Sign In  |  Register Now  Why Register?

The unique, new home of the Milwaukee Brewers dominates the skyline on the west side of Milwaukee, Minnesota.

The retractable roof represents cutting edge structural engineering. Both first-time visitors and seasoned construction veterans stop moving, tilt back their heads, and gaze in awe as several thousand tons of steel move quietly into position.

Miller Park also presented design challenges to the team of engineers and electricians installing the fire protection system.

The Milwaukee Brewers baseball players snag pop flies on Miller Park’s natural grass, the green growing stuff.

The problem lies in the fact that is that grass loves sunshine. This requires that the roof must be open for most of the year. The grass needs sun to grow and cool fall temperatures to go into dormancy. As a result, much of the interior of the stadium will be exposed to the warm winds and rain of spring and summer, not to mention the snow and sleet of winter.

The fire protection system was designed to do the job under each type of environment.

The Fire Alarm System
The roof and outfield walls of Miller Park can be closed in about ten minutes. The fully enclosed stadium can be heated to ensure the comfort of the fans. Yet the design criteria of the fire protection system requires proper operation in a wet, subfreezing environment. Just like happy Brewer fans, many critical fire alarm components must be kept warm and dry. The Miller Park fire alarm system is an addressable or "smart system." The brains of any addressable fire protective system are the fire alarm control panels. These key components must be located in heated areas. Some control and annunciation panels are located in the office, security and service areas. These areas are climate controlled and occupied year round. Heated "closets" were built in other areas to ensure that the ambient temperature surrounding the electronic components are kept above freezing. Proper ventilation and temperature control will help keep condensation from forming.

The majority of the areas within the building are served by the fire alarm system. Initiating devices, such as smoke detectors and pull stations, have an address. By means of the address, the fire alarm control panel can determine which device initiated an alarm, trouble or supervisory signal. This type of system gives both the building owner and the fire department a precise location of the event. The location information helps the fire fighter put the "wet stuff on the red stuff" as quickly as possible. It also helps the electrician to diagnose and fix a system trouble. This promotes safety by ensuring that the defective device or circuit is placed back in service as quickly as possible.

The proper choice of components located in the unheated areas was critical. Initiating devices such as spot-type smoke detectors are not rated for exterior use or subfreezing temperatures. Suitable replacements, such as beam detectors, presented additional design challenges. For example, beam detectors are not addressable. One or more beam detectors are mated with an electronic monitor module. The monitor module is addressable. Finding heated locations for monitor modules was a challenge. Pull stations and kitchen hoods located in unheated areas presented the same type of challenge. Information such as the heated and unheated areas is critical to proper design and good installation.

Good communication between the building owner and the engineering team early in the design process is essential.

The choice of initiating devices was largely dictated by location. The initiating appliances in heated areas are manual pull stations and spot-type smoke detectors. Spot-type detectors are rated for use in the subfreezing temperatures of the unheated public areas. In some cases multiple heat detectors with different temperature ranges were installed in the same area. The temperature ranges were carefully selected to model the response of a smoke and heat detector. In other areas beam-type smoke detectors are used. The beam detectors selected are designed to operate in temperature ranging from 131°F down to 22 below 0°F.

Three types of notification appliances or signaling devices are used at Miller Park. Strobes are located throughout the building. The strobes that are exposed to the elements are rated for wet locations. Conventional speaker-strobes are used throughout the remainder of the occupied areas, such as the restaurants, office and service areas and within every suite.

Occupants strolling along the public concourses, lined up for a cold beverage and bratwurst, or watching the game in their seats are automatically alerted to an emergency via the public address system.

The PA system is monitored continuously for PA status. A fire alarm signal has the highest priority and will override any music or other announcement automatically. Hundreds of PA speakers provide a distinct, clear and uniform alarm tone.

The fire alarm system reports every alarm, trouble and supervisory signal to a private monitoring service. The monitoring service receives the fire alarm over a telephone line dedicated for the purpose. They receive details such as the location of the alarm and type of initiating device. The monitoring service then notifies the fire department immediately and the trucks start arriving at Miller Park within minutes. When there is an event such as a baseball game, public notification is delayed for three minutes. This gives the owner’s fire wardens time to verify the nature of the alarm. If after three minutes, the alarm is not determined as a "false alarm," the public is automatically notified. In all cases, the fire department is moving the moment that the alarm initially arrives.

