THE OFFICIAL MAGAZINE OF THE SOCIETY OF FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEERS
FIRE PROTECTION
SUMMER 2003
Issue No.19
A Roundtable Discussion:
INTERNATIONAL
FPE PRACTICES
page 10
ALSO:
23 FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEERING OPPORTUNITIES IN
DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
28 DEVELOPMENTS IN CODES
AROUND THE WORLD
36 THE DEVELOPMENT OF
CESARE RISK
42 THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF
BUILDING PRODUCT MODELS
FIRE PROTECTION
Fire Protection Engineering (ISSN 1524-900X) is
published quarterly by the Society of Fire Protection
Engineers (SFPE). The mission of Fire Protection
Engineering is to advance the practice of fire protection
engineering and to raise its visibility by providing
information to fire protection engineers and allied
professionals. The opinions and positions stated are
the authors’ and do not necessarily reflect those of SFPE.
Editorial Advisory Board
Carl F. Baldassarra, P.E., Schirmer Engineering Corporation
Don Bathurst, P.E.
Russell P. Fleming, P.E., National Fire Sprinkler Association
Morgan J. Hurley, P.E., Society of Fire Protection Engineers
William E. Koffel, P.E., Koffel Associates
Jane I. Lataille, P.E., Los Alamos National Laboratory
Margaret Law, M.B.E., Arup Fire
Ronald K. Mengel, Honeywell, Inc.
Edward Prendergast, P.E., Chicago Fire Dept. (Ret.)
Warren G. Stocker, Jr., Safeway, Inc.
Beth Tubbs, P.E., International Code Council
Regional Editors
U.S. H EARTLAND
John W. McCormick, P.E., Code Consultants, Inc.
U.S. M ID -ATLANTIC
Robert F. Gagnon, P.E., Gagnon Engineering, Inc.
U.S. N EW E NGLAND
Thomas L. Caisse, P.E., C.S.P., Robert M. Currey &
Associates, Inc.
U.S. S OUTHEAST
Jeffrey Harrington, P.E., The Harrington Group, Inc.
U.S. W EST C OAST
Michael J. Madden, P.E., Gage-Babcock & Associates, Inc.
A SIA
Peter Bressington, P.Eng., Arup Fire
A USTRALIA
Brian Ashe, Australian Building Codes Board
C ANADA
J. Kenneth Richardson, P.Eng., Ken Richardson Fire
Technologies, Inc.
N EW Z EALAND
Carol Caldwell, P.E., Caldwell Consulting
U NITED K INGDOM
Dr. Louise Jackman, Loss Prevention Council
Personnel
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SFPE
Kathleen H. Almand, P.E.
T ECHNICAL E DITOR
Morgan J. Hurley, P.E., Technical Director, SFPE
P UBLISHER
Terry Tanker, Penton Media, Inc.
A SSOCIATE P UBLISHER
Joe Pulizzi, Custom Media Group, Penton Media, Inc.
M ANAGING E DITOR
Joe Ulrich, Custom Media Group, Penton Media, Inc.
A RT D IRECTOR
Pat Lang, Custom Media Group, Penton Media, Inc.
M EDIA S ERVICES M ANAGER
Lynn Cole, Custom Media Group, Penton Media, Inc.
C OVER D ESIGN
Dave Bosak, Custom Media Group,
Penton Media, Inc.
contents
SUMMER 2003
7 COVER STORY
A Roundtable Discussion Regarding the International Practice of Fire
Protection Engineering
This in-depth discussion involves fire protection engineers from Sweden, Hong Kong,
Australia, United Kingdom, United States, New Zealand, Canada, Italy, and Japan.
Each was asked to represent the viewpoints and considerations of fire protection
engineers within their respective region of the world.
William E. Koffel, P.E., FSFPE
2
Letters to the Editor
5
Viewpoint
6
Flashpoints
15
Fire Protection Engineering Opportunities in Developing Countries
This article examines how to address challenges and turn them into
opportunities.
Jean-Michel Attlan
19
Developments in Codes Around the World
This article provides a brief overview of the fire and life safety codes and
guidelines used in Australia, Hong Kong, Japan, Sweden, England and Wales,
and the United States.
James Lord and Chris Marrion, P.E.
24
The Development of CESARE Risk
CESARE Risk is a building fire-risk assessment model that can help designers
and regulators make informed decisions on the suitability of various combinations of fire safety system components.
Ian R. Thomas, Ph.D.
28
The Potential Impact of Building Product Models on Fire Protection
Engineering
This article answers a number of questions related to building product models
and places them within the context of fire protection engineering.
Michael Spearpoint
33
Messaging and Communication Strategies for Fire Alarm Systems
Building occupants often react slowly, or not at all, when a fire alarm sounds.
Many factors contribute to this behavior. This article reviews some of the
problems and their causes.
A supplement by the National Electrical Manufacturer’s Association
37
Products/Literature
38
SFPE Resources
40
Brainteaser/Ad Index
41
From the Technical Director
Morgan J. Hurley, P.E.
Cover illustration by ©Bob Anderson/Masterfile
Online versions of all articles can be accessed at www.sfpe.org.
Invitation to Submit Articles: For information on article submission to Fire
Protection Engineering, go to http://www.sfpe.org/publications/invitation.html.
Subscription and address change correspondence should be sent to: Fire Protection Engineering,
Penton Media, Inc., 1300 East 9th Street, Cleveland, OH 44114 USA. Tel: 216.931.9180. Fax: 216.931.9969.
E-mail: asanchez@penton.com.
Copyright © 2003, Society of Fire Protection Engineers. All rights reserved.
www.sfpe.org
1
letters to the editor
Dear Editor,
I have found the majority of the articles
in the Spring 2003 issue of Fire Protection
Engineering to be well written and very
informative. I highly recommend them to
anyone interested in the building field.
However, in my view, the “Viewpoint:
Life Safety in Highrise Buildings after
9/11” does not measure up to the quality
of the remainder of the issue.
The article drew parallels to two very
significant natural disasters that occurred
at the beginning of the period of skyscraper development, the Great Chicago
Fire of 1871 and the San Francisco Earthquake of 1906. Both of these events
spurred changes in the way buildings are
designed and constructed. However,
these predictable and recurring events are
quite different than the terrorist attacks
of September 11, 2001. Had a coldwar
Soviet Union attacked a building such as
the WTC with an intercontinental ballistic
missile, we would certainly not respond
by criticizing the building architecture,
structure, or fire protection. The purposeful direction of some of the largest commercial aircraft into buildings at speeds
near their maximum airspeed is exactly
the same action, and we should assess its
impact in the same way.
The article states as fact the supposition
that “sprinkler systems cannot always be
expected to function” and suggests that
sprinkler systems can easily be defeated in
a catastrophic event. It also asserts that the
reliability of sprinklers is a concern, that
maintenance and inspection of these systems are not mandatory, and that permitted reductions in passive fire protection
materials reduce life safety. In fact, sprinkler systems have an excellent record of
performance in protecting life safety. According to National Fire Protection Association statistics, the presence of a sprinkler
system is the only aspect, of all choices
that can be made in providing fire protection, that increases life safety in buildings.
The claim of reduced life safety is completely refuted in the actual record of the
beneficial effects of sprinklering on life
safety. The facts also indicate that building
codes DO require inspection of sprinkler
systems. Regarding system functionality after a catastrophic event, a specific focus on
sprinkler systems is ill-advised. All building
S UMMER 2003
systems – not just sprinkler systems – must
be designed for the loads and effects of a
catastrophic event if a building is to survive.
The statement that the World Trade
Center proved that a building can collapse
as a result of fire is a bit of a stretch of the
truth. It is recognized that, although rare,
buildings can collapse due to fire. A recent
Hughes Associates report to the National
Institute of Standards and Technology
showed a very small number of buildings
that suffered full or partial collapse due to
fire. The distribution of these cases among
materials shows that there is equal susceptibility to fire-induced collapse across all
structural materials.
Regarding the WTC experience, the
Building Performance Study (BPS) clearly
concludes, “fire played a major role” in
the collapse and that it was the combination of two major events, the structural
damage and fire, that led to collapse. Had
strong winds instead of fire been the second event, a similar ultimate result could
very well have played out.
Regarding WTC 7, there is both anecdotal evidence from firefighters at the
scene and direct indication in the BPS that
the building was indeed hit by significant
debris from the collapse of WTC 1. James
Milke also reports this on page 11 of the
same issue of Fire Protection Engineering.
Milke also reports that WTC 5 was hit by
debris from WTC 1 but that one area
seemed to collapse without direct debris
impact. He goes on to note that the progression of collapse was in fact arrested
by the remaining structure. Thus, the
building response is not quite what is
described in the Viewpoint.
It is troubling that so much has been
made of the response of the WTC buildings while the response of the Pentagon –
quite similarly a collapse due to coincident structural damage and fire – has
been so significantly downplayed at the
same time. A review of the BPS Pentagon
report shows a number of important factors about the response of that reinforced
concrete building to an airplane attack.
First, the footprint of the damaged area of
the Pentagon is quite similar to the entire
footprint of one of the WTC Towers. Yet,
when the layperson looks at the Pentagon
plan, it appears that only a small portion
of the building has been damaged. In
reality, a building with the footprint of
the WTC constructed as the Pentagon
was constructed would likely have been
completely destroyed.
In addition, the fire protection for a significant number of the concrete columns
in the Pentagon was completely destroyed by both impact and fire, thus subjecting them to the same kind of damage
as the WTC columns. Robert Iding reports, on page 42 of the same issue of
Fire Protection Engineering, “Concrete
loses strength more slowly at elevated
temperatures than steel does, but is susceptible to spalling, which may expose
reinforcing steel to fire and loss of
strength.” A review of the many column
photographs published in the Pentagon
report shows the significant extent to
which this spalling occurred in that event
and the extent to which those columns
were damaged beyond any capability to
carry their imposed load.
Harold Locke makes an important statement on page 49 of the same issue of Fire
Protection Engineering in his discussion of
integrating structural fire protection into
the design process. While much of the
rhetoric since September 11, 2001, has
implied that the current prescriptive approach to fire protection results in structures that are not safe, Locke notes that
“simply meeting the code requirements often results in overdesigning the protection
of structural elements of the building and
limiting design flexibility.”
As we look to the future of building
design, it is important that we consider all
the facts about how our various materials
respond to extreme conditions. In addition, we must consider from what
extreme events we should protect our
buildings. Earthquakes and fires are naturally recurring events that we should
strive to resist, while rocket hits seem to
be beyond the design scope for all but
the most important strategic buildings.
Thank you again for the very informative articles you have presented in the
Spring 2003 issue. I am only sorry it began with such a misleading Viewpoint.
Louis F. Geschwindner, Ph.D., P.E.
Vice President, Engineering and
Research, AISC
Professor of Architectural Engineering,
Penn State University
www.sfpe.org
2
letters to the editor cont.
Author’s Response
In reviewing the comments from the
American Institute of Steel Construction, I
was pleased to learn of a Hughes Associates report to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, documenting buildings that have suffered full or partial
collapse due to fire.
The steel industry comments object to
criticism of building architecture, structure,
or fire protection at the World Trade Center, but neither the “viewpoint” article nor
the FEMA report criticized the design, construction, or any other aspect of the World
Trade Center. In fact, the report(2) noted
that, considering that approximately twothirds of the columns were destroyed on
one side of each tower, “The fact that the
structures were able to sustain this level of
damage and remain standing for an extended period of time is remarkable and is
the reason most building occupants were
able to evacuate safely.”
As stated in the steel industry response,
building codes generally do require inspection of sprinkler systems. Unfortunately,
inspection requirements are not always enforced, and the follow-up maintenance on
systems is not always done. For example, a
San Francisco study reported in the March
26, 1996 San Francisco Chronicle, noted that
“only 14 percent of the 2,276 fire and safety
violations cited by inspections last year had
been corrected.” Among the “serious” violations cited were “sprinkler systems without
5-year maintenance certificates.”
The “viewpoint” article did not offer materials limits when recommending design
to prevent collapse if a burn-out occurs.
The need for reliable fire protection is not
a materials issue. Rather, it is a design
issue. Although the steel industry inferred
that the recommendation was only for
steel buildings, the recommendation applies to all buildings that require fire-resistant structural elements, including those of
concrete. The suggested design requirements should apply to all tall fire-resistive
buildings, regardless of material.
The “viewpoint” article did not suggest
that any additional requirements be added
to building codes for resistance to terrorist
attacks or, as suggested by the steel industry response, “intercontinental ballistic
missile” attacks. As stated in the Building
Performance Study report(2), the nation’s
“resources should be directed primarily to
aviation and other security measures rather
than to hardening buildings against airplane
impact” or bombs.
3
Fire Protection Engineering
While it is true that prescriptive fire
protection can result in tall buildings with
widely differing degrees of safety against
collapse caused by fire, such procedures
have resulted in an excellent life safety
record over the last 100 years. Nevertheless, it is now feasible to take advantage of
modern design procedures for tall buildings, thus providing consistent safety, designing for a minimum fire load, and also
for larger fire loads that may actually exist.
We can and should use these design procedures, adopting the philosophy that fire induced collapse of tall buildings should be
avoided for all structural materials, even
when sprinkler systems are not effective.
Dr. W.Gene Corley SE, PE,
Construction Technology Laboratories, Inc.
––––––––———————
Dear Editor,
This letter is in response to an article by
Mr. Morgan J. Hurley, which appeared in
the spring [2003] issue. According to the
Rhode Island fire code, buildings built
prior to June 1, 1996, are reviewed and inspected under the 1976 Rhode Island Fire
Safety Code (RIFSC)1 and Chapters 1-8 and
24-43 of the Rhode Island Fire Prevention
Code (NFPA 1).2 For buildings built prior to
1976, the inspector must refer to the 1968
fire code and indicate any “grandfathered”
items. The only circumstances which allow
an existing building to be inspected under
NFPA 101 is if the occupancy has changed
or if the building underwent modifications
or additions, which increased the value of
the building by more than 50% within one
year. But wait, we aren’t done yet: if the
building underwent the modifications or
additions between June 1, 1996, and February 1, 1998, the 1991 edition of Life Safety
Code is used. If the building underwent the
modifications or additions after February 1,
1998, the 1997 edition of Life Safety Code
and all chapters of the Rhode Island Fire
Prevention Code, (NFPA 1) apply. Keep in
mind that under the Code, an existing
building for these purposes is one that was
built prior to February 1, 1998. Under Section 23-28.6-1(a) of the RIFSC, “The regulations contained in this chapter shall apply
to all places of assembly as defined in Section 23-28.1-5, except only such places as
are expressly exempt in accordance with
the provisions of this code.
1 Class A, capacity one thousand one
(1,001) or more.
2 Class B, capacity three hundred one
(301) to one thousand (1,000) persons.
3 Class C, capacity fifty (50) to three
hundred (300) persons in new buildings.
(Built after 1976)
4 Class C, capacity seventy-six (76) to
three hundred (300) persons in existing
buildings.”
