the profession; to advance the science and art of planning and building by advancing the standards of architectural education, training and practice; to coordinate the building industry and the profession of architecture to insure the advancement of the living standards of people through their improved environment; and to make the profession of ever-increasing service to society.”(2)

While the architectural industry and society in general has greatly benefited from minimum standards of education and training for architects in the United States (in large part due to the efforts of the AIA and its members), the current role that architects play in society varies significantly. The realty of whether the architect of today is fully capable of protecting the health, safety and welfare of the general public is a topic of great debate depending on your point of view and role in the design and construction industry.

For better and for worse

From my own experience, the public’s opinion of architects in general is still a positive one, but the architect’s reputation within the construction industry and among those who inspect various building types is not complimentary. Why is that? Have architects created an unreasonably high opinion of themselves?

The architect has historically been looked up to as an expert in a field of specialized knowledge. Architects are required however to be generalists; knowing a little bit about every trade and discipline they oversee, but not directly in control of the construction or engineering of a project. The architect is looked upon to provide direction and advice to those constructing a building, as well as organizing the various engineering disciplines that are needed. The role of an Architect has often become that of a manager; settling disputes between the owner, contractor and other entities. While architects will always play a key role in the design and production of construction documents; other than in a small percentage of high profile and high priced projects, the owners and contractors are the large guiding force in the design process. The architect often takes a backseat role in the decision-making process during construction (and even earlier on). Is this appropriate? Yes and no. Unless an architect has a partial ownership in the project, it’s not their money. Many architects may say that good design is the most important part of their job, but a gorgeous building that leaks or is a danger to its occupants is a failure (Refer to my previous post on the Grenfell Towers in London).  Their responsibility at a core level is to protect the health, safety and welfare of those persons that will use, occupy and are affected by the project. Would you rather occupy a building that is pretty and dangerous to your safety or a so-so building that protects you? Of course, we’d like the best of both, but that would require architects to step up and recognize that their technical expertise in building codes and fire safety is just as, if not more important, than their design talents. Meeting their clients budget and design goals is absolutely critical, but never at the expense of a person’s health or safety.

You might ask, “Don’t architects have to know all the codes and don’t they learn that in school? Isn’t the ability to protect us the most important part of their job?

The real answer is scarier than you think.

I’m going to quote another architect, who blogs under the name of Sheldon. I do not know him on a personal or professional level, and I will not make any statement about his qualifications, knowledge or character. I only want to address the statements he made, as I don’t not think he is alone in his opinion and he brings up assumptions that I think are the reason that others view of architects has degraded:

The labyrinthine regulations of the federal government reminded me of regulations we in construction deal with every day. They are similarly complex and obscure, differing only in extent. I was not surprised that I didn’t understand the subjects of the senate hearing, but on further thought, I realized I really don’t know much about the countless codes and regulations that govern construction. Nor, I’m sure, does anyone else.

The picture that accompanies this article shows just a few of the code books we use at my office. In the picture are a few versions of the IBC, a couple of Wisconsin code binders, several books of Minnesota codes, a few versions of NFPA 101, an elevator code book, and a few books that explain what’s in the codes. This collection is nowhere near complete; we have many additional code books for Minnesota and Wisconsin, plus others for North Dakota, South Dakota, and Iowa, as well as for a couple of other states. I can only imagine what national and international firms have in their libraries.

Presumably, when someone certifies documents, that certification implies that the responsible person (or someone under that person’s direct supervision) understands everything in every statute, code, rule, and regulation governing the work of the project, and that the project complies with all of them. What does that tell us?

First, I think it’s safe to say that most of most regulations simply codify what was already common practice, much of which was based on empirical evidence. We build walls of 2 x 4s at 16 inches on center because it’s been done that way a long time and it seems to work. Later additions were added after due consideration; someone probably tested walls with framing at 24 inches on center and that worked, too.

Many requirements were added in response to building failures. Even then, I suspect much of what’s in the code is based on intuition, rather than on basic research beginning with the question, “What is required?” Though useful for comparative evaluations, code requirements often are not based on real-world applications. (See “Faith-based specifications.”)

I also think it’s safe to say it’s unlikely that any building complies with all regulations. Regardless of the source or value of those requirements, it’s clear that there are too many for any one person, or even several people, to understand. Making things more difficult is the fact that some information is restated in different codes, often in slightly different fashion, and some codes are more restrictive than others.

The International Code Council (ICC) publishes a dozen or so building and fire codes, which reference hundreds of standards published by ASHRAE, ASCE, and various other organizations, including about 50 of the 375 published by NFPA. These secondary codes also cite other standards, and so on, and so on, and so on. States then modify the basic codes, as do local jurisdictions. Some variations are required by local seismic and weather conditions, but many make little sense. All of these form the basic reference library for everyone involved in construction. Codes are continually being updated, usually on a three-year cycle. But not everyone is on the same cycle; some states update to follow the major codes more quickly than others, and different states will use different versions of the same codes.

