NFPA 92 defines design, testing of smoke control systems

NFPA 92: Standard for Smoke Control Systems provides fire protection engineers with guidance for the design and testing of smoke control systems.

03/21/2014


Over the past few decades, building, fire, and life safety codes have been forced to continuously adapt to changing architectural trends. While smoke control systems are required to be provided in certain situations, they are sometimes provided as an alternative to having to comply with other requirements, usually for aesthetic or financial reasons. As the prevalence of design features such as large open spaces and open corridors without vestibules continues to increase, so do the number of new smoke control system installations and, consequently, the need for experienced individuals who understand and know how to correctly apply the applicable codes and standards.

NFPA 92: Standard for Smoke Control Systems is a standard published by the NFPA that provides requirements, recommendations, and guidance regarding the design, installation, acceptance testing, operation, and ongoing periodic testing of smoke control systems. An important distinction to recall is that a “code” tells us “when” or “where” something is required, while a “standard" tells us “how” it is designed, installed, tested, maintained, and so on. In this case, NFPA 92 tells us “how” to design smoke control systems such as stair pressurization, large volume exhaust, and elevator hoistway pressurization systems that are required to be provided in buildings by “codes” such as the International Building Code (IBC) or the NFPA 101: Life Safety Code.

Figure 1: This shows the organization of the major smoke control system design elements as defined in NFPA 92. All graphics courtesy: Koffel Associates

Creation of NFPA 92

NFPA 92 was created during the NFPA Annual 2011 code cycle as a result of merging two predecessors: NFPA 92A: Standard for Smoke-Control Systems Utilizing Barriers and Pressure Differences and NFPA 92B: Standard for Smoke Management Systems in Malls, Atria, and Large Spaces. These two were maintained as separate documents from 1991 until 2009. The NFPA Technical Committee on Smoke Management Systems then decided to combine the two into a single document, in part to remediate the use of confusing terminology and duplicate provisions.

Much confusion existed due to the fact that NFPA 92A referred to pressurization systems as “smoke control systems” and NFPA 92B referred to systems used in large spaces such as malls and atria as “smoke management systems,” while at the same time, building codes and other standards recognized no distinction between these two terms. Building codes and standards simply referred to both pressurization (or “smoke control” as designated by NFPA) systems and systems used to maintain tenability in large spaces (or “smoke management” systems as designated by NFPA) as “smoke control systems.”

Therefore, to create consistency between the building codes and NFPA 92, the convention of referring to all systems used to address the impact of smoke from a fire as “smoke control systems” was adopted. Pressurization systems now fall under the smoke control sub-classification of “smoke containment systems,” while systems used in large spaces fall under the sub-classification of “smoke management systems.”

Figure 2: This computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model of an atrium smoke control system was created using Fire Dynamics Simulator.Chapters 1 through 4

The 2012 edition of NFPA 92 consists of 8 chapters and 13 Annexes. Chapters one through three cover the typical NFPA standardized introductory topics: Administration (scope, purpose, retroactivity, and units), Referenced Publications, and Definitions, respectively. Chapter 4, Design Fundamentals, contains exactly what the title implies, the fundamentals of smoke control design. The chapter walks users through a logical design process, which first involves selecting the desired smoke control method or methods to be used based on the selection of the specific design objectives.

As mentioned previously, the two smoke control “methods” (or sub-classifications) recognized by NFPA 92 include smoke containment, which involves establishing and maintaining pressure differences to contain smoke to the zone of origin, and smoke management, which involves removing smoke or managing smoke spread in large volume spaces to maintain tenable conditions. The ideal smoke control method for a particular application depends on the desired design objectives, four of which are listed in Section 4.1.2 (see Figure 1).