The maximum occupancy for a place of
assembly is determined using the following
guidelines, set forth in Section 23-28.6-3 of
the RIFSC: “The occupant load permitted in
any assembly building structure, or portion
thereof, shall be determined by dividing
the net square floor area or space assigned
to that use by the square feet per occupant
as follows:
1 Assembly area of concentrated use without fixed seats such as an auditorium,
gymnasium, church, chapel, dance floor,
and lodge room, seven square feet
(7 sq. ft.) [0.65m2] per person.
2 An assembly area of less concentrated
use such as conference rooms, dining
room, drinking establishments, exhibit
room, or lounge, fifteen square feet
(15 sq. ft.) [1.4m2] per person.
3 Standing room or waiting space, five
(5) square feet [0.46m2] per person; provided, that aisle area, except rear cross
aisles, shall not be considered in determining the number of standing patrons
allowed.”
In his article, Mr. Hurley stated “the Station nightclub was not required to have
sprinklers since it was built before 1974.”
Actually, sprinklers are not required in a
place of assembly built before June 1, 1996.
Section 23-28.6-7(a), under egress passageways – the distance of travel from any
point within the place of assembly to an
approved egress opening therefrom shall
not exceed one hundred-fifty feet (150’)
[46m] in nonsprinklered buildings and two
hundred feet (200’) [61m] in sprinklered
buildings.
I feel that while Mr. Hurley’s intentions
were good, he has taken the opportunity of
a tragedy to promote performance-based
design, knowing that the situation would
not have been helped using performancebased design procedures. Currently, in the
State of Rhode Island, if plans are submitted
for construction using performance-based
design, the building owner or future owner
will need to apply for a variance from the
Fire Board of Appeal and Review. The
Board will consider the design approach but
will, more often than not, ask for a thirdparty review of the performance-based design proposal. As a Fire Plan Examiner and
an inspector, I hold the following reservations with performance-based designs:
N UMBER 19
1. How will the design be validated that
it meets the code requirements, and
who is responsible for this validation?
2. How will the design be inspected, and
by whom?
3. How will future inspectors know what
they are looking at, and what parameters will need to be met for failure at
future inspections?
4. According to NFPA 1, 20033 edition,
Section 5.1.3: “The performance-based
design shall be prepared by a person
with qualifications acceptable to the
AHJ.” Who has acceptable qualifications?
While I understand the concept of performance-based design, I don’t think it will
be the cure-all I keep reading about. There
are too many unqualified people using
“canned” packages for performance-based
design. Anybody with a computer can use
this method to meet the intent of the prescriptive fire codes. There needs to be more
control for accountability and liability.
Timothy A. Hawthorne is a Lieutenant with
the Cranston Fire Department.
S UMMER 2003
Author’s Response
The point that I was trying to make in
the column that I wrote for the Spring,
2003 issue of Fire Protection Engineering
was not that performance-based design
would prevent tragedies such as the one
that occurred at the Station night club
from occurring. Indeed, as I pointed out
in my column, it is not possible to completely eliminate risk in any activity, and
accidents will occasionally occur in buildings, regardless of whether they are designed on a performance basis or to meet
prescriptive codes. Rather, I was trying to
demonstrate that it is more difficult for
legislators and code writers to balance
safety with flexibility in existing buildings
when developing prescriptive requirements. Indeed, Mr. Hawthorne’s clarification of the sprinkler requirements for
assembly occupancies in Rhode Island
demonstrates how difficult this can be.
Also, Mr. Hawthorne’s concerns about
regulation of performance-based designs
are valid. Fortunately, there are a number
of resources available to help. In addition
to the commentary that can be found
within performance-based codes, the
SFPE Engineering Guide to PerformanceBased Design and Analysis of Buildings,
the SFPE “Guidelines for Peer Review in
the Fire Protection Design Process” and
the forthcoming SFPE Enforcer’s Guide to
Performance-Based Design Review are or
will be invaluable resources for designers
and enforcement officials alike.
Morgan J. Hurley, P.E.
Technical Director
Society of Fire Protection Engineers
REFERENCES
1. Rhode Island Fire Safety Code. Lexis
Publishing, Charlottesville, VA. 2003.
2. NFPA 1, Fire Prevention Code. National
Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA.
1997.
3. NFPA 1, Uniform Fire Code. National Fire
Protection Association, Quincy, MA. 2003.
www.sfpe.org
4
viewpoint
Book Review
Thomas F. Barry, P.E.
Risk-Informed, Performance-Based
Industrial Fire Protection
Tennessee Valley Publishing (USA), 2002
R
isk-Informed, Performance-Based
Industrial Fire Protection presents
a systematic approach to establish
risk-informed or performance-based fire
protection solutions for industrial facilities. If followed, the comprehensive
approach will result in successful riskinformed or performance-based engineering solutions. Four basic processes
are identified; Appraisal, Analysis,
Performance, and Assessment. These
processes are comprised of one or more
engineering steps that are presented in
eight working chapters. Each chapter is
provided with a description of how the
information presented within the specific
chapter fits into the analysis and decision-making process. Thus, the book
can take the reader from formulation of
the problem to the selection of engineering alternatives.
The Appraisal process begins with the
establishment of Program Objectives as
described in Chapter 1, and the formation
of Risk Tolerance Criteria as described in
Chapter 2. In addition to explaining how a
project should establish the program objectives, Chapter 1 provides a summary of
the overall engineering approach. Chapter
2 explains how to establish a quantitative
basis to support the engineering approach
and introduces how to compare risk
results with the risk tolerance criteria.
There are three steps in the Analysis
process, Loss Scenario Development
(Chapter 3), Initiating Event Likelihood
(Chapter 4), and Exposure Profile Modeling (Chapter 5). Chapter 3 describes the
process to be used to establish the loss
scenarios to be modeled. These scenarios
describe a sequence of events from the
initial fire source, the pathway to a specific
target, and how the target responds to fire
conditions. Chapter 4 suggests methods to
S UMMER 2003
quantify the likelihood of an initial fire
source. Several techniques are suggested.
These include occupancy-based incipient
fire frequencies using historical data and
equipment-failure-based ignition estimates
developed using fault trees. These chapters
are fairly comprehensive and provide most
readers all of the background necessary to
complete the first four stages of the engineering process.
Chapter 5 provides a basic overview of
modeling techniques to judge fire and
explosion severity and how to judge the
response of specific targets (people, equipment, structure, environment, etc.) to these
demands. The chapter provides good introductory material for engineers just beginning to be involved in fire modeling and is
a good refresher for experienced engineers
on the multiple facets that must be considered in modeling. Although the text provides a wealth of target damage threshold
data, most readers will find it necessary to
refer to other texts to complete the modeling effort.
The Performance process consists of the
evaluation of Fire Protection System
Performance Success Probability, which is
presented in Chapter 6. The chapter introduces the concept of three fire protection
reliability parameters, System Availability (Is
the system online?), Functional Reliability
(Will the system execute its function on
demand?), and Mission Time Reliability
(Will the system continue to function over
the required demand time?). The chapter
provides performance data for sprinkler
systems, water spray systems, water distribution systems, detection systems, fire barriers, and manual intervention. Evaluation
techniques are provided to account for
variations in inspection, testing, and maintenance programs.
The Assessment process consists of two
steps: Risk Estimate and Comparison
(Chapter 7) and Cost/Benefit Analysis of
Risk Reduction Alternatives (Chapter 8).
Chapter 7 presents a very good explanation of how to blend deterministic modeling results with event tree analysis techniques. All fire risk practitioners would
benefit from a review of this chapter. The
chapter also provides a good discussion of
how event trees may be coupled with
Monte Carlo simulations using commercially available spreadsheet software to
judge the uncertainty in a risk estimate.
Chapter 8 provides methods to judge
the effectiveness of different fire protection
strategies, including ignition source controls, failure prevention, and alternative
fire protection methods. Techniques to
present the results in terms that risk
managers and business clients can best
understand are provided.
The book closes with a final chapter
titled Moving Forward. In this chapter, the
author summarizes how the fire protection engineering approaches have evolved
and the promise of risk-informed, performance-based assessments. It then introduces the Fire Risk Forum, which is an
online Internet resource to provide a
continuing education platform and information tool on risk-informed, performance-based fire safety.
Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Industrial Fire Protection integrates concepts
from a variety of sources, providing a novice fire-risk practitioner with a workable
approach to identify successful fire-risk solutions. Experienced fire-risk professionals
who set the text on a shelf and consider it
a handbook will miss the wealth of useful
fire-risk data that is dispersed throughout
the chapters along with the insightful references and links to additional information.
While it is doubtful that seasoned fire-risk
professionals will adopt the complete systematic approach, they would be well
served to read Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Industrial Fire Protection. It
contains several unique tools and presentation techniques that can be used to
translate risk analysis results into a form
usable by decision-makers.
D. Allan Coutts, Ph.D., P.E.
Resident Engineer
Westinghouse Safety Management Solutions
www.sfpe.org
5
flashpoints
fire protection industry news
This Web site was recently developed by the Fire Research Division of the ODPM
(Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of an inter-departmental government
committee on fire research. It provides a single point of access to fire research sponsored by UK government over recent years. The Web site contains details of over 500
fire research projects and is fully searchable. Information has been obtained on projects
sponsored by the following government departments or bodies:
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister – Fire Research Division (formerly part of the
Home Office) Office of the Deputy Prime Minister - Building Regulations Division (formerly part of the DETR) Health and Safety Executive Engineering and Physical Science
Research Council Department of Trade and Industry – Consumer and Competition
Directorate The Web site may be accessed at the following address:
http://www.ecommunities.odpm.gov.uk/fireresearch/
Contact details where queries may be addressed are given on the Web site.
The UK Government Fire
Research Web Site
ASHRAE Publishes Free
"Risk Management
Guidelines..."
The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers
(ASHRAE) has published "Risk Management Guidelines for Health, Safety, and Environmental Security under Extraordinary Incidents." The report describes a new risk management strategy for building owners to use in determining their level of risk in regard
to extraordinary incidents. It addresses health, comfort, and environmental security
issues involving air, water, and food technologies that are within the scope of ASHRAE.
There currently are some 4.7 million existing buildings in the U.S. that are covered in
the scope of this report. The report provides methods for risk management strategy,
information on infrastructure support, and guidance for owners and designers. It is
available for free at www.ashrae.org.
Rhode Island Station
Nightclub Fire Findings
The SFPE Corporate 100 Program was founded in 1976 to
strengthen the relationship between industry and the fire
protection engineering community. Membership in the
program recognizes those who support the objectives of
SFPE and have a genuine concern for the safety of life and
property from fire.
BENEFACTORS
Rolf Jensen & Associates, Inc.
Specified Technologies, Inc.
PATRONS
Ansul Inc.
Code Consultants, Inc.
Edwards Systems Technology
Gage-Babcock & Associates, Inc.
Hughes Associates, Inc.
National Fire Protection Association
The Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Company
6
Fire Protection Engineering
The Rhode Island Special Legislative Commission to Study All Aspects of Law and
Regulation Concerning Pyrotechnic Displays and Fire Safety has released their full
findings and details on the Station nightclub fire that took place in February 2003. The
report can be found at www.rilin.state.ri.us/FireFinalReport.pdf.
Schirmer Engineering Corporation
SimplexGrinnell
Tyco Fire and Building Products, Inc.
MEMBERS
Altronix Corporation
Arup Fire
Automatic Fire Alarm Association
BFPE International
Cybor Fire Protection Company
FM Global Corporation
GE Global Asset Protection Services
Harrington Group, Inc.
HSB Professional Loss Control
James W. Nolan Company (Emeritus)
Koffel Associates, Inc.
Marsh Risk Consulting
National Electrical Manufacturers Association
National Fire Sprinkler Association
Nuclear Energy Institute
The Protectowire Co., Inc.
Reliable Fire Equipment Company
Risk Technologies LLC
TVA Fire and Lifesafety, Inc.
Tyco Services, Pty
Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.
Wheelock, Inc.
Williams Fire and Hazard Control, Inc.
W.R. Grace Company
SMALL BUSINESS MEMBERS
Bourgeois & Associates, Inc.
Davidson and Associates
Demers Associates, Inc.
Fire Consulting Associates, Inc.
Fire Suppression Systems Association
Futrell Fire Design and Consult, Inc.
Gagnon Engineering, Inc.
Grainger Consulting, Inc.
J.M. Cholin Consultants, Inc.
Poole Fire Protection Engineering, Inc.
Risk Logic, Inc.
S.S. Dannaway & Associates, Inc.
The Code Consortium, Inc.
Van Rickley & Associates
N UMBER 19
A Roundtable Discussion
Regarding the
International Practice
of Fire Protection
Engineering
By William E. Koffel, P.E., FSFPE
T
he Society of Fire Protection
Engineers (SFPE) is an international organization representing
those practicing fire protection engineering or fire safety engineering.
Today, over 20 percent of the Society’s
membership consists of individuals
outside the United States, and the
Society now has eleven chapters outside the United States with several
new international chapters in various
stages of formation. The current
Strategic Plan for the Society1 contains
the following goal within a program
area referred to as Global
Development.
7
Fire Protection Engineering
Advance the practice and promote the
recognition of fire protection engineering worldwide.
Recognizing that the Society is truly
an international organization, the current
draft of a revised strategic plan eliminates the program area of Global Development and incorporates the aspects
contained in the above goal statement
throughout all program areas.
To better understand the practice and
needs of fire protection engineers worldwide, the Society convened a roundtable
of fire protection engineers. The participants were asked to represent the viewpoints and considerations of fire protection engineers within their respective
region of the world. The roundtable par-
ticipants were as follows (see sidebar for
additional information regarding each
individual):
• William E. Koffel, P.E., FSFPE,
President of SFPE –
Roundtable Facilitator
• Staffan Bengston – Sweden
• Prof. W. K. Chow – Hong Kong
• Paul England, CPEng, MIEAust. –
Australia
• Anthony Ferguson – United Kingdom
• David Frable, P.E. – United States
• R. P. Gillespie, Reg. Eng. –
New Zealand
• Kenneth Richardson, P.Eng., FSFPE
– Canada
• Simone Sacco, P.E. – Italy
• Shigeo Uehara – Japan
N UMBER 19
Roundtable Participants
William E. Koffel, P.E., FSFPE – Mr. Koffel is President of Koffel
Associates, Inc., a fire protection engineering and code consulting
firm. Mr. Koffel is also the current president of the Society of Fire
Protection Engineers and facilitated the roundtable discussion. Mr.
Koffel can be contacted at wkoffel@koffel.com.
Staffan Bengston, MSc, Structural Engineering
(Sweden) – Mr. Bengston is one of the main owners of
Brandskyddslaget AB. He has done extensive fire safety engineering
for a variety of structures and more recently has been interested in
designs for disabled individuals. He is a Past President of the SFPE
Swedish Chapter. Mr. Bengston can be contacted at
staffan.bengston@brandskyddslaget.se.