My firm does mostly medical work, which must comply not only with the IBC and state codes, but also with NFPA 101, dictates of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the Joint Commission, as well as requirements of individual clients. I’m sure we’re not alone, and that other types of construction have similar additional requirements.

Is all of this really necessary? I concede that there are special situations that require special treatment, but it’s hard to believe there are enough special circumstances to justify the mountain of code books we must deal with. While it is somewhat understandable that we have codes for specific conditions, there is no excuse for conflicts between different codes. (4)

As a licensed architect who currently works in the healthcare design industry, a former inspector / surveyor for the State of Texas, and therefore also a federal surveyor working on behalf of the Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS); I am appalled that any architect would admit that, “I realized I really don’t know much about the countless codes and regulations that govern construction. Nor, I’m sure, does anyone else.”.

The dozens of building and fire codes, standards and other regulations under which the healthcare industry operates are all critically important to the safety of those residents and patients that reside in any facility. Codes and standards are NOT based on “intuition”, they are based on actual building failures and tragedies such as the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire(5), the MGM Grand Fire(6), and the Station nightclub fire(7). Building codes and all their referenced standards and testing procedures exist for the sole purpose of protecting the lives of people that cannot protect themselves (as is the case for healthcare occupancies), or allowing those who are capable the time to reach safety in the event of a fire or other emergency. All codes and standards have their limitations and fallacies, after all they are written by human beings with biases and their own agendas; Therefore, codes and standards are written by groups of people, with the hopeful intent of avoiding personal preferences. This process also allows for codes to change over time when new information is available or lessons have been learned. Understanding the complexities of the codes and standards is not easy, but that’s why the task is delegated to individuals with the skill set and desire to understand them. Its our job.

Many architects have lost (if ever had) their connection to the real-world requirements of constructing a building, and most do not understand the most important part of their profession, and that is the protection of those that occupy the buildings they design. If those professionals (architects) that are tasked with the responsibility to ensure buildings are made safe are not capable of doing so, how on earth can they expect owners, contractors or anyone else to take up that charge?

I am not implying that all architects are guilty of ignoring their responsibilities, nor am I suggesting that I, in any way, am guilt-free. I want to bring attention to the fact that the architectural industry (including the educational side) has put a huge emphasis on the artistic and design aspects or architecture and have grossly ignored the importance of safety and code compliance. This has led to the common opinion of many contractors and owners that architects are egotistical and know nothing of the real world.

I could write an entire post about the fact that my own Alma-mater’s curriculum included only a single one-semester class (one hour, twice a week) on building and life safety codes over the course of a five-year professional bachelor’s degree program, and  then more than half of my class that year failed the course. That’s not unfortunate; its shameful.

So why are architects their own worst enemies? Many of the architects I have met and worked with are incapable of checking their egos long enough to learn the realities of the construction industry and embrace the critical importance of building safety and the codes that facilitate that goal. They instead have taken a combative stance against the codes and those jurisdictions that adopt and enforce them. I tell people constantly that if they don’t agree with the code; get involved and change it. Complaining about the codes only shows one’s ignorance of their role and importance.

Architects must embrace the incredible responsibility they bear on behalf of society. The task of keeping others safe should be a humbling one, not a reason to, “elevate the standing of the profession”. That should be a result, not a goal.

Action; not words

There are of course many more facets of the architectural profession that I did not address such as environmental responsibility, efficiency and preservation that are discussions unto themselves.

I am a licensed architect and I am proud to call myself one. I make a lot of mistakes, and I often let my ego get in the way of what’s right, but I recognize that, and I’m always working to improve.

I put the challenge to every architect (or those working with architects and/or towards the same goals); treat this profession with the respect it deserves by fulfilling the expectations society puts on you. Learn everything you possibly can about the codes, regulations and standards you are charged with upholding. Think of the people your designs protect and shelter first; your own ego and gratification should be the lowest of priorities.

Footnotes:

(1) Definitions:

www.Merriam-Webster.com

(2) History of The American Institute of Architects

Archived/www.aia.org/about_history at web.archive.org

(3) American Institute of Architects Bylaws, Revised April 2017

http://aiad8.prod.acquia-sites.com/sites/default/files/2017-05/AIA-Bylaws-April2017.pdf

(4) Constructive Thoughts, Observations and musings about architecture and the construction industry.

http://swconstructivethoughts.blogspot.com/2017/02/tower-of-babel.html#more

(5) The 1911 Triangle Factory Fire

http://trianglefire.ilr.cornell.edu/story/introduction.html

(6) MGM Grand Fire

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM_Grand_fire

(7) The Station nightclub fire

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Station_nightclub_fire

Featured Image from: http://www.wikihow.com/Become-an-Architect