Three additional objectives are listed in Annex A and include providing increased visibility for fire department personnel, limiting the spread of toxic gases, and limiting the spread of combustion products to protect building contents. These are sometimes referred to as secondary objectives because, like anything contained in the Annex of an NFPA code or standard, they are not part of the mandatory requirements unless adopted so by the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ). (An example of this is where the AHJ indicates that the Annex is to be part of the mandatory requirements and the word “should” is to be replaced with “shall.”) Nevertheless, most of these secondary objectives are inherently met by systems designed to meet one or more of the primary required objectives. For example, a system designed to maintain the smoke layer interface at a predetermined elevation will usually meet all three of these objectives to some extent or for some specified period of time.

As you may have already guessed, the hierarchy of terminology used in this chapter is often misunderstood and misrepresented. After the selection of design objectives and methods, comes the selection of the design “approaches.” Smoke containment system “approaches” include stair, elevator, zoned, vestibule, and smoke refuge area pressurization. These approaches, along with the smoke management system approaches, are contained in Figure 1, which should help to clarify the major design terminology used in NFPA 92.


<< First < Previous 1 2 3 Next > Last >>

No comments
The Top Plant program honors outstanding manufacturing facilities in North America. View the 2013 Top Plant.
The Product of the Year program recognizes products newly released in the manufacturing industries.
The Engineering Leaders Under 40 program identifies and gives recognition to young engineers who...
The true cost of lubrication: Three keys to consider when evaluating oils; Plant Engineering Lubrication Guide; 11 ways to protect bearing assets; Is lubrication part of your KPIs?
Contract maintenance: 5 ways to keep things humming while keeping an eye on costs; Pneumatic systems; Energy monitoring; The sixth 'S' is safety
Transport your data: Supply chain information critical to operational excellence; High-voltage faults; Portable cooling; Safety automation isn't automatic
Case Study Database

Case Study Database

Get more exposure for your case study by uploading it to the Plant Engineering case study database, where end-users can identify relevant solutions and explore what the experts are doing to effectively implement a variety of technology and productivity related projects.

These case studies provide examples of how knowledgeable solution providers have used technology, processes and people to create effective and successful implementations in real-world situations. Case studies can be completed by filling out a simple online form where you can outline the project title, abstract, and full story in 1500 words or less; upload photos, videos and a logo.

Click here to visit the Case Study Database and upload your case study.

Maintaining low data center PUE; Using eco mode in UPS systems; Commissioning electrical and power systems; Exploring dc power distribution alternatives
Synchronizing industrial Ethernet networks; Selecting protocol conversion gateways; Integrating HMIs with PLCs and PACs
Why manufacturers need to see energy in a different light: Current approaches to energy management yield quick savings, but leave plant managers searching for ways of improving on those early gains.

Annual Salary Survey

Participate in the 2013 Salary Survey

In a year when manufacturing continued to lead the economic rebound, it makes sense that plant manager bonuses rebounded. Plant Engineering’s annual Salary Survey shows both wages and bonuses rose in 2012 after a retreat the year before.

Average salary across all job titles for plant floor management rose 3.5% to $95,446, and bonus compensation jumped to $15,162, a 4.2% increase from the 2010 level and double the 2011 total, which showed a sharp drop in bonus.

2012 Salary Survey Analysis

2012 Salary Survey Results

Maintenance and reliability tips and best practices from the maintenance and reliability coaches at Allied Reliability Group.
The One Voice for Manufacturing blog reports on federal public policy issues impacting the manufacturing sector. One Voice is a joint effort by the National Tooling and Machining...
The Society for Maintenance and Reliability Professionals an organization devoted...
Join this ongoing discussion of machine guarding topics, including solutions assessments, regulatory compliance, gap analysis...
IMS Research, recently acquired by IHS Inc., is a leading independent supplier of market research and consultancy to the global electronics industry.
Maintenance is not optional in manufacturing. It’s a profit center, driving productivity and uptime while reducing overall repair costs.
The Lachance on CMMS blog is about current maintenance topics. Blogger Paul Lachance is president and chief technology officer for Smartware Group.