Professor W. K. Chow (Hong Kong) – Professor Chow is
the Chair Professor of Architectural Science and Fire
Engineering at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Professor
Chow is the Founding President of the SFPE Hong Kong Chapter.
Professor Chow can be contacted at bewkchow@polyu.edu.hk.
Paul England, CPEng, MIEAust. (Austalia) – Mr. England
is the Managing Director of Warrington Fire Research Aust.
Pty. Ltd. He is currently the National President of the Engineers
Australia Society of Fire Safety and Chairman of the Standards
Australia Committee responsible for fire safety engineering and fire
testing. Mr. England can be contacted at paul.england@wfra.com.au.
David Frable, (United States) – Mr. Frable is the Senior
Fire Protection Engineer, Fire Protection Engineering &
Life Safety Program, U.S. General Service Administration (GSA). He
is responsible for GSA’s national fire protection engineering and life
safety program and represents the GSA on various technical committees responsible for developing codes and standards in the
United States. Mr. Fable can be contacted at dave.fable@gsa.gov.
To begin, the roundtable discussed the
practice of fire protection engineering, or
fire safety engineering, in the various
parts of the world represented by the
roundtable participants. The roundtable
participants then discussed the qualifications and background credentials for individuals providing fire protection engineering services. The roundtable also
explored the participant’s experiences
with performance-based codes and any
other issues or concerns confronting fire
protection engineers. The following is a
summary of the roundtable discussion.
Koffel: What types of services do
fire protection engineers typically provide?
S UMMER 2003
Anthony Ferguson (United Kingdom) – Mr. Ferguson is a
fire safety engineer and architect with Arup Fire. He is a
registered architect with an Honours degree from the University of
Edinburgh and an MSc in Fire Safety Engineering also from
Edinburgh. He also chairs the BSI Committee on Fire Safety
Engineering. Mr. Ferguson can be contacted at
Anthony.Ferguson@arup.com.
Richard Gillespie, Reg. Eng. (New Zealand) – Mr.
Gillespie is a Director at Fire Engineering Solutions
Limited. Mr. Gillespie can be contacted at rpgillespie@skm.co.nz.
J. Kenneth Richardson, P.Eng., FSPFE (Canada) – Mr.
Richardson is President of Ken Richardson Fire
Technologies, Inc., a fire safety engineering consulting company.
Previously, he was the Director of Fire Risk Management Program at
the Institute for Research in Construction of the National Research
Council of Canada. He was the Founding President of the SFPE
National Capital Region Chapter and a Past President of the SFPE.
Mr. Richardson can be contacted at Ken.Richardson@krfiretech.com.
Simone Sacco, P. E. (Italy) – Mr. Sacco is President of
Marsh Risk Consulting Services S.r.l. He has also been a
Lecturer at the Insurance Engineer Master program at the
Polytechnic of Milan. He was a founder of the SFPE Italy Chapter and
is the current Chairman of the Chapter. Mr. Sacco can be contacted
at simonetto.sacco@marsh.com.
Shigeo Uehara (Japan) – Mr. Uehara is the Chief Researcher
at the R & D Institute, Takenaka Corporation. Mr. Uehara’s
specialty is in building fire protection planning and safety design,
and he won the Prize of the Japan Association for Fire Science and
Engineering in 2001. He is a Director of the SFPE Japan Chapter. Mr.
Uehara can be contacted at uehara.shigeo@takenaka.co.jp.
Frable: In the United States, fire protection engineers are involved in designing fire protection systems, performing
risk assessments and hazard analyses,
participating in performance-based designs, and providing construction period
services. Fire protection engineers are
also involved in the review of fire protection systems, witness of acceptance
tests of fire protection systems, thirdparty reviews of fire protection designs,
and serve in a code-enforcement capacity. In addition, fire protection engineers
provide occupant emergency plan training, code interpretations, post-fire-related investigations and analyses, fire
modeling, and participate in code-development activities.
England: The broad range of services
identified by Dave are differentiated in
Australia between services provided by
fire protection engineers and fire safety
engineers. Typically, fire safety engineers derive and justify the fire safety
strategy for a building or facility. Typically, this involves a life safety analysis
to demonstrate compliance with the
Building Code of Australia to the satisfaction of the Authority Having Jurisdiction. However, other factors such as
business continuity and property protection may also be considered. The strategy is usually defined by calling up design, installation, and test standards for
fire protection measures.
The term fire protection engineer is
www.sfpe.org
8
■ A Roundtable Discussion
normally used to describe engineers that
undertake the design and documentation
of active fire protection systems in accordance with appropriate standards. These
practitioners are commonly services/mechanical engineers specializing in active
fire protection systems. Passive systems,
such as fire-resistant elements of construction, are normally specified by structural engineers and architects.
services that have already been identified. However, I want to add firerelated research to the list that has been
identified by the other participants.
Ferguson: The term “fire protection
engineer” is also not a common title in
the United Kingdom. To the extent that
the term is used, it generally refers to
those who apply services system design
such as sprinkler, detection, and alarm
systems. Like Paul, my responses will
be based upon the practice of fire safety
engineering that involves those who
provide strategic advice on fire safety.
Fire safety engineers assist the design
team in meeting the life safety requirements of legislation and may also provide advice on business and property
protection against fire. The term “life
safety” includes the following design
considerations:
• Means of escape,
• Internal fire spread including reaction of fire properties of wall and
ceiling linings,
• Structural fire resistance,
• Compartmentation and fire spread
via cavities and internal openings,
• External fire spread between buildings and over the exterior surface of
buildings,
• Broad performance requirements for
fire protection systems needed to
support the options, and
• Access and facilities for the fire service.
Uehara: In Japan, the architect who
manages the design process of construction typically retains the fire prevention
engineer.
Chow: Fire engineers in Hong Kong
also provide consulting regarding structural fire resistance, fire protection system design, life safety analysis, and
smoke control design including the
preparation of fire strategic reports and
negotiations with the authorities.
Sacco: In addition to what has been
previously identified, fire protection engineers in Italy also conduct loss control
activities and audits for the insurance industry.
Richardson: While fire protection engineers mostly provide code-consulting
services in Canada, they also provide the
9
Fire Protection Engineering
Koffel: With this broad range of
services, who typically retains
the services of fire protection engineers for projects involving
new buildings?
Bengston: In addition to the architect,
in Sweden, the ventilation consultants
also retain our services. There are times
when we are retained by the owner or
construction contractor.
Frable: I would also like to add government agencies who may be the
owner of the facility and government
agencies who retain fire protection engineers to assist in the review and approval of fire protection designs.
Gillespie: All of the previously mentioned parties plus design and build contractors. In New Zealand, only the Territorial Authority and the building owner can
negotiate a building consent, but it is common for both to delegate that authority.
Ferguson: In the United Kingdom, I
find that it is the developer, owner, or
architect.
Koffel: What is the primary reason that fire protection or fire
safety engineers are involved in
the design of new buildings?
Richardson: Code-compliance issues.
Uehara: The fire protection engineer’s
special knowledge is needed in performing the fire protection design of
new buildings.
Gillespie: Primarily to provide professional guidance on how to best meet the
New Zealand Building Code objectives
related to means of escape (C2), spread
of fire (C3), and structural stability during fire (C4).
Sacco: The fire department authoriza-
tion process especially for cases not regulated by existing standards that would
require performance-based solutions.
Chow: Code compliance and when
there are difficulties in following the
prescriptive requirements, in particular
for innovative architectural designs.
England: In addition to what has been
stated by others, fire safety engineers are
retained for overall cost savings and design freedom.
Ferguson: To minimize the approval
risk to the project, especially where an
alternative to a code-compliant solution
is desired.
Frable: Fire protection engineers can
ensure a reasonable degree of occupant
safety, property protection, and mission
continuity from fire and its related hazards is provided by providing sound,
cost-effective fire protection systems and
detection systems that are effective in
detecting and extinguishing or controlling a fire event.
Bengston: To create good fire protection for people and sometimes to diminish damage from fire.
Koffel: Several have mentioned
third-party plan reviews and inspections as a service provided
by fire protection (safety) engineers. Are there any problems or
concerns with providing such
services?
Frable: The biggest problem involves
the scope of work within the fire protection engineer’s contract. Too many
times, there may be differences of opinion regarding what the client believes
they are going to receive and what the
fire protection engineer believes they
are to provide.
Ferguson: Third-party services are
quite common when a client requires a
due-diligence survey of a property for
potential investment. Other than differences of professional opinion, there are
no great problems in the United Kingdom with third-party services.
England: In most states and territories
in Australia, the role of the Authority
N UMBER 19
■ A Roundtable Discussion
Having Jurisdiction has been privatized. There are some concerns in the
industry about the independence of
the certifiers from the design process
and self-certification without independent review.
Chow: Fire strategy reports in Hong
Kong are assessed by the authorities
themselves, not by a third party.
Uehara: When based on a performance design, there is an evaluation and
approval by a committee of a designated
performance-evaluation organization that
consists of individuals of learning and
experience.
Richardson: Vancouver, British
Columbia, Canada, has a “Certified Professional” program that requires code
knowledge but not necessarily a fire
protection engineer. There have been
no significant problems with the program; however, the issue of liability in-
10
Fire Protection Engineering
surance for the practitioners is significant and unresolved in a similar program being developed in Ontario.
gineers in Canada have an engineering
degree in a discipline other than fire
protection.
Koffel: With the variety of services provided, what is the educational background of fire protection (safety) engineers in your
area?
Frable: Fire protection engineers usually have either a bachelor’s degree or
master’s degree in fire protection engineering or are a Professional Engineer
with specialized experience in fire protection engineering.
England: Most fire safety engineers in
Australia have a degree in an engineering or science discipline supported by
postgraduate qualifications in fire safety
engineering.
Sacco: In Italy, the services are provided by individuals with an engineering
degree in various disciplines.
Gillespie: Most hold a bachelor’s degree in engineering and some will hold
a master’s degree in fire engineering.
Ferguson: In the United Kingdom,
there is a new generation of engineers
that have first degrees in fire safety engineering. However, older practitioners
are likely to have had a first degree in a
related discipline of engineering, science, or architecture with a Ph.D. or
MSc in a fire-safety field.
Bengston: Normally fire engineers
from Lund’s University of Technology
but we also have civil engineers with
different specialties.
Richardson: Most fire protection en-
N UMBER 19
■ A Roundtable Discussion
Koffel: Do you have a licensing
requirement for fire protection
engineers? If not, how are individuals qualified to practice fire
protection engineering?
Bengston: No, not for the moment,
but something is planned. Sweden is so
small that everybody knows almost
everybody and their skills.
Sacco: In Italy, one needs to be a professional engineer only for the fire department authorization activity. Such individuals are included in a Ministry of Interiors
(fire department organization) list.
Gillespie: Currently, the engineering
registration system in New Zealand is
being changed, and it is not clear what
restrictions, if any, will be placed on
unregistered individuals offering fire
safety engineering services. Using registered engineers in any discipline has al-
11
Fire Protection Engineering
ways been voluntary in New Zealand,
and it will most likely remain so after
the current changes are implemented.
Uehara: There is no need for a license. The fire protection engineer’s
qualifications are judged according to
the actual work product.
Frable: The General Services Administration does not mandate licensing for
fire protection engineers. However,
there is a professional engineer licensing
requirement imposed by the various
states and jurisdictions within the United
States, and many offer a specialty exam
in fire protection engineering.
Ferguson: We do not have a licensing
requirement for fire safety engineers, and
it is currently uncontrolled. However, the
professional body of the Institution of
Fire Engineers (IFE) has a rigorous
process of examination, interview, dis-
sertation, etc., to the requirements of the
Engineering Council of the United Kingdom for screening candidates for Chartered status.
England: Some states and territories
have licensing requirements for fire
safety engineers that recognize the Engineers Australia National Professional Engineers Register (NPER). Where there
are no licensing requirements, NPER
Fire Safety Engineers are generally recognized as having the appropriate competencies.
Chow: There is not yet a licensing requirement in Hong Kong. Projects are
typically awarded to consulting companies that have a reputation for providing
fire protection engineering studies or to
individual engineers with experience
and achievements within the fire engineering community such as publications.
N UMBER 19
■ A Roundtable Discussion
Koffel: The SFPE Board has been
approached in the past about developing a certification program
for fire protection (safety) engineers. If one were developed,
what is the likelihood that it
would be used in your area?
Uehara: If the certification program of
SFPE is accepted as a fire protection engineer’s qualification in Japan, it would
be greatly used.
Gillespie: It depends on how practical
the program was in terms of non-U.S.
legislation and codes.
Richardson: It depends on the longterm acceptance of performance-based
codes and regulatory actions to respond
to professional competency initiatives. A
certification program could provide a basis for provinces to establish their requirements or could even be accepted as
a “Deemed-To-Comply” means of
demonstrating competence.
Frable: A certification program for fire
protection engineers would have more
minuses than plusses. Depending on
how such a certification program would
be developed and enforced would impact its usage. However, SFPE should
consider the words that a wise elder fire
protection engineer once told me – that
is, “Being certified does not necessarily
mean that you are qualified.”
Ferguson: There would obviously be
a question of competence for the IFE.
Chartered status is the goal of engineers
in the United Kingdom, and having
achieved that, they would expect certification (if required by statute) to be pretty
much a formality.
England: Use of an SFPE certification
program would probably be relatively
low because of existing programs in
Australia operated by Engineers Australia. However, if the SFPE certification
scheme was accepted in the United
States, the Engineers Australia Society of
Fire Safety would be interested in pursuing mutual recognition arrangements.
Engineers Australia currently has mutual
recognition agreements with a number
of countries.
12
Fire Protection Engineering
Chow: The program would first require agreement from the government
and engineering professional organizations. We have a registration board in
the government authority where registered fire safety engineers may be a potential new category under a government registration scheme.
Sacco: Use of an SFPE certification
program in Italy would be scarce.
Bengston: We have already tried this
within the Swedish Branch of the SFPE.
Interest has not been big since the authorities don’t require certification.
Koffel: Who is the primary
employer of fire protection engineers in your area?
Gillespie: Small independent consultancy practices would account for over
half of the fire protection engineers in
New Zealand.
Uehara: General contractors, major
building design firms, fire protection
consultant companies, and fire protection equipment companies.
Frable: Fire protection engineering
firms and the federal government.
Ferguson: Fire safety engineering
consultancies.
Chow: Consultancy firms, contractors,
and public utilities such as railways and
airports.
England: Specialist fire safety consultants and multidisciplinary engineering
consultants.
Sacco: Self-employment and the insurance industry.
Richardson: Federal government and
consultants.
Koffel: Do you have a performance code? If so, for how long?
Also, generally, what has been
your experience (successes and
failures) with performance
codes?
Ferguson: In the United Kingdom,
building regulations, with some regional
differences, are based on functional
rather than performance requirements.
The statements of objectives are not expressed in quantitative terms but give a
system with considerable flexibility and
freedom for innovation. The English and
Wales systems began 17 years ago. One
of the big effects has been to raise the
level of professional qualification in the
approving bodies and bringing about a
change of attitude in accepting that
code-compliance is not the only way.