HCH Miller Park Joint Venture managed the construction at Miller Park. HCH consists of Hunt Construction Group, Clark Construction Co. & Hunzinger Construction. In an effort to keep last minute fire alarm system revisions to a minimum, HCH and the key fire alarm system stakeholders met early in the project. The stakeholders were employees of HCH, the Brewers, the state of Wisconsin, the South East Wisconsin Professional Baseball District, the Milwaukee Fire Department, Pieper Electric Inc, Simplex, and several of the other key trades. The stakeholders as a team reviewed the design and installation of, plus determining testing methods for, the fire alarm system. HCH coordinated efforts between all of the team members, taking notes, writing minutes and keeping meetings flowing and moving as productively as possible. Most of the team members had been involved with the project since the early stages in spring of 1998. All parties had the opportunity to voice concerns or have input into the issues raised such that a mutual agreement of all parties prevailed. Had the stakeholders not met early on during construction of Miller Park’s fire alarm system, all the stakeholders may have been put into uncomfortable positions of decision-making at the end.

The basic system functions were reviewed at the first meeting. Several key elements of the design were challenged and ultimately modified. Identifying problem areas early on allowed for corrections to be made before the mad rush common to the end of construction projects. Managing changes over time, rather than incurring massive overtime at the end of the project under tight time constraints, is more cost and quality effective.

Subsequent meetings resulted in a detailed plan to test all aspects of the system. The testing needed to be rigorous enough to prove out the design assumptions under a variety of conditions. The team agreed to a very aggressive testing program. The plan was to test every initiating device and notifying appliance. As required by NEC 700-4(a), the authorities having jurisdiction would witness all tests. The team planned for a series of tests, each test would involve a key component of the life safety system.

The team faced an additional hurdle. The Brewer’s had occupied approximately 25 percent of the building in late fall of 2000. The portion of the system in the occupied areas was tested and approved prior to occupancy. The majority of the fire alarm system would be tested while the Brewer employees were hard at work! Coordination with the owner of the team was essential.

The testing of the system could not jeopardize the protection of the occupants in the building.

The broad scope of the fire protection system demanded a division of the testing responsibilities. Team members volunteered to witness the testing of the key subsystems such as the kitchen hoods. A third party inspector tested the sprinkler system. The same inspector thereby witnessed the testing of the related devices such as flow, pressure and tamper switches.

The majority of the team members participated in the testing of the fire pump, fire alarm, and smoke control system. The electrical foreman of the crew that installed the system was a key team member. His "hands-on" knowledge of the system facilitated the planning and execution of the testing. The deputy fire chief, his lieutenant, or both were present for every key test and meeting that evolved.

The deputy chief also had several battalion chiefs and firefighters participate in each test. This was extremely important given the 700 plus initiating devices, thousands of horns and strobes, and hundreds of firefighter phones that were eventually tested.

The fire fighters used this as an opportunity to take an in-depth look at the facility. This resulted in a higher quality planning for fire, storm, rescue, or other critical responses. It gave the firefighters the opportunity to test their radios within the building. A fire department representative watched the control panel. As the alarm came in, the witness at the control panel would call back on a two-way radio with the details. Radio reception in some parts of the building was found to be weak or nonexistent. An antenna system was added to help alleviate this issue.

The state electrical inspector focused upon several aspects of the testing. The dedicated branch-circuit supplying the control panel was visually examined to determine compliance with key provisions of NFPA 72 1-5.2.5. The branch-circuit disconnect was marked red, locked on, and identified as a fire alarm circuit control. The control panel covers were marked with the identification number of the panel containing the branch circuit disconnect. All fire alarm control panels were tested on normal power, and both generator and battery power. The battery power test involved initiating an alarm, operating all strobes and horns for at least 15 minutes and generally followed NFPA 72 guidelines. All control panel components were visually examined.

The state building and electrical inspectors were both involved during the installation of the system. They participated in the witness testing in order to verify key NFPA 72 requirements. Devices and appliances were visually examined to determine that the spacing requirements and mounting height were consistent with both NFPA 72 and the manufacturer’s requirements. The inspectors also represented the state in verifying that each device was found to function properly under test. This involved a bit of research. Test methods varied widely depending upon the type of device. The manufacturer of the device will often give recommendation on the testing procedure. Smoke sticks were used to test spot- and duct-type smoke detectors.

