Article

The growth of businesses’ computers sharing space in remote data centers outpaces fire protection standards.

by Ed Comeau

It should come as no surprise that the amount of traffic moving over the Internet has grown dramatically during the past year or that it increases daily. According to Forrester Research, worldwide e-commerce will grow from $657 billion in 2000 to $6,790 billion in 2004. In addition, the number of subscribers to digital service lines grew 447 percent to 4.5 million lines in 2000, according to the research firm IDC, and it’s expected to grow to 66.4 million by 2004. America OnLine, the United States’ leading Internet service provider, has 1.2 million peak simultaneous users and moves 166 million E-mails every day.

In fact, the Internet has become an integral part of the way we live and work, and the network supporting the Internet is becoming critical to many business operations. To meet the growing demand of companies whose business is migrating to the Internet, a new type of computer facility has sprung up internationally: the colocation facility, or colo.

Like the Internet, the colocation market is growing quickly. Analyst house JP Morgan estimates that colocation facilities are the fastest growing sector in telecommunications and one of the most lucrative. Colocation facility activity in the United States, already $1.9 billion in 1999, is expected to reach $6.3 billion in 2003. In Western Europe, investment in colocation facilities is expected to rise from $74 million in 1999 to $828 million by 2004.

The function of colos

Historically, a company’s computer room served that company alone containing only the company’s electronic equipment. Today, however, the one-company-one-computer-room arrangement is often impractical and unnecessary. A company that needs space for a single server would hardly find it economically feasible to build a facility to house just one unit. Hence, the growing popularity of colocation facilities, structures equipped with telecommunications, power, cooling, security, and fire protection in which companies rent space for their servers.

Colocation facilities provide several different functions, among them giving a large, national Internet service provider a local “point of presence” that allow customers to dial a local telephone number to access the Internet. They may also house a company’s mission critical computers.

“Say you’re a company doing business in California,” says Jim Hook of DPR Construction, Inc. “You have the hazard of earthquakes. Arizona is a good alternate site because you have continuous fiber optics, and you can set up a mirrored facility quickly if the California one should come down.”

“Uptime,” then, is the watchword for colos. Because downtime due to fire, earthquake, or terrorist acts can have a catastrophic effect on a colo’s tenants, colos are invariably equipped with redundant power supplies, biometric security systems, and fire protection systems. Many colos are staffed around the clock with security personnel. As a result, “an uptime of 99.99 percent isn’t unusual,” says Hook.

An uninterrupted supply of electrical power is important, says Hook, and not only the primary power provided by the public power company, but the backup power, as well. To ensure uptime, backup generations are usually installed in colos to provide an uninterrupted flow of electricity for the computers and the cooling systems in the event the primary power is lost.

“They like to use a belt and suspenders approach when it comes to power,” Hook says. “The amount of power they consume is phenomenal,” he continues. “In the past, we thought 50 watts a square foot was a lot. Now, people are looking for 300 watts a square foot (0.09 square meters).” One computer manufacturer has even come up with a computer rack system that draws 16,000 watts over 4 square feet (0.4 square meters).

Fire protection needs

Despite their growing popularity, these facilities “are young when it comes to fire protection,” says Ralph Transue, senior vice president of Rolf Jensen and Associates and technical committee chair of NFPA 76, Fire Protection of Telecommunications Facilities.

In addition, “a colo facility can be a lot of things,” says Hook. “It can be in a shopping center or an office building, or a stand-alone facility.” As a result, the fire protection needs of colocation facilities haven’t been clearly defined.

The protection of colos in existing office buildings is generally governed by local building codes, which may require sprinklers. While sprinklers will protect the building, they may not be the best choice to protect the colo’s large, uncompartmented spaces, which contain heavy fire loads and sensitive electronic equipment. Gas suppression systems are more desirable, but these tend to be costly, so colo developers have moved towards pre-action sprinkler systems that allow them to meet the requirements of the code and guard their equipment from water damage.

Unfortunately, pre-action systems can be expensive and difficult to install. And filling the pre-action system of a colo encompassing a building can be time-consuming — so time-consuming that a fire could conceivably grow out of control before water is applied, says Hook.

To get around this problem, one colo in Phoenix, Arizona, developed a system called “shafting” that breaks the building up into a number of different pre-action zones. Vertical shafts are run through the building, and the pre-action valves are installed in the basement. In the event of a leak, water will run down into the basement.

Other facilities rely more heavily on detection, according to Gerard Miller, an account executive with Vision Systems-VESDA. “They’ve taken the money away from suppression and moved it toward detection,” he says.  “Some of the new facilities are cash-limited, so they don’t want to go with the total-flooding systems,” says Adrian Lloyd, of Vision Systems-VESDA.

What happens when a colo’s detection system activates?

Typically, says Lloyd, installations don’t shut down the equipment automatically based on an alarm from the detection system, particularly if the system is an aspirating smoke detection system. This type of system, Lloyd says, will pick up problems early and allow for human intervention to control the problem before the automatic suppression system activates.

Writing new standards

Because colocation facilities are new and are being installed at Internet speed, they’re creating challenges for authorities having jurisdiction (AHJs) all over the country. “The AHJ sometimes sees colos as large computer rooms,” says Transue, and treats them as such during the plan review process. “But that may not always be the best approach because of the different application.”

In an effort to give AHJs and the rest of the industry some guidance, the technical committee responsible for NFPA 76 is determining what changes it should make to ensure that colos are adequately protected in the next edition of codes to be voted on in November at NFPA Fall Education Conference 2001 meeting in Dallas, Texas.

