To get different fire safety results, we must do things differently
As the co-founder and chief design officer of an innovative fire suppression manufacturer, I often get asked the question “why do you do things differently?” When enquiring about Plumis products, this almost always refers to people wondering why our system is mounted on the wall and not the ceiling like traditional fire suppression systems.
The simple answer is that we wall mount our intelligent nozzles halfway down the wall to enable the systems infrared sensor to detect and target the fire with watermist more efficiently. This is instead of doing what most manufacturers do to remain within the scope of existing standards, which is to trigger a deluge of water from the ceiling when a glass bulb reaches a temperature threshold caused by the fire.
In the UK, the residential and domestic active fire suppression industry most commonly refers to standard BS 9251, which covers the systems design and installation for installers.
Standardisation
Manufacturers of sprinklers and watermist systems can choose to comply with BS 9252 or BS 8458 respectively and if they follow the code of practice — or recipe — within those particular standards, then they can be confident that the resulting system will provide consistent performance.
Similarly, those working in Authorities Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) who are tasked with approving means of escape strategies and enforcing the requirements of building regulations tend to make good use of the effort that has gone into producing the standard. From experience, this is why I believe one of the most commonly asked questions by AHJs assessing an active fire suppression system is: “Does it fully comply with the standard?”
When we started, our goal was to improve safety for those most at risk from fire and we set out to develop a system that achieved this as effectively as possible, irrespective of whether it met an existing standard or not. We were prepared to challenge traditional approaches to demonstrate how utilising technological developments could protect more people from fire and save lives. Our decision to embrace innovation has, however, made our sales process more difficult because many approvers, specifiers and customers have to take the time to understand and evaluate our unique solutions.
To overcome these challenges and demonstrate that not only are our products fit for purpose but that they meet the compliance requirements of the regulations we make use of our proven track record but also by carrying out independent third-party fire performance testing, independent assessments of our testing and even independent fire engineering assessments.
These routes to validation exist as a way of providing credibility because the development time for a new British Standard can range between one and four years, depending on the complexity of the subject and the range of stakeholders involved. In addition to this, all British Standards are subject to review at least once every five years. As a result, standards tend to lag behind innovation — often by many years.
BSi states in their Principles of standardisation:
British Standards are voluntary in that there is no obligation to apply them or comply with them, except in those few cases where their application is directly demanded by regulatory instruments. They are tools devised for the convenience of those who wish to use them.
It also goes on to say:
Standards are always subordinate to the law. It is important that they are drafted so as to avoid any confusion between the provisions of a standard and requirements imposed by law.
Particularly for the purpose of preventing anticompetitive effects or impeding innovation, whenever possible, provisions are expressed in terms of performance rather than design or descriptive characteristics.
Whilst we are working hard to find a route to standardisation for electronically controlled nozzles, covering the ones that our own system uses, we also understand that this will take time. Currently, we’re undertaking ongoing assessment, research and development at UL (formerly Underwriters Laboratories), as well as discussing standardisation with the relevant BSi working group. But we’re also keen to work with third parties willing to scrutinise our products and processes. To date, we have completed over 150 fire tests and invested over £4 million in research and development since 2009, as we recognise that evidence is the only way to ensure our stakeholders can be confident of the safety and efficacy of our products.
Our approach
We need fire protection standards, products and systems that are able to keep pace with how quickly the world is changing — especially if we want to further reduce the number of fire-related injuries and fatalities.
The exploration of new technology is not only recognised but is a fundamental part of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. Here, it states: “Where the responsible person implements any preventive and protective measures he must do so on the basis of the principles specified in Part 3 of Schedule 1.” Part 3 of Schedule 1 states under Article 10: PRINCIPLES OF PREVENTION, specifies, adapting to technical progress.
The latest data shows that fires caused by electrical items and white goods are much more common now than they were ten years ago, but also that dwellings are more densely populated. To tackle the housing crisis housing providers are exploring modern methods of construction (MMC), as well as preparing to support the housing needs of an ageing population in existing homes.
These trends, alongside historical practice — because we know tragedy can arise when change is overdue — demonstrate the need for new practices to address fire safety challenges.
Having only one dominant sprinkler design Standard is problematic. The types of buildings, occupants and fire risks vary; meaning there is no one size fits all solution. Instead, I propose sharing a tool kit of measures in order to ensure housing providers are aware of the options available to them and that each different fire strategy has a well-considered and cost-effective solution. A variety of products with varying attributes will help to ensure effective solutions are available to suit different scenarios and to meet the individual needs of residents.
The introduction of electronics to active fire suppression means we can achieve much more than traditional systems. For example, Automist Smartscan records and stores a timeline of events when activated. Every time the detector is triggered, it is logged on our internal memory system. If the intelligent nozzle scans, our system logs this too, as well as capturing the temperatures recorded by the infrared sensor. This data is really useful for providing a more informed account of what happened with any fire incident — which can be beneficial when making any insurance claims — but we are also using the data collected to further optimise and enhance our algorithm.
In addition to this, our system can also self-diagnose; meaning it will inform you, if any key components are faulty and require maintenance. We also keep a database of every installation including a layout plan and an equipment log. This is invaluable when it comes to identifying batches of stock, installations by specific authorised installation engineers, or the last date of service. This golden thread is a live digital fingerprint accessible to all stakeholders.
Outcomes-based approach
A dogmatic tick box approach to standards compliance is at odds with the recommendations of Dame Judith Hackitt’s independent review of the building and fire safety regulations. According to Dame Hackitt, the over-reliance on standardised solutions is one of the building industry’s key failings, resulting in a system that discourages ownership and accountability for decisions.
The report specifically states that the current prescriptive system of building and fire safety regulations should be replaced with an outcomes-based approach that places those responsible for (high rise) residential buildings in a position of making intelligent decisions about the layers of protection required to make their particular building safe.
We welcome the changes recommended by Dame Hackitt’s report including the introduction of a Building Safety Regulator and we hope a framework will emerge that will allow the benefits of innovation in fire suppression to be realised.
At Plumis, we believe that sometimes the riskiest thing is to maintain the status quo. In recent years, the biggest factors contributing to the wider adoption of sprinklers have been increasing mandatory legalisation and pressure remains on manufacturers to reduce costs without compromising quality.
We want to increase adoption by providing a product that solves problems, which can not be solved by a traditional approach.
We innovate because fire statistics all over the world show that people are still losing their lives or being injured by fire in buildings, even those protected by active fire suppression systems, including sprinklers.
As a sector, we still have work to do. Developing alternatives to the glass bulb will mean systems can activate significantly earlier before the build-up of significant heat. These options will reduce the chance of burns for someone very close to a fire and minimise the production of life-threatening toxic gases which are still the biggest threat in domestic fires.
As American Physicist William G. Pollard once said, “those who initiate change will have a better opportunity to manage the change that is inevitable,” which is exactly why we’re trying to do things differently.
About Plumis
Plumis is an innovative British engineering company whose Automist® fire suppression misting technology has saved lives in homes across the UK. Trusted in both the UK and US, Plumis has completed over 10,000 Automist installations and been honoured as Innovation Category winner in the Queen’s Award for Enterprise.
For more information, visit: https://plumis.co.uk/