Photo 2. Fireman observing a smoke test

Special transparencies were used with the beam detectors and a calibrated test heater was used with most of the heat detectors. Heat detectors used in wet locations were "one-shot" devices.

The contacts were jumped at each device to validate the circuit function and device address. The state inspectors recorded the results of each test, flagged the problem areas and witnessed the re-testing of the problem devices.

Audible levels were determined for each notification appliance. The criteria in NFPA 72 4-3.2 was used as the basis for acceptance.

Measuring 75 dBA at 10-feet is a relatively straightforward task. However ensuring that the sound level is at least 15 dBA above ambient is a little more complex. After all, the ambient noise level at a baseball game is quite often a function of the batter at the plate and it can be hard to determine.

The team decided that it would be wise to validate their initial test assumptions by spot checking audible levels during normal construction activities such as cutting, drilling, sawing, and vacuuming.

The state electrical inspector assisted the team by recommending a procedure to random test the circuits for open circuit, ground faults, and other electrical troubles.

The fire department witness would randomly point to a device and instruct the electrician to open the circuit or to ground one of the electrical conductors.

The electrical inspector verified that the electrician conducted the test and that the proper type of trouble was reported on the fire alarm control panels.

Conclusion
The mantra of the successful real estate salesman is "location, location, location." At Miller Park, the mantra was "planning, planning, planning." HCH held a meeting after each of the major tests.

The team members would analyze both procedure and results. Over time, the procedure became as familiar as brushing your teeth.

Coordinate the test date with the owners and installers. Notify the occupants before, during, and after the test. Pick straws for the witness that stayed in the heated security office and watched the control panel. Assign tasks to various team members. Some to watch the tester, some to verify sound levels and strobe functions, one to take the call from the control panel witness, one to record the results. Pick a logical starting point. Plan an efficient route through the building to maximize the value of time spent on the test.

The proper plan may seem to be perfect, however, expect and allow for problems and delays. We once observed a battalion chief, in full fire regalia, being quizzed by several Brewer employees who were wondering if the testing would ever end.

The post test meetings gave the participants an opportunity to discuss problems and propose solutions. The design team was notified immediately of any gaps in the coverage. Often the fix would be in place by the next test.

The electrical sub-contractor was extremely cooperative in implementing many "just in time" solutions. Having the authorities having jurisdiction on the team shortened the interpretation time on any "gray areas" that might occur.

Having reviewed the operation of the fire alarm system’s critical ele-ments, correcting the areas of concern early on left few revisions to the fire alarm system at the end when the demands are high on all the team members. The decision by HCH to form a public-private, team approach to witness testing resulted in a very efficient process.

However, the primary beneficiaries will be the fans and employees of the Milwaukee Brewers. The test team members were drawn from different trades, represented several engineering disciplines, and varied widely in professional background.

The direct result was a critical reexamination of the design principles and a thorough shake down of the installed system.

All lights are now green so let’s "Play Ball!"

The authors would sincerely like to thank: Veronica Willenbring, Hunt Construction; Doug Molinski, Randy and Gary Johnson, Pieper Electric Incorporated; Dennis Michalowski and Rick Hayes, Milwaukee Fire Department; Dan Murray and Larry Weede, State of Wisconsin; Tim Lhotka, Don Rossbach, and Matt Moore, Simplex; Tom Pfefferkorn, Powrtek Engineering; and of course, The Milwaukee Brewers.

Tom Garvey is an electrician and inspector. He works for the state of Wisconsin. Tom represents the IAEI on Code Making Panel 11 and on the Technical Committtee for NFPA 79, The Electrical Standard for Industrial Machinery. He is a die-hard Red Sox fan.

Tom wishes the Milwaukee Brewers well in their new home.

Scott A. Gillette is a project engineer for the Hunt Construction Group. He recently fininished a three-year assignment at Miller Park. Scott is a journeyman electrician with 20 years of experience in the electrical construction industry. Scott has worked on several large projects in Florida including: Animal Kingdom, MGM Studios, Dolphin & Swan Hotels, Marriott World Center, and Epcot Center.

Home  | Join | Advertising | Seminars | Contact Us | Privacy Statement | Legal Notices
Copyright © 1997-2008 IAEI. All Rights Reserved.