Current NFPA standards, including NFPA 75, Protection of Electronic Computer/Data Processing Equipment, focus more generally on computer rooms inside individual facilities. Since colos provide services to a number of companies out of a remote location, their fire protection needs are necessarily different.

“For example, current NFPA documents require a power cut-off switch to a computer room,” says Transue. However, this may not be the best approach for a large room housing a number of independent systems that could all be taken down by a problem only one system is experiencing.

“It’s a learning curve,” says Lloyd. “Companies are racing to get facilities in, and they’re not in tune with the requirements of the building codes. For example, a facility may have an aspirating smoke detection system, which is above and beyond the AHJ’s requirements, so the colo owners don’t understand why there may be questions about the facility’s fire protection.”

Similarly, the AHJ may not understand the unique needs of the colocation facility. “Right now, the AHJ doesn’t have a lot in his or her tool bag,” when it comes to evaluating such facilities, says Transue.

Case Study

One project that challenged the vendor, AHJ, and contractor alike was the conversion of an old newspaper building in downtown Phoenix, Arizona, into a colocation facility. Among the problems they had to deal with was the issue of electrical power.

According to Scott Lacey, a fire protection engineer with the city of Phoenix, “the owner originally came to us asking to install 14 generators and a tank for diesel fuel in the sub-basement. We went through a few variations on this plan, looking at putting them outside. We came back to putting them in the basement, compartmentalized into several 2,000-gallon (7-kiloliter) tanks instead of one bulk tank.”

Why so much fuel?

“Every tenant wanted control of his own space, his own generator, his own fuel,” says Lacey. “That’s one reason the bulk tank didn’t work.”

A part of the problem was that the existing codes didn’t address this type of installation. “We worked through the Uniform Fire Code and tried to find out what would apply,” says Lacey. “There wasn’t anything in the code relating to the sub-basement that would work in this scenario, so the engineering firm had to improvise.”

Part of the trade-off, the fire department required the installation of a foam extinguishing system. The tenants wanted their own foam systems, too, but that would’ve created a maintenance nightmare, Lacey says, so they stuck with one common system.

In an effort to keep construction costs down, the facility’s owner made the tenants responsible for fire protection within their areas of the building, a common move in the industry. As a result, however, a building may have several different sprinkler and alarm systems that all function differently. Not only does this create problems for firefighters, who must be familiar with the way several different systems operate, but the fire alarm detection and suppression systems of a tenant who gives up his lease may not be properly maintained.  Fortunately, only two contractors were installing systems in the colocation facility in Phoenix, says Lacey.

Because the building wasn’t completely leased when it opened, some areas had no computer equipment, which meant that they had a lower level of fire protection than other parts of the building. To bring the protection level up to par, contractors converted the sections of sprinkler piping in those areas to dry-pipe sprinklers.

Another problem emerged when the stock of a tenant who was mid-way through renovating his space dropped dramatically. The tenant vacated the space and put a freeze on construction.  “There was a portion of the building that was under control of the tenant, but not in an acceptable state,” says Lacey. “The landlord has to make sure that the lease says that the owner has the right to go in and take control of the fire protection systems.”

Although some of the building was unsprinklered and unoccupied when the building opened, “ninety percent of the building was sprinklered,” says Lacey, “so we gave them a temporary certificate of occupancy for 180 days. After that time, the space would either be protected by a tenant, or the owner would have an approved system installed.” Lacey felt that the concrete building’s non-combustible construction made the risk acceptable.

In terms of detection, a variety of systems was installed.

“There’s a mix of spot detectors, alternating between photoelectric and ionization. They have to compensate for airflow, so they used reduced spacing. There are also highly sensitive systems, such as aspirating smoke detection systems. Some tenants are installing redundant systems with spot and aspirating smoke detection systems, where some are installing just the aspirating smoke detection systems,” says Lacey.

When asked what lessons he learned from this project, Lacey stresses the need for cooperation between the AHJ and the contractor. He also stressed networking.  “Contact cities in which this type of project has already been done,” he says. “You really need to ask around and deal with people who’ve done it.

“Also, if you have a large facility, more than a single story, the owner should be required to complete a life safety report that’s approved before any plans are approved. This gives you a chance to sit back and see if it works or not.”

Getting the local fire department’s operations division involved was critical during construction.

“We had them out there a number of times, getting their input on whether it was going to work or not,” Lacey notes. One of the features the Operations Division required was a stairwell dedicated to fire department operations with a lock-box containing keys to every tenant space and plans.

Because the systems in a building such as this are so complex and varied, Lacey also learned not to approve a building plan without elevation drawings that showed the location of the ductwork, cable trays, sprinkler systems, and other components.  “The engineers may design their stuff, then the sprinkler and fire alarm contractors have to try and figure out how to get protection and detection in and around it,” Lacey says. “It’s unfair that they should have to do that. The engineer should be doing that, instead of leaving it up to the sprinkler contractor.”

Finally, Lacey suggested that smaller cities require owners of colocation facilities to hire an engineer to review the plans for the ci

“The number one thing they should do is require a third-party engineer who works for the fire department or building department to review the plans at the builder’s expense,” he suggests. “Since the owners are interested in saving time, they’re generally not going to bat an eye at the cost.”

Ed Comeau is the principal writer for writer-tech.com, a technical writing firm.  He was previously the chief fire investigator for NFPA, and a fire protection engineer for the Phoenix Fire Department and Prime Computer.