Bengston: Yes, for about 10 years.
Generally, it has been a success although the fire protection goals are
missing. For example, how many fire
deaths are acceptable?
Frable: The General Services Administration (GSA) does not have a socalled “performance code.” However,
over the years, GSA has encouraged
design teams to use innovative riskbased designs to solve complex fire
safety problems in lieu of only relying
on prescriptive code requirements due
to the wide range of buildings (new
construction and existing buildings as
well as historic buildings) within our
inventory.
Problems associated with the use of
performance-based codes in our projects appear to be related to both
schedule conflicts as well as increased
design costs. For example, performance-based designs may take longer
to prepare and to receive approval
compared to a design strictly adhering
to prescriptive code requirements. Normally, project managers have not anticipated the additional design time associated with a performance-based
design nor have they incorporated this
additional time into the project schedule timeline. All too often, the project
continues without the performance design being completed or approved, and
the project team must revert to the prescriptive code requirements to maintain
the project schedule. In addition, due
to the increased design time for performance-based designs, most project
managers do not anticipate the additional design costs necessary to complete a performance-based design.
N UMBER 19
■ A Roundtable Discussion
Koffel: It should be noted that the
two model code development organizations in the United States, the International Code Council and the National
Fire Protection Association, have produced performance-based codes as an
alternative approach to their prescriptive codes. With the exception of the
performance option in the 2000 Edition
of the Life Safety Code®,2 the performance-based building codes were introduced in the United States in 2002,
so there has been minimal experience
with those codes to date. Furthermore,
in contrast to many of the countries
represented in this roundtable discussion, codes are developed in the United
States by private entities. They have no
legal affect until a jurisdiction adopts
the document by a legislative or regulatory process. Therefore, the fact that
performance-based code recently became available does not infer that the
code has been adopted as a regulation.
Chow: Hong Kong does not yet have
a performance code, but the fire safety
engineering approach has been accepted since 1998. Over 80 projects
have been designed using this approach,
but it is difficult to measure successes
and failures. Awareness of the fire safety
engineering approach is increasing.
England: Alternative approaches have
been accepted for over 50 years in Australia, and since 1996, a formal performance code has existed. Overall, the introduction of a performance-based code
has been successful. After six years of
experience, a number of areas for improvement have been identified, such as
quantification of performance requirements and the standardization of administrative procedures and design methods. These are being examined as part
of the development of the next generation of a performance code by the Australian Building Codes Board together
with the ongoing development of the
Fire Safety Engineering Guidelines. The
Engineers Australia Society of Fire Safety
has also developed a Code of Practice to
address a number of critical issues in relation to performance-based fire engineering design.
Uehara: Japan has had a performance
S UMMER 2003
code since June 2000. Prior to the performance code, Japan had a system of performance design approvals by the Minister of Construction. Approximately 1,000
or more projects were designed using
this approach over a period of 15 years.
major impact on the practice of fire safety
engineering by facilitating efficient acceptance of alternate building solutions. Fire
protection engineering, those who primarily design fire protection systems, has
not been significantly affected.
Richardson: Canada does not yet
have a performance code, but an expert
objective-based code should be completed by 2005. Therefore, our experience is limited to developing equivalencies to prescriptive codes and
developing the performance expectations of prescriptive codes.
Uehara: Practical use of a performance
design progressed, and more rational designs were attained in the design of refuge areas, design of smoke control systems, and fire-resistance design.
Gillespie: New Zealand has had a
performance code since 1991. During
that time period, performance-based fire
engineering has demonstrated that the
previous prescriptive codes were, in
part, too conservative and, in part, not
conservative enough. With respect to
successes, performance codes have provided the ability to use lateral thinking
and engineering to achieve acceptable
levels of fire safety at a reasonable cost
and in harmony with architectural concepts that would previously not have
been possible. We have also realized
that smoke control, not fire separation, is
at the heart of fire safety design.
Regarding failures, the maintenance
and inspection regime has often failed
due to lack of commercial independence. This aspect is currently being reviewed by the New Zealand government
and seems likely to be changed. There
has also been a lack of consensus and
validation of which fire engineering
methodologies should be used, often resulting in the use of models well outside
the scope of their validation.
Koffel: How have performancebased codes affected the practice of fire protection (safety) engineering in your area?
Gillespie: Performance codes have
moved the profession from considering
how best to work around the prescriptive fire protection requirements towards
a better understanding and responsibility
towards fire safety.
England: The performance-based
Building Code of Australia has had a
Ferguson: Performance codes have
enabled a great expansion in the number of projects on which fire safety engineers are employed. Margaret Law was
one of the earliest practitioners in the
United Kingdom, and as a result of her
work, there were some notable successes such as the Royal Exchange Theater in Manchester and the water-cooled
structure of the Cannon St. Office in
London. But it was only after the functional regulations appeared that our fire
safety engineering group was established as a separate entity.
Bengston: Performance codes have resulted in far more calculations and more
open buildings.
Koffel: Do you see the need for
SFPE to develop standards addressing the practice of fire safety
engineering?
Ferguson: No. We have the BS7974
that provides a framework for fire safety
engineering. There are the ISO Technical
Reports and the Australian Code Reform
Centre’s work. Despite chairing the BS activity for nearly 10 years, or perhaps because of it, I do not see a great practical
value in these documents. That may
change as fire safety engineering becomes
more routine, but at present, they can
only usefully talk about principles, and
there is an odor of apple pie about them.
Chow: Yes, and some in Hong Kong
are already thinking about it.
Richardson: Yes, whether or not performance codes materialize. Standards
provide a benchmark against which professional competence and engineering
performance can be measured.
www.sfpe.org
13
■ A Roundtable Discussion
Uehara: I agree; it is a necessity that standards be developed.
Gillespie: Developing better and more uniform engineering
methods and quality.
Sacco: Standards would certainly be useful.
England: There is a need for standards addressing the practice
of fire safety and fire protection engineering to be developed. Ideally, these activities should be coordinated with other bodies to
maximize the efficient use of resources. The Society of Fire Safety
is willing to work with the SFPE and other organizations to develop guides and standards to facilitate the development of the
discipline of fire safety engineering.
Gillespie: Yes, a huge raft of methodologies need to be developed to a point of consensus within our branch of engineering.
Koffel: We have discussed quite a bit regarding the
practice of fire protection engineering or fire safety
engineering throughout the world. What is the primary issue confronting fire protection (safety) engineers in your area?
Bengston: To know the goal in fire protection, how to model
a fire in its early stage, and to find design values for the number
of people per square meter.
Sacco: Lack of a fire engineering culture and competition from
low-level technicians.
Uehara: The lack of a qualification authorization system for fire protection engineers.
England: It is hard to focus on just one issue. Defining acceptable levels of safety for the community where these are not
clearly defined in design codes is probably the most important. It
can have a major impact on community safety and risk exposure
of practitioners.
Richardson: The overabundance of unqualified individuals
purporting to practice fire protection engineering coupled with a
lack of recognition for what fire protection engineers can really
do.
Chow: The cost is too high for fire safety provisions when there is
no accident.
Frable: The primary issue confronting fire protection engineers
in the United States, if not the world, is how the discipline of fire
protection engineering can be integrated seamlessly into any design process to ensure a successful project. All too often, fire protection engineering is still being thought of as just a “cost override” or “afterthought” and not a fundamental necessity or
concept that needs to be incorporated into every project. Fire
protection engineers are often not seen as a vital necessity resource in the majority of projects in the United States.
Fire protection engineering impacts in some way or another all
aspects of any project design, be it the ventilation system design
or security. The view of fire protection engineering though the
eyes of many designers has been shortsighted for many years and
must be expanded. Another issue that needs to be looked into is
the fire protection engineer’s inability to assure that the quality design is maintained throughout the useful life of a building.
Koffel: I want to thank all of you for participating in this international roundtable discussion. While there are some differences affecting the global practice of fire protection or fire safety engineering, your responses have indicated that there are more similarities
than differences. For those of you who have more experience with
performance codes than others, there is a lot that we can learn
from your experiences. Dave Frable’s response to the last question
provides an excellent summary of the issues and concerns facing
fire protection (safety) engineers, and many of the items he raised
appear throughout your responses in this discussion. ▲
William E. Koffel, P.E., FSFPE, is President, Society of Fire Protection Engineers.
REFERENCES
1 Society of Fire Protection Engineers Strategic Plan, Approved
October 28, 1999.
2 Life Safety Code®, NFPA 101®, Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection
Association, 2000.
14
Fire Protection Engineering
N UMBER 19
Fire Protection
Engineering
Opportunities in
Developing
Countries
By Jean-Michel Attlan
D
eveloping countries are wide open
markets that offer huge opportunities
to qualified fire protection engineers.
These markets do, however, present a number
of challenges, including a weak regulatory
framework, underdeveloped physical and
human infrastructures, and a limited access to
skilled labor. Examining how fire protection
engineering is practiced in developing countries offers useful insight into a number of
S UMMER 2003
issues that are relevant to practitioners in the
developed world. These include a better understanding of our own codes and standards, a
better understanding of financial constraints in
this engineering field, an opportunity to get
back to basics, an opportunity to promote performance-based methodologies, and, last but
not least, an opportunity to advance the science
and practice of fire protection engineering
worldwide.
www.sfpe.org
15
■ Opportunities in Developing Countries
DEVELOPING COUNTRIES – A
HUGE MARKET FOR FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEERING EXPERTISE
Public demand for fire safety is high
in every country, irrespective of its
level of development. Developing
countries offer a wide range of perspectives because of their high potential for development and because of the
low level of expertise available locally.
By and large, most of the fire safety engineering expertise is concentrated in
the developed world because poor
countries suffer from inadequate educational facilities. Basic and vital services such as preventive maintenance
programs and regular fire safety inspections are mostly implemented by subsidiaries of multinational corporations
in most of the developing world.
AN OPPORTUNITY TO BETTER
UNDERSTAND OUR OWN CODES
AND STANDARDS
For lack of strong regulatory frameworks and for historical reasons, developing countries mostly rely on older
versions of European and U.S. fire
codes. It is a refreshing experience to
read old fire codes. They are short,
concise, and to the point. They remind
us of the early days, when the “Life
Safety Code” was called the “Building
Exit Code.” What fires prompted our
regulators to make these old codes obsolete? What was the influence of lobbies (insurance companies, sprinkler
associations, fire brigades, etc.) in the
modification of the “old” codes? Did
code writers overreact under the pressure of public opinion in the aftermath
of the latest disastrous fire in the design
of new fire codes and standards?
Are buildings and infrastructures less
safe from fire in developing countries?
For lack of reliable data, we cannot
reach any definite conclusions.
FINANCIAL CONSTRAINTS IN FIRE
SAFETY
Poor countries have – by definition –
limited financial resources to meet required levels of public safety. In these
countries, multinational corporations
usually adopt a policy of following
their corporate standards, in addition to
16
Fire Protection Engineering
the requirements of the host country.
This often translates into “belts and
braces” and excessive fire safety budgets. In the field of safety, more is not
necessarily better, and multinational
corporations usually devote large budgets for fire safety installations, both
from an investment side and from a
maintenance and operational side. In
contrast, local corporations adopt a policy of strict compliance with local codes
at minimum costs. Neither approach is
fully satisfactory, and it is a challenge
for fire protection engineers to design
cost-effective solutions to fire safety
problems.
BACK TO BASICS
Developing countries suffer from obsolete codes and standards, and from
inadequate enforcement infrastructures.
These deficiencies provide an opportunity for flexibility to the fire protection
engineer, who can use his or her expertise to provide the required level of fire
risk at the lowest possible costs. Taking
an holistic approach to fire safety, the
qualified fire protection engineer will
find the best mix of software (human
element) and hardware (physical installations) to reach any required level of
safety at optimal costs. Low labor costs
in developing countries will favor more
frequent inspections, more reliance on
human response, better emergency
procedures, and more drills. High costs
of mechanical and electrical equipment
will favor better civil engineering, better compartmentation, and less reliance
on high-maintenance/low-reliability installations.
Automatic sprinkler installations must
be evaluated carefully, not only for insurance implications, but also from a
“pure” fire safety standpoint. Sprinkler
systems may not be as reliable in developing countries since water supply may
be a problem in dry regions, and in
tropical countries, stagnant water reserves may be a source of serious
health problems for the population.
These challenges provide an opportunity to work with Authorities Having
Jurisdiction in developing countries to
assist them in improving their own fire
codes and standards, to make them easier to understand, to implement, and to
enforce.
PERFORMANCE-BASED DESIGNS
AND METHODOLOGIES
The application of local codes and
standards to the design of modern buildings is often difficult and cumbersome.
Equivalencies were initially accepted on
specific provisions of the codes. More
recently, equivalencies on a broader
scale have started to become the norm.
In adopting a performance-based design, the fire protection engineer implicitly accepts a higher level of professional
responsibility and must demonstrate to
his or her client and peers, and to Authorities Having Jurisdiction, that proposed solutions will reduce the fire risk
to required levels. This is a heavy responsibility for the fire protection engineer, a responsibility that will reflect on
the entire fire protection engineering
community.
Performance-based methodologies
will become the way to translate codes
and standards from various countries
into a single accepted language. Interestingly enough, European countries
have tried, unsuccessfully, to draft a
common set of fire codes and standards
that would be acceptable throughout
Europe. Fire codes are too much a product of local cultures, local histories, local
organizations, and local politics. It is
now becoming obvious that each European country will keep its own fire
codes and standards, and will accept
performance-based equivalencies
throughout the whole of Europe.
Performance-based methodologies
will be accepted in Europe and in the
rest of the developed world, but there
will always be a temptation for Authorities Having Jurisdiction to adopt a defensive attitude, fall back on prescriptive
codes, and refuse valid, but unfamiliar,
designs. Developing countries, not yet
frozen by litigious environments, should
offer better opportunities for the fire
protection engineer to “leap-frog” technologically and propose innovative and
cost-effective solutions to fire safety
problems.
ADVANCING THE SCIENCE AND
PRACTICE OF FIRE PROTECTION
ENGINEERING INTERNATIONALLY
The Society of Fire Protection Engineers finds here an historic opportunity
N UMBER 19
■ Opportunities in Developing Countries
to become the liaison between all national and regional fire protection engineering societies that are struggling to
move forward in the direction of performance- based methodologies. From
New Zealand to South Africa, from the
U.S. to Europe and Japan, from every
corner of the world, countries are turning to fire protection engineering to
transcend prescriptive codes and standards.
tions of fire protection engineers. Research is also needed in the areas of
simulation of fire development and
smoke movement, risk modeling, and
risk evaluation. Once completed, results
must be disseminated and integrated
into tools that are used in widespread
practice.
INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION
Research is expensive and will require
a more coordinated approach between
national and international fire service
laboratories. The European Union is an
opportunity for various European fire
testing laboratories to engage in transnational testing and research programs,
and to initiate or strengthen ties with
other laboratories throughout the world.
