Fire Alarm System Design: Why the Perfect Design Sometimes Performs Worse Than a Simple One

Fire Alarm System Design: Why the Perfect Design Sometimes Performs Worse Than a Simple One

Fire Alarm System Design: Why the Perfect Design Sometimes Performs Worse Than a Simple One
12.09.2026
17

I mostly deal with reviewing completed designs, checking projects prepared by other engineers before approval. One observation stands out: the most visually impressive designs, with perfectly arranged zones and neat symbols, often turn out to be the weakest in practice. The designer focused on creating an elegant drawing and forgot to think about how the facility would actually function.

Fire alarm system design is primarily about visualizing a building in operation, with people, equipment, noise, dust, and day-to-day activities, not about producing an attractive set of drawings for approval. Fire detection and fire suppression systems almost always go hand in hand in serious facilities, and it is precisely at the intersection of these two disciplines that I most often find problems during project reviews. The foundation remains DBN V.2.5-56:2014, which defines detector placement parameters, cable routing requirements, and hazard classifications for premises. Although, judging from what I see, many professionals read only the sections relevant to their immediate task rather than the document as a whole.

Automatic Fire Alarm Systems: When a Perfect Layout Is Not Enough

I once reviewed a project for a sports complex with a swimming pool, training halls, and locker rooms. The automatic fire alarm system looked flawless on paper. Every detector was positioned exactly where the drawings required. The problem was that the swimming pool area had not been assessed for humidity. Standard smoke detectors would have struggled to operate correctly there because condensation could interfere with their performance. The project had to be returned for revision, and the detector type was changed specifically for that area.

The most common mistake I encounter is the reuse of a standard solution from a previous project without adapting it to the actual conditions of the new facility. It is quick. It saves money during the design phase. Yet it often becomes expensive during operation, when the system responds incorrectly or fails to respond at all.

Fire Alarm Notification Systems: The Most Underrated Section of Any Design

Fire alarm notification systems are often developed as a formality, while most attention is given to the detection system itself. That is a mistake. People do not evacuate because a detector activates somewhere in a technical room. They evacuate because they hear and understand a clear warning signal. In one cinema project I reviewed, the notification system had been calculated for the quiet conditions of an empty auditorium. In reality, during a movie screening, the sound from the cinema's audio system could easily overpower a standard evacuation message unless additional sound output was specifically designed for those conditions.

Always verify notification system calculations against the loudest expected operating conditions of the facility, not the silence of an empty building during commissioning. An adequate sound level safety margin is not a luxury, it is a necessity.

Automatic Fire Suppression Systems: A Decision That Cannot Be Undone

An automatic fire suppression system makes decisions faster than any person can. That is both its greatest advantage and its greatest risk. If the design parameters are incorrect, nobody will have time to correct them once the system activates. I reviewed a project for an underground parking facility where powder-based fire suppression had been specified throughout the entire area. The designers failed to account for electrical rooms located within part of the protected area, where the discharge of extinguishing powder could create additional risks for adjacent electrical installations that were not protected against such exposure.

The project was returned for revision and divided into separate protection zones using different suppression methods for different risks. It cost the contractor additional time during the approval process. However, it prevented costly surprises during operation, when modifications would have been far more expensive and time-consuming than correcting the design itself.