The KISS Principle in Fire Protection

The acronym KISS has several variants. These include “Keep it Simple, Stupid” and in a more polite variation, “Keep it Short and Sweet”. The idea is that unnecessary complexity should be avoided in engineering design whenever possible. Rather, simplicity should be a key goal. Unnecessary complexity in fire protection:

·??????? Usually comes at the expense of reliability

·??????? May require undesirable initial and routine testing

·??????? Requires specialty contractors

·??????? Increases costs

Reliability is Key

Fire protection systems tend to passively wait until they are called to action someday. Just like human bodies, sitting and waiting around for extended times is not good for any engineered system. However, this is unavoidable for fire protection systems. While the requirements of fire codes and standards strive to maximize reliability, no engineered system is 100% reliable. Each system component has a small failure potential. The more components a system has, the higher the cumulative failure rate of the components, and the more components a system has, the more likely it is to fail on demand. Therefore, reliability and complexity and have an inverse relationship. Keeping a system as simple with as few components as possible to achieve the performance goals is best.

Test, Baby, Test

A correctly designed and installed engineered system’s reliability is maximized through the correct testing methods and frequencies. As a rule of thumb, the testing should always be done in the most realistic manner feasible. In other words, the system should be tested as close to actual operating conditions as possible. Since lighting a ferocious fire on the floor and seeing if the system extinguishes it is not a preferred testing option, the testing methodologies must be carefully selected and executed. The more complexity a system has, the more complex the testing becomes as well. Such tests can be expensive, cumbersome, and disruptive to operations. Additionally, the owners’ engineering representatives should explicitly specify the testing protocols and ensure that the contractors perform them correctly. If this is too much of a burden, the end user is probably better served by a less complex system.

Who Can Do The Work?

The pool of local testing contractors greatly diminishes as the fire protection system complexity increases because special fire protection systems require special training and specialty contractors. Since these types of contractors are likely not in the neighborhood, they need to travel greater distances. This also means that the competition among specialty contractors is slim to none, all of which are not benefits to the end user.

Money

Fancy fire protection systems loaded with components and complexity may impress and excite those of us in the fire protection field. However, the costs associated in correctly designing, installing and testing sexy fire protection systems almost certainly turn off those paying the bills.

The Default Fire Protection Choice

Water is good stuff, inert and cheap too. We drink it, we clean ourselves with it and recreate in it. It also happens to be one of the best fire suppressing agents on the planet. Sprinkler systems have some of the highest reliability of fire protection systems and are generally the most inexpensive solutions. They are available in a variety of types (wet, dry, preaction) to suit the great majority of needs. Wet pipe systems should always receive first consideration as they are the simplest, most reliable and most inexpensive solution. If freezing temperatures are expected, dry pipe systems should be selected instead. Preaction systems offer the highest protection against unwanted discharges and are appropriate for cold storage warehouses, museums and critical computer/communication rooms.

Instances occasionally exist where standard sprinklers are not an appropriate fire suppression solution, and a more complex solution may be necessary. The main reason is usually when no viable water supply is available and the expense of providing one is not justified. In extremely seldom cases, the application of water in the event of fire may result in a bigger problem and a non-water-based fire extinguishing agent should be selected instead of sprinklers. Examples of this are where water-reactive chemicals or are present or a steam explosion is likely.

But Water and ____ Don't Mix!

The decision to violate KISS is usually based on misinformation where the decisionmakers have wrong preconceived notions or they are influenced by salespeople. It usually involves the fear of water damage which is seldom a legitimate concern. I have never heard of and much less seen a single case where correctly designed, installed and tested sprinkler systems caused unacceptable damages or problems that could have been avoided through the use of a more complex fire protection system. Unbiased studies by insurance companies and the government consistently show that common concerns and myths over the use of sprinkler systems are unfounded and that fires controlled/extinguished by sprinklers result in a fraction of damages of fires without sprinklers, including in electrical and computer occupancies.

The Bottom Line

Keeping unnecessary complexity out of fire protection systems may not enhance the profits of those who sell them, but it is a winning bet for the end user. A good strategy for the majority of fire protection solutions is to start with standard wet pipe sprinklers and step it up from there, if necessary.

The views expressed in this article are those of its author and in no way represent the positions and views of past, present and future employers or clients. The information, recommendations or conclusions in this article should not be interpreted as any guarantee that the reader will achieve the same results.