The Society of Fire Protection Engineers has a unique role to play in this
process, as a catalyst for change, as a forum for exchange, and as the primary
source of fire protection engineering information.
THE NEXT STEPS...
During a U.S. congressional breakfast
meeting held on April 24, 2002, thenSFPE President Fred Mowrer reminded
his audience that “we (fire protection
engineers) are the people who design
fire protection systems in buildings to
mitigate fire hazards, reduce fire losses,
and protect people.”
Fire protection engineers must work
to better organize their profession in
order to deliver better fire protection
services in developing countries and
throughout the world. Education, fundamental and applied research, better
international cooperation, and wider use
of performance-based methodologies
hold the highest potential for future
benefits in this field.
EDUCATION
Advancing fire protection engineering starts with a wider access to fire
protection engineering education and a
better promotion of this discipline.
Only a handful of institutions offer
high-level education in fire protection
engineering throughout the world. Distance learning is now becoming widely
available in this field. All these facilities
should be vigorously promoted, and
specific courses should be tailored to
every country, to every situation.
Fire protection tools and toolkits
should also be made available throughout the world and adapted to all cultures and situations. Translations may
be sufficient in some instances, such as
videos or fire reports, but in most
cases, U.S.-made material will need to
be adapted to the specific needs of the
relevant country. NFPA International
has been instrumental in translating
some of their material into Spanish and
other languages, and in opening up of17
Fire Protection Engineering
fices in Latin America, in Southeast
Asia, and in Europe. The International
Code Council is also offering building
codes, textbooks, videos, and practice
courses. There is a high demand for basic engineering material throughout the
entire world.
And finally, guidelines are desperately needed by all fire protection engineers worldwide. In fire protection engineering, no two problems are alike,
and there is never a single solution to
any problem. Fire protection engineers
need to stay in permanent contact with
their peers in order to stay abreast of
new technologies and new discoveries
in the ever-changing field of fire protection engineering. Technical guidelines
are needed, but just as importantly, so
are organizational guidelines, methodological guidelines, and peer review
guidelines.
RESEARCH
In addition to the traditional research
in fire protection engineering and to the
usual fire testing of new materials, computer research and analysis of human
behavior in fire situations are drawing
considerable attention and offer wide research opportunities to the next genera-
PERFORMANCE-BASED
METHODOLOGIES
Performance-based methodologies
can be applied directly to developing
countries where there is no preconceived bias towards prescriptive codes
and standards. With the assistance of
SFPE, the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the private sector arm of
the World Bank Group, conducted a
thorough review of all existing Englishlanguage performance-based codes in
use internationally. In the same spirit,
IFC determined that all IFC-financed
projects needed to meet three specific
fire safety objectives: The first goal was
“fire prevention” and dealt with ways to
reduce the frequency of fires, mainly
through adequate employee training
and through the use of proper appliances and electrical equipment. The
second goal was related to “fire control”
through adequate design, construction,
protection, and alarm and evacuation
systems. The third goal was related to
“fire protection of adjoining properties
and the environment” through proper
layout and adequate safeguards. The
SFPE study facilitated the establishment
of specific performance criteria for all
identified objectives.
N UMBER 19
■ Opportunities in Developing Countries
A technical guideline was also issued
that prescribed the preparation of fire
safety master plans by qualified fire
protection professionals to review all
IFC-financed projects. Each fire safety
master plan must adequately address
each of the following elements: fire
prevention, means of egress, detection
and alarm systems, compartmentalization, fire suppression and control, operations and maintenance, and, finally,
emergency response planning.
New guidelines will be needed to
provide objective evaluation methods,
in order to ensure the fire risk is kept
within acceptable limits at all times and
to offer a methodological framework
(similar to ISO series 9000 and 14000)
in analyzing IFC-financed project risks.
ment budgets and operational budgets
– to meet or even exceed the level of
fire safety required by the strict application of their corporate codes and standards.
Performance-based methodologies
offer a unique opportunity for all fire
protection engineers to work together
towards a real transformation of their
profession, across borders, across national codes, across cultural differences,
and make the world a safer place. ▲
Jean-Michel Attlan is with the International Finance Corporation.
WHAT THE FUTURE
HOLDS
The trend towards performancebased codes and methodologies is
clear, but prescriptive mentalities are
very much embedded into our day-today activities. It will take decades for
codes and standards to evolve “naturally” towards performance-based
mindsets and methodologies.
Developing countries offer a unique
opportunity to the international fire
protection engineering community to
leap directly into performance-based
codes and standards. Authorities Having Jurisdiction in developing countries
are just as interested in public safety as
their counterparts in developed countries. They are dedicated, knowledgeable, and have the added advantage of
an open mind and fewer preconceived
ideas about new and more efficient
methodologies. The successful transfer
of efficient new technologies to developing countries should facilitate the
adoption of these very technologies to
developed countries.
Compliance with two different sets of
codes can be very expensive, without
providing significantly higher levels of
safety. When dealing with investments
in the developing world, corporate fire
safety engineers should work closely
with local Authorities Having Jurisdiction – not to impose their corporate
standards, but rather to improve on
these corporate standards and to optimize their fire safety budgets – invest-
S UMMER 2003
www.sfpe.org
18
Developments
By James Lord and
Chris Marrion, P.E., Arup Fire
INTRODUCTION
O
ver the last few
decades, the worldwide fire protection
community has made large
strides in advancing building
fire safety. Advances in technology, in our understanding
of fire dynamics, and the
development of design and
analysis tools have led to
changes in the way the fire
protection engineering profession approaches fire
safety. With these changes,
building and fire codes
around the world have begun
to change in an effort to
reflect and make use of this
new knowledge.1, 2
This article provides a brief
overview of the fire and life
safety codes and guidelines
that are used in some of the
countries around the globe,
including Australia, Hong
Kong, Japan, Sweden, England and Wales, Canada, and
the United States of America
(U.S.). To a varying degree,
prescriptive codes play a role
in all of these countries; some
rely almost completely on
prescriptive codes, while others have moved towards a
performance-based approach
to fire safety.
19
Fire Protection Engineering
AUSTRALIA
Australia is divided into six different
states and two territories, each of which
is governed by its own building control
system. In the first part of the 20th century, these states and territories had
adopted their own regulations as they
saw appropriate.3 During the 1960s, the
various state and territory governments,
the federal government, and other related organizations jointly formed the Interstate Standing Committee on Uniform
Building Regulations (ISCUBR), which
produced the first national model for
technical building regulations. This document was titled the Australian Model
Uniform Building Code (AMUBC) and
formed a basis for the development of
state and territory technical regulations
during the early 1970s. In the 1980s, the
Australian Uniform Building Regulations
N UMBER 19
in Codes
AROUND
THE
WORLD
Coordinating Council (AUBRCC) was
formed. This organization developed the
prescriptive Building Code of Australia
(BCA)4 in 1990, which was adopted nationwide in 1992.3
In 1994, the AUBRCC was dissolved,
and the Australian Building Codes Board
(ABCB) was formed to maintain the
BCA. In 1996, the Board published the
performance-based BCA, which has
now been adopted nationwide.
The Australian Fire Safety Engineering Guidelines5 was first published in
1996, with the aim of providing a framework, process, and guidance document
for the application of fire engineering
methods.
S UMMER 2003
Additionally, Australia has dedicated
standards-writing bodies, such as Standards Australia, that are private organizations similar in nature to NFPA. They are
responsible for the development of specific technical standards that may be incorporated within, or adopted by, building codes such as the BCA or relevant
legislation.
The performance-based BCA provides
prescriptive guidance while allowing a
performance-based approach to fire
safety. A building will be “deemed to satisfy” the performance requirements of the
BCA if it meets the prescriptive requirements of the BCA. Alternately, building
designers may choose to propose an al-
ternative solution to the authority in order to gain approval for a different
method of design or construction.
The local government has generally
been responsible for approving building
designs in Australia, although in recent
years there have been changes to legislation that enhance the role of approved
private practitioners in the building design and approval process.
UNITED KINGDOM
The first England/Wales building regulations to incorporate fire safety measures outside of metropolitan areas were
developed as model bylaws in the
1950s. Many local authorities adopted
these bylaws, although they were not
accepted throughout the UK. In 1965,
national building regulations were developed that were adopted throughout
the UK, with the exception of central
London, which abided by its own regulations.6 At that time the regulations
were purely prescriptive, similar to most
current model building codes in the
United States.
In 1985, the UK moved to a system of
building regulations based on functional
requirements. These are outlined in Part
B of Schedule 1 of the England and
Wales Building Regulations, and supported by a set of guidelines entitled
Approved Documents.7 Approved Document B provides guidance on fire safety
requirements. In addition to the Approved Documents, there are British
Standards that provide further guidelines for the design of various building
www.sfpe.org
20
■ Codes Around the World
components and systems. The British
Standards are meant as recommended
guidelines, as are the Approved Documents.
Authorities Having Jurisdiction in England and Wales generally recognize that
full compliance with the recommendations of the Approved Documents is not
always possible. Therefore, a fire engineering approach can be used to develop alternative ways of achieving
compliance with the intent of the requirements. Since the 1992 edition, the
Approved Documents have recognized
and allowed the use of an alternative
approach to fire safety design. The
British Standards documents (PD 7974-0
to 7) on fire safety engineering8 address
the technical issues associated with design through use of a fire engineering
approach.
The local government administers
building approvals. Alternately, approval
of building designs can be obtained
from private-sector “Approved Inspectors” if accepted by the local authority.
Approved Inspectors are evaluated by
the local authority to determine if they
are technically competent and must be
commercially independent of the
project.
HONG KONG
Hong Kong’s current system of fire related building ordinance and regulations
are based on a series of four prescriptive
Codes of Practice. These are:
1. Code of Practice for the Provision of
Means of Escape in Case of Fire,
Buildings Department, June 1996.
2. Code of Practice for Means of Access
for Firefighting and Rescue, Buildings Department, May 1995.
3. Code of Practice for Fire Resisting
Construction, Buildings Department, January 1996.
21
Fire Protection Engineering
4. Code of Practice for Minimum Fire
Service Installations and Equipment,
and Inspection, Testing and Maintenance of Installations and Equipment, Fire Services Department,
June 1998.
These codes were developed to a
large degree around UK standards and
codes during the time when Hong Kong
was under British administration. In
1995-96, these Codes of Practice officially permitted the principle of adopting fire safety design alternatives. These
documents were issued in the form of
Practice Note for Authorised Persons and
Registered Structural Engineers and
Practice Note for Registered Contractors
for the requirements administered by the
Buildings Department and in the form
of a “Circular Letter” for the requirements administered by the Fire Services
Department.
Equivalencies to these codes are possible through the use of a performancebased approach. Fire engineering solutions are subject to approval by the Fire
Safety Committee. This committee is
made up of representatives from Buildings Department, Fire Services Department, Academics, and Engineering
Specialists and Practitioners. Practice
Note PNAP 204 was issued in 1998 by
the Buildings Department to provide
guidance on the objectives, design
methodology, design procedures, and
proposed content of a fire safety strategy
report when developing equivalencies
to prescriptive code requirements. Practitioners typically make reference to
overseas standards and engineering
methods when carrying out evaluations.
A Buildings Department official provides approval of the design after receiving comments from the Fire Services
Department. The Buildings Department
administers passive fire safety requirements, while the Fire Services Department typically administers active fire
safety provisions, including smoke
management.
Hong Kong is currently undergoing
efforts to revise their system of building
and fire codes. They are proceeding
with an extensive effort to develop a
completely new code that will become a
model performance-based code. This
new code is being developed by practicing engineers under the guidance of the
Hong Kong Buildings Department and
Fire Services Department and will incorporate a review of practices from
around the world.
JAPAN
The Japanese system of building codes
has traditionally been similar to that
used by the U.S. The Building
Standards Law (BSL) 9 is a prescriptive
code that has been in force since 1950.
This was originally based on the
Uniform Building Code (UBC) developed by the international conference of
building officials. There is also a Fire
Service Law (FSL) 10 in place that
addresses requirements for active fire
protection systems. These codes apply
nationwide, although various cities and
regions have adopted revisions to the
base codes.
In 1998, the BSL was amended to include performance-based requirements;
this document was adopted in June of
2000. This new code allows three alternatives for building design. The first acceptable method is for the building design to meet the Deemed-To-Satisfy
methods prescribed in the model code.
The second alternative allows a performance-based design approach, based
on proven alternate methods or materials of construction. The third alternative
of design allows the use of an engineering analysis to prove that new alternate
methods or materials will meet the performance-based provisions contained
within the code.
The BSL stipulates the objectives and
functional (qualitative) performance requirements. Quantitative (technical) performance criteria and Deemed-To-Satisfy
provisions are provided in the document entitled Enforcement Order, the
Ministry Order and Notification.
The Ministry of Construction and the
Fire and Disaster Management Agency
administer approval of prescriptive
building and fire regulations. For designs
N UMBER 19
■ Codes Around the World
that use performance-based analysis, approval is based upon a review by a designated Performance Evaluation Body.
checked by the Fire Safety Service.
CANADA12
SWEDEN
Sweden developed its first prescriptive rules for
fire safety over a
century ago, in
1874, after several
devastating fires
had occurred in
densely populated areas. These
codes were based
on the premise
that loosely translates to the idea
that “to accidentally burn down your house is not as bad
as burning down your neighbor’s house.”
This initial set of rules gradually evolved
through several revisions of prescriptive
building codes until 1994, when a partial
performance-based code was issued by
the National Board of Housing Building
and Planning (BBR94).11
Two handbooks provide the engineering methods, tools, and acceptable
procedures for fire engineering design
and calculations. The translated English
titles of the two handbooks are Fire
Safety Engineering Guidelines and
Guidelines on Fire Safety Design of
HVAC Systems.
A standard prescriptive approach is
used for most types of buildings in Sweden. A set of acceptable Deemed-To-Satisfy design solutions has been provided
that meet the performance requirements
of BBR94. Compliance with these solutions provides an acceptable design.
Performance-based fire engineering is
used on a smaller number of building
design aspects but is still fairly common.
This approach was basically accepted
even before the introduction of BBR94.
This option is generally exercised when
seeking an alternate method for a particular system design rather than for a full
building fire safety design.
There is no formal inspection body
that regularly enforces Swedish building
regulations. Generally, it is the responsibility of the building owner to verify that
their building is compliant. Individual
systems, such as alarms, sprinklers, and
ventilation systems, are inspected regularly by certified persons and may be
22
Fire Protection Engineering
Canada has a centralized system for
developing and maintaining their model
code that began in 1937. The first edition
of the National Building Code was published in 1941. The Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes (CCBFC)
develops and maintains six of the model
construction and fire codes. This is done
through a consensus-based process
where codes are updated approximately
every five years. While the model codes
are prepared centrally under the direction
of the CCBFC, the adoption and enforcement of the codes are the responsibility
of the provincial and territorial Authorities
Having Jurisdiction.
The model national building, plumbing, and fire codes have equivalency
provisions. These permit the use of
equipment, materials, systems, methods
of design, or construction procedures
that are not specifically prescribed. If a
designer proposes an alternate approach,
then the designer must demonstrate that
the alternative provides the level of performance required by the codes.
The National Building Code, National
Fire Code, and National Plumbing Code
are being changed into an objectivebased format for the 2004 editions. This
will offer several advantages, including a
better understanding of each requirement’s intent, additional information for
evaluating alternative approaches, and
more flexibility to adapt to innovation.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
In the U.S., the federal government
does not draft or enforce building and
fire regulations on a state or local level.
Building and fire regulations are drafted
by private organizations, such as the International Code Council (ICC) and the
National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA). These codes are then made
available for adoption by state and local
governments. These codes have traditionally been prescriptive codes for both
building design and fire protection systems, as well as for other building-related areas such as zoning, mechanical
systems, and electrical wiring. The 50
states have either adopted existing
codes with modifications or have written
their own codes. In addition, some of
the major cities write or adopt their own
codes rather than following the codes
adopted by their state.
Until recently, the major building and
fire codes used in the U.S. were variations of the Uniform Building Code,13
the Standard Building Code,14 or the
National Building Code.15 In 1994, the
three organizations that developed these
codes merged their existing codes under
the newly created entity called the International Code Council (ICC). In 2003,
the organizations formally consolidated
into the ICC. Several states have already
adopted the ICC codes. Another recent
development in the U.S. code community is the publication of NFPA 500016 by
the National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA). Both the ICC and NFPA have
pursued the development of performance codes but in fairly different approaches. ICC has published a standalone performance code titled the ICC
Performance Code for Buildings and
Facilities,17 and NFPA has incorporated a
performance option within NFPA 5000.
Both approaches will continue to support the use of prescriptive documents
as the primary available solutions.
Both the ICC set of codes and NFPA
5000 provide prescriptive requirements
that must be met by the design team
and be approved by the local Authority
Having Jurisdiction before a certificate
of occupancy will be issued and the
building can be legally opened. However, for designs that do not use the
companion performance-based code or
the performance option within the code,
both of these sets of codes allow alter-
N UMBER 19
native methods and materials to be used upon approval of the local authorities.
10 The Fire Services Law Enforcement Order, International Fire Service
Information Centre, Japan.
COMMON TRENDS
11 Brandskydd, Boverkets Byggregler, Teori & Praktik. (Swedish)11
Brandskyddslaget and LTH – Brandteknik, Stockholm, Sweden,
1994.
The countries discussed above have all developed a set of
Deemed-To-Satisfy prescriptive requirements that provide a minimum acceptable level of safety from fire. These documents typically provide guidelines from which engineers can design most
buildings. However, many countries have found that traditional,
purely prescriptive codes do not always offer the flexibility that is
needed to accommodate specific design or functional needs of the
stakeholders, or for more modern methods of design and construction. A trend towards acceptance of the performance-based
approach has begun to emerge in many countries around the
globe. Some have used this approach for many years, while others
are in the initial stages of developing and accepting this process.2
It should be noted that although many code systems have moved
towards a performance framework, the traditional methods
(Deemed-To-Satisfy) are still widely used. The difference between
prescriptive codes and performance-based codes is that the performance-based regulations are focused upon acceptable outcomes and not on a limited set of solutions.
In addition to the worldwide codes and standards mentioned in
this article, several documents that have recently been published in
the United States help to provide guidelines for engineers who
wish to go outside the prescriptive or Deemed-To-Satisfy approach
to building design, whether to obtain an equivalency or to suggest
a completely new method of design for a building. At the same
time, these documents provide building officials and other authorities with a framework on which to base their examination of the
proposed building designs. Among these publications are NFPA
101, the Life Safety Code,18 which provides a performance option,
and the SFPE Engineering Guide to Performance- Based Fire Protection Analysis and Design of Buildings.19 The Society of Fire Protection Engineers is also developing several other guides to assist in
undertaking performance-based designs, including the ICC/SFPE
Enforcer’s Guide to Performance-Based Design Review.20 ▲
12 Canada’s Code Development Process, National Research Council of
Canada, http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/codes/home_E.shtml
13 Uniform Building Code, International Conference of Building
Officials, Whittier, CA, 1997.
14 Standard Building Code, Southern Building Code Congress
International, Birmingham, AL, 1999.
15 National Building Code, Building Officials and Code Administrators
International, Country Club Hills, IL, 1999.
16 NFPA 5000, Building Construction and Safety Code, National Fire
Protection Association, Quincy, MA, 2003.
17 ICC Performance Code for Buildings and Facilities, International
Code Council, Falls Church, VA, 2003.
18 NFPA 101, Life Safety Code, National Fire Protection Association,
Quincy, MA, 2003.
19 The SFPE Engineering Guide to Performance-Based Fire Protection
Analysis and Design of Buildings. National Fire Protection
Association, Quincy, MA, 2000.
20 SFPE Enforcer’s Guide to Performance-Based Design Review – Review
Draft. Society of Fire Protection Engineers, Bethesda, MD, 2003.
REFERENCES
1 Meacham, B., The Evolution of Performance-Based Codes and Fire
Safety Design Methods, National Institute of Standards and
Technology, NIST-GCR-98-761, November 1998.
2 Custer, R.L.P., Meacham, B., Introduction to Performance-Based Fire
Safety, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA, 1997.
3 History of the Building Code Australia, http://www.abcb.gov.au/content/about/history.cfm
4 Building Code of Australia. Australian Building Codes Board,
Canberra, Australia, 1996.
5 Fire Engineering Guidelines. 2nd edition, Fire Code Reform Centre
Ltd, Sydney, Australia, 2001.
6 London Building Acts (Amendment), 1939.
7 The Building Regulations 1991 Approved Document B Fire Safety
2000 Edition. Department of the Environment Transport and the
Regions, London, 2000.
8 BS 7974, Application of Fire Safety Engineering Principles to the
Design of Buildings – Code of Practice, 2001.
9 The Buildings Standard Law, Building Centre of Japan.
S UMMER 2003
www.sfpe.org
23
The Development of CESARE Risk:
A Fire-Risk
Cost-Assessment
PROGRAM
By Ian R. Thomas, Ph.D.
T
he value of an holistic approach
to fire safety in buildings has
long been recognized in
Australia. This may be because even
urban dwellers in Australia are well
aware of the potential for destruction
and the threat from unwanted fires.
[As this article is being written, the sun
has not come up over Melbourne,
Victoria, Australia, this morning
because the sky is full of the smoke
from bushfires that occurred nearby
yesterday. On the same day, due in
part to extreme weather conditions
over a prolonged period, suburbs of
Canberra, the national capital, were
attacked by bushfires (wild fires), and
over 400 houses were destroyed, four
24
Fire Protection Engineering
lives were lost, and
many people were
injured.]
However, it is
comparatively recently that building
code writers and enforcers have become
aware, supportive,
and accepting of
risk oriented approaches to fire
safety. Twenty years
ago, if an attempt was made to discuss
risk due to fire in buildings with a building code official, it was likely that the
attempt would be summarily dismissed
with a comment to the effect that there
is no risk in buildings built to the
(Deemed-To-Satisfy) building code.
That is, because the building was built
to code requirements, the occupants
were totally safe. The fact that lives
were lost, people were injured, and
property was destroyed in such buildings escaped the attention of many officials or was excused by the assumption
that the affected buildings were in some
way noncomplying.
Despite this, other engineering-oriented people were beginning to probe
the building fire safety problem from a
risk-oriented perspective. And these efforts have resulted, among other things,
in the development of CESARE Risk (a
building fire-risk cost-assessment computer model also sometimes known as
Fire Risk) substantially through the financial support of Australian building
code authorities along with the adoption
by the Australian Building Codes Board
(ABCB) and the state Authorities Having
Jurisdiction of a performance- and riskoriented approach to building regulation
development and reform.
CESARE Risk was developed based on
initial research by Vaughan Beck begun
in 1979 to use risk-assessment modeling
to develop cost-effective building designs that would achieve acceptable levels of fire safety.1, 2 In 1989, a major project on Fire Safety and Engineering was
undertaken at the Warren Centre for Advanced Engineering at the University of
Sydney, which built on this modeling.3
This project involved a large number of
Australian participants and a considerable contribution from many invited international experts. Subsequently, the
Fire Code Reform Centre (FCRC) was established through the cooperation and financial support of government, industry,
and research organizations. The FCRC
supported the development of CESARE
Risk through a project aimed at the development of alternative fire safety system design solutions for the Building
Code of Australia (BCA).
N UMBER 19
■ A Fire-Risk Cost-Assessment Program
CESARE Risk is a fire-risk cost-assessment computer program that can be
used to help designers and regulators
make informed decisions on the suitability of various combinations of fire safety
system components. CESARE Risk has
been developed to enable quantification
of the effect on fire safety in buildings of
changes in fire safety system designs.
CESARE Risk is applicable to apartment
buildings, hotel and motel buildings,
25
Fire Protection Engineering
and aged-care facilities. The model estimates the expected risk of injury and to
life, and the fire cost expectation. It is
specifically intended to provide a basis
for consideration of proposed or potential changes to Deemed-To-Satisfy provisions in building codes.
CESARE Risk consists of several linked
computer programs using both deterministic and probabilistic calculations to
estimate the numbers of building occu-
pants killed and injured, and the extent
of damage to a building for each fire
scenario considered. Many of the programs are run many times, once for
each fire scenario, building up a picture
of casualties and damage. The results for
each scenario are combined to produce
an estimated risk of injury (ERI) and estimated risk to life (ERL) for the building
occupants and an estimate of the fire
cost expectation over the life of the
building (FCE).
The ERI and ERL may be expressed in
many forms, but are usually expressed
as the expected number of casualties
(injuries and fatalities) per 1,000 fires reported to the fire brigade, so that they
may be compared directly with fire statistics obtained directly from U.S. and
Australian fire data. The FCE may also
be compared with fire data, usually on
an average-cost-per-fire basis.
In CESARE Risk, a total of 384 fire scenarios are considered:
• three fire types – smoldering (three
realizations), flaming (three realizations),
and flashover (three realizations without
fire spread beyond the room of fire origin [RFO] and three realizations with fire
spread beyond the RFO).
• for each of these, four combinations
relating to the ventilation conditions in
the RFO – the door open and closed,
and the window open and closed.
• for each of these, four further combinations relating to the smoke and fire
spread situation in terms of the apartment of fire origin door being open and
closed, and the stair doors being open
and closed.
• for each of these, two further combinations for the occupants being awake
and asleep.
The three realizations mentioned for
each fire type are three levels of maximum burn rate for the smoldering fires
and three rates of fire growth within the
RFO for the flaming and flashover fires.
In theory, each scenario may have an
infinite number of realizations. A simplified approach has been used in some
parts of CESARE Risk to account for the
many possible variations in some factors: continuous distributions have been
replaced by equivalent three-point discrete distributions in the Fire Growth,
Occupant Response, and Fire Brigade
Intervention models. Thus, CESARE Risk
probabilistically models fire growth and
smoke propagation by repeatedly using
deterministic models and probabilistc
N UMBER 19
models for predicting occupant response and evacuation, and fire brigade
intervention by direct consideration of
three realizations within the models.
CESARE Risk calculates the ERI and
ERL for each scenario by multiplying the
number of injuries and the number of
fatalities in the scenario by the probability of the scenario occurring. CESARE
Risk calculates the FCE by summing all
property losses for each scenario multiplied by the probability of the scenario
occurring and adding other fire-safetyrelated costs over the design life of the
building.
The submodels in CESARE Risk are
grouped into two parts which function
differently: the time-dependent part
(TDP) and the non-time-dependent part
(NTD).
The TDP models, on a time-step basis, the growth and effects (including
smoke spread throughout the building,
occupant response, and fire brigade intervention) of a fire in the RFO. The
NTD part deals with the fire after it has
spread out of the RFO, but purely on a
probabilistic basis (not on a time-step
basis). The two models are assumed to
run “parallel” to each other, but to avoid
double-counting of casualties, the occupants who may be affected by the NTD
part are those that remain in the building after the TDP ends.
A component of CESARE Risk that
performs a Monte Carlo simulation on
structural and barrier performance is run
when required. It calculates probabilities
of smoke and fire spread to each part of
the building with the data used as an input for the NTD part.
In order to limit the computational
time, constraints have been placed on
the complexity of the submodels, on the
number of scenarios that are considered,
and various other aspects.
The factors considered by CESARE
Risk include:
• building layout and dimensions
• rate and location of fire starts
• rates of fire growth and the fuel
load
• presence and type of smoke detectors, sprinklers, and smoke management
• probabilities of doors and windows
being open and shut, etc.
• types and condition of occupants
• intervention by the fire brigade
Fire growth and smoke spread are
modeled in the TDP using three subS UMMER 2003
models: the RFO fire growth model (a
single-zone model), the level of fire
origin (LFO) smoke spread model (a
two-zone smoke spread model), and a
network model for the movement of
smoke through the floors above the LFO.
In the NTD part, the probability of
smoke and fire movement through the
building is calculated for postflashover
fires in the RFO based on the probabilities of failure for individual barriers ob-
tained from the Monte Carlo simulation
and on probabilities of spread through
openings in barriers or via windows and
doors. These probabilities are used in
the NTD part to determine fatalities for
occupants who do not respond or are
trapped in their apartments. There is no
direct modeling of overall structural collapse of the building, but allowance is
made for structural collapse of elements
of construction.
www.sfpe.org
26
■ A Fire-Risk Cost-Assessment Program
The model distributes occupants
throughout the building in the apartments of non-fire origin (ANFO) in proportion to their percentage of the whole
population. The occupant groups (or
types) vary in mobility and responsiveness. In addition, the occupants are considered when awake and when asleep.
The response model considers the response of the occupants in the recognition and coping stages of an unintended
fire, estimating the times at which occupants will be exposed to the cues of:
• smoke
• alarms (seven different types of
alarm)
• warnings by other occupants
• sound of breaking glass
The probability of recognition of a
cue and the probability of action thereafter were obtained from data obtained
from research at CESARE.4 The action
can be to do nothing, to evacuate, or to
investigate. Two types of occupant response times are calculated by the
model:
• the direct evacuation time
• the investigation time
These times are dependent on the
time to recognize the cues and the time
for the occupant to start moving, the latter using a three-point realization. Thus,
for each scenario, occupants evacuating
are assigned three different possible
evacuation times with associated probabilities.
Examination of coroner’s records and
fire statistics has determined the Apartment of Fire Origin (AFO) is the most
critical apartment during a fire with regard to the ERI, ERL, and FCE.5 Initial attempts to use human behavior data applicable to other apartments, obtained
from interviews and examination of actual fires, was unsuccessful in that the
delay times and probabilities of action
were such that the resulting probability
of fatalities was far higher than occurs in
reality.
The evacuation model calculates the
time for occupants to move from their
apartments to the corridor, from the corridor to the stairway, and then downstairs to the building exit; the accumulation of carboxyhaemoglobin (COHb) in
the blood; and the exposure of occupants to heat radiation. Critical levels of
exposure define when incapacitation
and death occur. The toxic gases considered are CO and CO2. Temperature is
27
Fire Protection Engineering
also used to define an occupant fatality
condition.
The evacuation model classifies occupants as either being mobile or nonmobile. Nonmobile occupants are either
disabled, trapped, incapacitated, or fatalities. Trapped occupants cannot evacuate by themselves because of smoke
conditions and require assistance from
the fire brigade.
The CESARE Fire Brigade Intervention
Model is a simplified version of the Australasian Fire Authorities Council’s
(AFAC) Fire Brigade Intervention Model.
It is a probabilistic model and takes account of all stages of fire brigade actions
in attending the scene, fighting the fire,
helping occupants reach the building exits, and rescuing injured occupants. It
may be used in CESARE Risk or may be
excluded from CESARE Risk runs if required, enabling estimation of the effect
of fire brigade activities on the outcomes.
The Economic Model is used to estimate the monetary costs and losses associated with fire safety and protection
provisions, and fire events in buildings.
The monetary components are aggregated into the FCE parameter.
In calculating the expected losses, the
probabilities of smoldering, flaming, and
fully developed fires are estimated, and
the losses owing to fire damage, smoke
damage, and water damage for each
type of fire are calculated. Results from
the overall fire spread model are used to
estimate the losses from the estimated
spread of fire in fully developed fires.
Results from the smoke spread model
are used to estimate the smoke damage
from smoke spread in fully developed
and flaming fires. Spread of fire and
smoke to areas outside the AFO is considered for flaming and fully developed
fires, whereas only smoke damage in
the AFO is considered for smoldering
fires. Water damage from fire brigade intervention in fully developed fires and
sprinkler activation in flaming fires is
also considered. The present value of
expected losses is calculated over the
whole life of the building.
Capital costs associated with fire protection including both active and passive
features are also used in the calculation
of the fire expectation cost, as are annual costs for maintenance and inspection.
CESARE Risk has been tested using an
extensive range of sensitivity studies6 in
which results from CESARE Risk were
compared, where possible, with available fire statistics.
A requirement for proposed code
changes in Australia is that they do not
increase the risk to building occupants,
and it is in assessing this requirement
that CESARE Risk is currently being
used. For example, CESARE Risk has recently been used to assess the implications in relation to the risk to the occupants of possible changes to the BCA for
a range of multistory residential occupancies.
Desirable improvements to CESARE
Risk have been identified, and it is
hoped that further development will occur in the future. ▲
Ian Thomas is with Victoria University.
REFERENCES
1. Beck, V.R., “Outline of a Stochastic
Decision-Making Model for Building Fire
Safety and Protection,” Fire Safety
Journal, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp 105-120, 1983.
2. Beck, V.R., “Performance-Based Fire
Engineering Design and Its Application
in Australia,” Fire Safety ScienceProceedings of the Fifth International
Symposium, pp 23-40, Hasemi, Y.
(Editor), International Association for Fire
Safety Science, 1997.
3. Beck, V.R., et al, “Project Report” and
“Technical Papers, Books 1 and 2,” Fire
Safety and Engineering Project, The
Warren Centre for Advanced Engineering,
The University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia, 1989.
4. Bruck, D., and Brennan, P., “Recognition
of Fire Cues During Sleep,” Proceedings
of the Second International Symposium
on Human Behavior in Fire, pp 123-134,
Interscience Communications, London,
UK, 2001.
5. Brennan, P., and Thomas, I.R., “Victims
of Fire? Predicting Outcomes in
Residential Fires,” Proceedings of the
Second International Symposium on
Human Behavior in Fire, pp 123-134,
Interscience Communications, London,
UK, 2001.
6. Thomas, I.R., and Verghese, D., “CESARE
Risk: Summary Report,” Fire Code
Reform Centre and Victoria University
of Technology, June, 2001 (available on
the ABCB Web site along with many
other CESARE Risk-related reports:
http://www.abcb.gov.au/content/publications/ see FCRC 01-03 under Research).
N UMBER 19
The Potential Impact of
BUILDING
PRODUCT
MODELS
on Fire Protection
Engineering
By Michael Spearpoint
I
nformation exchange can be an issue common to any
area of modern life where computers are used to store
and manipulate information. The ability to efficiently
exchange information increases productivity and reduces
errors. Recently, and in particular with the explosion in the
use of the Internet, this topic has emerged as an area of particular importance. This article answers a number of questions related to building product models and places them
within the context of fire protection engineering.
28
Fire Protection Engineering
WHAT ARE THE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH CURRENT COMPUTER-BASED
INFORMATION EXCHANGE?
Without a standard format for the content
and transfer of information between software
tools, conversion processes are necessary.
Each conversion process may “devalue” the
information, as the content has to match the
lowest common format. Furthermore, ambiguities may occur in the data that cannot be resolved during the conversion. The use of software tools across a whole range of
engineering disciplines means that interoperability between these tools is becoming of
critical concern.
Building product models provides a means
in which efficient information exchange can
come about.
N UMBER 19
HVAC
Domain
Electrical
Domain
Architecture
Domain
Construction
Management
Domain
Shared Bldg
Services
Elements
Shared
Spatial
Elements
Shared
Building
Elements
Shared
Services
Elements
Control
Extension
Product
Extension
Process
Extension
2x platform
2x nonplatform part
next candidate
out of platform
Facilities
Management
Domain
Shared
Facilities
Elements
Domain layer
These provide details for a domain process or
type of application. Domain models provide leaf
node classes that enable information from an
external property set to be attached appropriately.
Interoperability layer
This layer describes concepts (or classes)
common to two or more domain models.
Core extensions
These provide specialization of concepts defined
in the Kemel. They extend the Kemel constructs
for use within the construction industry.
Kemel
The Kemel provides all the generalized high-level
concepts required for IFC models. It also
determines the model structure and
decomposition.
Kemel
Material
Property
Resource
Actor
Resource
Date/Time
Resource
External
Reference
Resource
Geometry
Resource
Cost
Resource
Constraint
Resource
Approval
Resource
Profile
Resource
Property
Resource
Topology
Resource
Reference
Geometry
Resource
Resource layer
Resources can be characterized as generalpurpose concepts or objects that are
independent of application or domain need,
but which rely on other classes in the model
for their existence.
Figure 1. The IFC Model 2x architecture, adapted from Liebich & Wix.1
WHAT IS A BUILDING PRODUCT
MODEL?
Fully automated, one-time data entry
and seamless integration of project lifecycle work processes can be identified
as a significant trend for the construction
industry that have the potential to revolutionize the industry. The construction
process covers the complete life-cycle of
the structure, from inception to demolition. Fire protection engineering is only
one domain of many that make up the
overall construction process. Additional
domains might include architecture,
structural engineering, environmental
engineering, building services, and many
others. Many parameters related to a
structure are common to a range of disciplines. These parameters may include
the building geometry and topology, the
materials and components used in the
construction, and the location of the
structure within the broad environment.
In general, any product can be considered to consist of a collection of “en-
S UMMER 2003
tities.” A product model expresses the
type of entities that represent the product; the properties that are needed to describe those entities and the interrelationship between entities. A building
product model is a product model that
specifically relates to buildings where
entities may be physical objects such as
doors, windows, walls, etc., or more
conceptual entities such as spaces or
processes. Within a building product
model, a door entity has specific properties (such as its dimensions and construction materials) and the relationship
with the wall in which it is located (its
position, orientation, etc.).
Conventional software tools are not
able to describe the performance or
properties of the entities and their component parts. A common feature in all
mainstream CAD packages is the ability
to transfer files in Data Exchange Format (DXF). However DXF files are only
able to represent entities as a collection
of points and arcs. They are not able to
carry additional information or parame-
ters such as density, thermal conductivity, etc., in a standardized way. The
new generation of CAD tools overcomes these limitations through the use
of object-oriented technologies. Entities
are described by using properties,
which could include geometric information that can be rendered graphically, and other information relevant to
that entity.
There is considerable work at an international level, both within the construction industry and in commerce in
general, that is developing methods for
storing, transmitting, and manipulating
meaningful product data in an open environment. Without such methods, the
construction industry will continue to be
at a disadvantage because of the lack of
integration between its various proprietary systems. Projects will continue to
require labor-intensive and error-prone
manual interpretation with the reentry of
information at the interfaces between
different partners and across the boundaries of work processes.
www.sfpe.org
29
■ Impact of Building Product Models
Building product document
growth and exchange
WHAT IS THE IFC MODEL?
Many of the issues discussed above are
already being addressed through the
International Alliance for Interoperability
(IAI), a worldwide group of engineering
professionals, software developers, and
researchers who are developing a building product model, referred to as the
Industry Foundation Class (or IFC)
Model, that permits an object-oriented
description of many aspects of buildings
and related services (Figure 1).
The IFC Model development began
around 1996 and is an extension of a
number of earlier projects. It is not intended that the IFC Model should describe
every aspect of a building down to the detail required by all of the engineering disciplines involved in the construction
process. This would make the building
product model too unwieldy. Instead, it is
designed to describe the most common
parameters that may be required.
In order to facilitate the inclusion of additional properties, the IFC Model includes a mechanism referred to as “property set definitions.” This mechanism
allows the IFC Model to expand on the
properties that characterize an entity beyond what is included in the IFC Model. A
property set definition allows for the sharing of standard sets of values across entities and for the definition of different
property values within individual copies
of an entity.
Property set definition
exchange
Interior
designer
AHJ
1
2
Fire protection engineer
Engineer (structural,
Fire
Fire
modeling
Improved exchange of building
geometry
Building product models will facilitate
the automated import of building plans
into computer calculation tools. Although
some currently available computer calculation tools can read CAD floor plans,
their facilities are limited. For example,
the SIMULEX egress model3 has the ability
30
Fire Protection Engineering
3
database
4
Sprinkler
installation
contractor
WHAT DOES THIS ALL MEAN FOR
FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEERING?
There are several potential ways in
which the development of building product models might enhance the work of
fire protection engineers, and some of
these are discussed here. Although some
of these concepts are not necessarily new
to fire protection engineering 2 the latest
developments in the technology allow
these ideas to be implemented now.
Architect
Sprinkler
hardware
manufacturer
Quantity
surveyor
1
Shipping &
delivery
2
Interior designer specifies contents
and their typical locations
3
Building product document shared
by various engineering professionals
4
6
5
Further exchange of
building product
document
Exchange of code requirements
from the AHJ to the fire protection
engineer
6
Fire modeling calculations using the
building product document, a
database of fire-specific properties,
information from other engineering
professionals, and the sprinkler
component property data sets
Exchange of property set definitions
between the sprinkler hardware
manufacturer and associated groups
Sprinkler hardware delivery
instructions
Figure 2. The exchange process for a building product document and property
set definitions.
N UMBER 19
■ Impact of Building Product Models
to read DXF files, but these files generally
need to be edited manually prior to using
SIMULEX because of the limitations of
the DXF format. In the future, building
descriptions will be exchanged in such a
way that computer models can more effectively make use of the data.
Property set definitions
Manufacturers of fire protection hardware could publish property set definitions on their Web servers using industryagreed-upon classifications for the
specific products. The property set definitions would contain essential information
required to characterize the product such
as physical dimensions, performance
metrics, and listing documentation. The
definitions may also include optional
characteristics and characteristics unique
to a particular manufacturer. Thus, for a
sprinkler, we might want to provide details such as the model number, dimensions, Response Time Index (RTI), temperature rating, construction material,
organizations that have listed the sprinkler, etc.
Standards, codes, and certification
Instead of being static paper documents, standards and codes could soon
be published as dynamic electronic documents. This form of publication could
lead to the automatic incorporation of relevant code requirements in the design
process and documentation. Furthermore, the electronic publishing of listings
and certification will allow up-to-date
verification that a product meets any specific regulatory requirements.
Fire test databases
Fire test results and fire-related material
properties can be published electronically. These data can be imported into an
electronic building model using property
set definitions.
HOW MIGHT A BUILDING PRODUCT
MODEL AND PROPERTY SET DEFINITIONS BE USED?
Let us imagine that a fire protection engineer wants to assess a sprinkler system
using a computer fire model in order to
examine specific fire scenarios using a
building product model and property set
definitions. An architect has already created a description of the spaces in a document that uses a specified building
product model. The fire protection engiS UMMER 2003
neer can use this document in order to
complete their assessment in association
with other relevant parties and then pass
the revised document on through the design process. Thus, the building product
document grows as the design proceeds,
with new information being added as
tasks are carried out.
In creating the fire scenarios, the fire
protection engineer might need the rate
of heat release from the furniture items
that have been identified by the interior
designer and specified in the building
product document. At this point, the fire
protection engineer could access a database of fire properties in order to select
an appropriate design fire for the furniture. The heat release data are extracted
from the database and appended to the
furniture entities in the building product
document as a property set definition.
The computer fire model now obtains the
building geometry and furniture properties (which include the rate of heat release) from the building product document. At this stage, the fire protection
engineer might also obtain additional
properties from an HVAC engineer (such
as air movement due to the ventilation
system), the properties of the sprinklers
they intend to use, and information from
the AHJ relating to any code requirements. Since the sprinkler manufacturers
publish the property set definitions of
their sprinkler hardware in a format that
is compatible with the building product
model, the fire protection engineer can
directly import the relevant performance
metrics such as the temperature rating
and RTI into the computer fire model.
Once the fire protection engineer has
completed the modeling and decided on
an appropriate sprinkler design, the
building product document can be
passed to the sprinkler installer. The
sprinkler installer could then use an hydraulic design tool to determine pipe
schedules, again using the building product document to obtain pertinent information supplied by the fire protection engineer and the sprinkler manufacturer.
The completed sprinkler network is
added to the building product document
ready for the quantity surveyor to generate bills of quantities. Again, this is done
through the building product document
by efficiently identifying the required
pipe lengths, etc. Finally, the bill of quantities can be related back to the sprinkler
manufacturer in order that a contractor
can deliver the correct hardware to the
construction site. Figure 2 illustrates the
above sprinkler design and delivery
process showing the linkages between
each step.
The above description is only one way
in which a building product model could
be used. The example describes a linear
process, whereas some tasks might take
place concurrently or at different stages
of the design process. The important aspect is that a single document is used
throughout, where each participant in the
process uses information supplied by others and adds their task-specific data back
into the building product document.
WHERE ARE WE NOW WITH BUILDING PRODUCT MODELS?
The above hypothetical sprinkler design scenario is still somewhere in the future. Some of the tools that are required
to realize the above scenario are already
available or under development while
others are a considerable way off.
• The IFC Model – The current version of
the IFC Model (2x) includes details of
the geometry and topology of a building and identifies walls, windows,
doors, furniture, and HVAC entities,
many of which are useful to fire protection engineers. The model has a very
limited set of properties relating to fire
protection engineering. For example,
walls, doors, and windows can be assigned a fire resistance rating; fire and
smoke dampers are included in the
model; stairs can also be given a fireresistance rating and declared as exit
paths; and insulation materials have a
flammability-rating property.
• IFC-compliant tools – There is an everincreasing range of software tools appearing that are able to exchange IFC
documents. These tools currently include CAD (Figure 3), thermal design,
quantity take-off, model consistency
checker (Figure 4), and others. There
are also a significant number of tools
in development or under test including
HVAC design, energy simulation and
code checking, electrical system design, and the list goes on. In terms of
fire protection engineering, very little
has been done so far. Preliminary
work has already been undertaken at
the University of Canterbury into a tool
to interface IFC Model documents to
CFAST.
• Codes and standards – Currently in
Australia, there is a move to provide
www.sfpe.org
31
■ Impact of Building Product Models
ing electronic building models, the ability
to concurrently share data, and the development of a lexicon of building terminology are also being investigated.
At this stage, it is important that the fire
protection engineering community be
aware of the developments in building
product models to avoid being left behind. Developers of fire-related software
tools need to assess whether they should
be enhancing their programs to read and
write building product models such as
the IFC Model documents. Manufacturers
of fire protection-related hardware might
consider the formulation of agreed-upon
property set definitions. Regulators might
want to consider alternative means of
publishing codes and standards. The use
of Information Technology and computer-based software tools will continue to
grow in both the construction industry
and more widely. Building product models and their associated technologies will
play an important part in integrating this
growth.
Figure 3. CAD
software tool – 2D
plans of building
and contents
(Previously
available from
the BLIS project
Web site at
http://www.blisproject.org/).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Figure 4. Design
model checker –
Checking
construction rules
in a building
model4
The author wishes to thank Andy
Buchanan, University of Canterbury, and
Robert Amor, University of Auckland, for
their helpful comments during the preparation of this article. ▲
Michael Spearpoint is with the University of Canterbury.
the next edition of the Building Code
of Australia (BCA) in an electronic
form. This will allow automatic searching of the code for particular clauses
relevant to a discipline or specific
building component. It will mean that
the BCA could be viewed on-line such
that all clauses relevant to a particular
discipline or subdiscipline could be
easily extracted.
• Property set definitions – So far, there
is little work on developing property
set definitions for fire protection engineering-related components. Some
work has begun on providing rate of
heat release information suitable for
incorporation into the IFC Model,5 and
it is hoped new initiatives will expand
on this work.
WHAT DOES THE FUTURE HOLD?
There is still much work to do before
seamless electronic data exchange be32
Fire Protection Engineering
comes widely available. The IFC Model
contains only a certain level of detail regarding many domains, and there is only
a limited amount of information that relates to fire protection engineering. However, the IFC Model already has a rich description of the fundamentals of
buildings, and the development of domain-related information is proceeding
through international efforts. Software
tools that are IFC-compliant are now
available, and many others are under various stages of development. As more
tools become available, so will the demand that additional tools be able to exchange IFC files increase.
The next release of the IFC Model will
deal with Facilities Management, Structural Engineering, Codes and Standards,
and Building Services. There is some
work already being undertaken to describe specific building products using
property set definitions. Other issues such
as the contractual and legal aspects of us-
REFERENCES
1. Liebich, T., and Wix J., (eds.), IFC technical guide, Industry Foundation Classes –
Release 2x, International Alliance for
Interoperability, October 2000.
2. Mowrer, F. W., and Williamson, R. B.,
“Room fire modeling within a computeraided design framework.” International
Association for Fire Safety Science. 2nd
International Symposium, 1988.
3. Thompson, P. A., and Marchant, E. W., “A
Computer Model for the Evacuation of
Large Building Populations,” Fire Safety
Journal 24 (1995), pp 131-148.
4. Industrial Use of the Building Modelling
Approach. interop AEC+fm 2001, Sydney,
Australia 2001.
5. Spearpoint, M. J., The development of a
Web-based database of rate of heat
release measurements using a markup language. 5th Asia-Oceania Symposium on
Fire & Technology, Newcastle, Australia.
2001.
N UMBER 19
Messaging and Communication
Strategies for Fire Alarm Systems
B
uilding occupants often react
slowly, or not at all, when the
fire alarm sounds. Many factors
contribute to this behavior, including:
• inadequate audibility of a signal or
inadequate intelligibility of a voice
message;
• uncertainty, misinterpretation, and
failure to recognize a fire alarm
signal; and
• loss of confidence and trust in the
fire alarm system.
This article reviews some of the problems and their causes. Possible solutions
are outlined, including those that can be
implemented today and those that may
be possible in the future. The emphasis
is on what technology can and cannot
do to address the issues and underlying
problems of occupant response to fire
alarms.
When a fire occurs in a building, the
usual goal is to evacuate the occupants
or relocate them so that they are not exposed to hazardous conditions. The exception occurs in occupancies
using SIP/DIP1 (Stay In Place,
Information
Acquisition
Defend
In Place) strategies. It
Warning Reception
Time
may also be necessary to alert
and provide information to
trained staff responsible for
assisting evacuation or relocaPerceived Reception
tion. Figure 1 shows several
Message
key steps in a person’s reacIdentification
tion and decision-making
Time
process.2
Seek Additional
Evacuation or relocation
Information?
cannot begin until the person
is aware that there is a problem. Except when there is diDecision to Evacuate
rect observation by visual, auDecision to Evacuate
or Relocate
Response Time
ditory, tactile, or olfactory
senses, a fire alarm system is
the most prevalent source for
Evacuation Behavior
alerting occupants. Problems
Type of Evacuation
(Exit Route)
Response Choice Time occur when there is inadequate audibility of a signal or
inadequate intelligibility of a
Figure 1. Occupant Decision Process
voice message. For nonvoice
33
Fire Protection Engineering
signaling, the audibility of tones is well
understood and addressed by codes
such as NFPA 72.3 There are methods to
measure, analyze, and design for adequate audibility.4, 5, 6 For voice signaling,
it is not possible to measure audibility in
the same way as tone signals. The intelligibility of the voice signal is measured
in a different way that includes audibility, clarity, distortion, reverberation, and
several other important components.7
A person can be alerted but not be
warned if the signal they hear is not recognized as a fire alarm signal. Codes,
such as NFPA 72, require signals to be
distinctive and not used for other purposes. When the desired action is evacuation, NFPA 72 also requires that new
tone signals use a Temporal Code Three
pattern regardless of the sound used –
bell, horn, slow whoop, etc., can all use
the Temporal Code Three pattern. However, the occupant must be trained to
recognize the sound or the pattern as
being the fire alarm signal. Thus, there
may still be a decision that must be
made: “Is that sound a warning of fire?”
Many occupants will seek additional
N UMBER 19
information or confirmation of the warning even if they know it is a fire alarm
signal. In the absence of other cues, most
people do not associate a general fire
alarm signal with immediate danger, or
they may lack confidence or trust in the
fire alarm system. One of the key causes
of the lack of confidence is nuisance or
unwanted alarms.8 For the most part, professionally designed and installed fire
alarm systems are free of nuisance
alarms. One exception is alarms caused
by vandals or pranksters. Even alarms
during regular testing are perceived as
unwanted nuisance alarms to the general
occupants of the building. Long testing
periods at random times and durations
do not allow regular occupants to differentiate testing from real alarms. It is also
possible that people “transfer” and rely
upon their experience with other alarms,
such as smoke alarms in their home,
when they experience an alarm in another building. Thus, false and nuisance
alarms in one place can affect behavior
in other, more stable environments.
Once an occupant is alerted, warned,
and confident in the reason for the
alarm, they still undergo a thought
process regarding whether to evacuate,
relocate, or stay in place. If they do decide to move, they must then choose an
exit path.
Occupants rarely panic in fire situations.9, 10 The behavior that they adopt is
based on the information they have, the
perceived threat, and the decisions they
make. The entire decision path is full of
thought and decisions on the part of the
occupant, all of which take time before
leading to the development of adaptive
behavior. In hindsight, the actions of
many occupants in real fires are sometimes less than optimal. However, their
decisions may have been the best
choices given the information they had.
Fire alarm systems that only use audible tones and/or flashing strobe lights
impart only one bit of information: Fire
Alarm. It has long been recognized that
environments having complex egress situations or high hazard potentials require
occupant notification systems that provide more than one bit of information.11
To reduce the response time of the occupants and to effect the desired behavS UMMER 2003
ior, the message should contain several
key elements.9, 12 These include:
• Tell them what has happened and
where.
• Tell them what they should do.
• Tell them why they should do it.
There does not seem to be any research that has tested actual message
content to determine the best way to inform occupants. The problem is that
each building and each fire are unique.
Messaging is further complicated by the
need to give different information to different people depending on their location relative to the fire, their training,
and their physical/mental capabilities.
In the United States, most codes use a
message strategy that warns occupants
on the fire floor, floor above, and floor
below. They may be told to leave the
building or to relocate three or four
floors below their current level. This requires only one “channel” of messaging.
The fire alarm system decides which
floors get the message (receive the channel) based on the origin of the fire alarm
initiating device. Other designs may utilize a second channel to broadcast a different message to other, nonaffected occupants. This may be done to warn
them to prepare to accept relocation of
occupants from other areas or to allay
any anxieties caused by seeing fire apparatus and personnel or other occupants leaving. Even though the message
is different, the same three key elements
are required.
If the fire alarm system only knows
that a waterflow alarm has been activated for the 16th floor, it cannot direct
occupants to one exit versus another
more remote from the fire. As the resolution of input to the fire alarm increase,
so can the resolution of output. Resolution, and hence information content, can
be increased by the use of more fire
alarm initiating devices, such as addressable smoke detectors and by splitting
sprinkler systems with waterflow alarms
serving smaller, distinct areas. Multichannel systems can then send specific
messages directing some occupants to
certain stairs and telling others to move
horizontally or to stay in place.
As the number and resolution of inputs to the fire alarm increase, the com-
plexity of the output matrix (programming logic) and number of output channels increase also. Because fires are so
complex, it is possible that the automated system response could tell occupants to move in a direction that places
them in a more dangerous situation.
This occurred during the fire at the Dusseldorf airport.13 Messaging strategies
must include provisions for manual
override and for changes based on the
real dynamics of the emergency. The
use of operators who have access to information and are trained to make decisions and broadcast appropriate messages can reduce the likelihood of
error.14 The information sources can include more than just the fire alarm – for
example, CCTV, energy management
systems, and security sensors. The National Electrical Manufacturer’s Association (NEMA) is sponsoring a research
program at NIST that is investigating the
use of multiple sensor data to show fire
department personnel the origin and
real progress of a fire.15 The system
could also use the real sensor data in a
model to predict possible changes in
conditions. The same research program
is investigating a common panel interface as is NFPA’s National Fire Alarm
Code Task Group on User Interfaces.
When the message delivery mode is
by voice communication, an Emergency
Voice Alarm Communication System
(EVAC) is most often used. Even when
voice communication is not required by
code, it should be considered because
of its higher success rate in motivating
people to move.16 The cost of an EVAC
system is not any greater than tone-only
systems for moderately sized projects
and may be less costly for large projects.
The actual crossover point depends on
many factors. Designers should explore
the costs and benefits of voice signaling
for most projects before assuming that a
tone-only system is more economical.
For example, circuit size and capacity
are greater for voice systems. Also, voice
systems use speakers that have adjustable power taps allowing adjustment
of system loudness after installation. A
tone-only system would require adding
or eliminating appliances to adjust audibility.
www.sfpe.org
34
Paging zones
Device/Input
s - smoke
h - heat
s/h detection
Bsmt
s/h detection
G
s/h detection
1st
s/h detection
2nd
s/h detection
3rd
s/h detection
4th
s/h detection
5th
s/h detection
M Level
6th Connector s/h detection
7th Connector s/h detection
s/h detection
S Level
Conn. Elev. Pent. s/h detection
s/h detection
6th
s/h detection
7th
s/h detection
8th
s/h detection
9th
s/h detection
10th
s/h detection
11th
s/h detection
12th
Penthouse 1N s/h detection
Penthouse 1S s/h detection
Floor
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Qty
A
B
C
D
1
8
8
6
4
6
5
12
2
3
9
0
9
6
1
4
6
6
7
0
1
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
6th floor speakers and
strobes
7th floor speakers and
strobes
8th floor speakers and
strobes
9th floor speakers and
strobes
10th floor speakers and
strobes
11th floor speakers and
strobes
12th floor speakers and
strobes
Penthouse 1N speakers
and strobes
Penthouse 1S speakers
and strobes
Penthouse 2N speakers
and strobes
Penthouse 2S speakers
and strobes
Bsmt speakers and
strobes
G floor speakers and
strobes
1st floor speakers and
strobes
2nd floor speakers and
strobes
3rd floor speakers and
strobes
4th floor speakers and
strobes
5th floor speakers and
strobes
M floor speakers and
strobes
6th Connector floor
speakers and strobes
7th Connector floor
speakers and strobes
S floor speakers and
strobes
Connector elev. pent.
speakers and strobes
System Outputs
Occupant Notification & Information
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
Evacuation zone for
ground floor
smoke detection
Evacuation zone for simultaneous
M level and 6th fl. Connector
smoke detection.
Figure 2. Sample Input/Output Matrix (partial).
Messaging and communication strategies also require attention to installation
and programming details. For example,
stair towers, elevator lobbies, different
fire zones, and, in some cases, different
smoke zones require separate notification appliance circuits (NACs) if it is desired to send different channels of information to different spaces.
Early in the planning process, the designer should list all areas where it
might be desirable to provide a discrete
message. Each of these areas is a paging
zone. Depending on the size and hazards present, a single paging zone may
be served by more than one notification
appliance circuit (NAC). When more
than one circuit is used, they must be
programmed to act as a single paging
zone. The designer then prepares an input/output matrix to show how paging
zones are grouped into evacuation
zones when certain inputs (initiating devices) are received. A sample matrix is
shown in Figure 2 with paging zones
and evacuation zones highlighted.
The designer of the messaging strategy
must determine which initiating devices
trigger which messages. Should a waterflow switch serving the hallway trigger
the same message as the waterflow
35
Fire Protection Engineering
switch serving the apartments on the
same floor? Should a smoke detector in
an exit stair tower trigger any automatic
message at all? One jurisdiction requires
smoke detectors in stairs to activate the
alarm sequence as if they were on that
floor. So, a smoke detector on the 10th
floor of the stair would send a message to
the 9th through the 11th floors plus in the
stair tower. This will not give occupants
accurate information about the fire or
about their best course of action. Communications in stairs should be manual
only, not automatic, and only when there
is a need to reassure or change occupant
behavior. Communication between
occupants in hallways and stairs is an
important part of their ability to obtain
and exchange information and confirm
their behavioral choices.8
While an EVAC system is the most
common method of communicating information to occupants, it is not the only
method. Research has shown that text
and graphical messaging greatly enhance occupant movement during evacuation and relocation.2 The message delivery can be via large screens used in
sports arenas or by small LCD display or
CRT information kiosks located throughout a property.
The importance of instilling occupant
confidence in message reliability cannot
be overemphasized. Messaging and
communication strategies instill confidence when they consistently provide
truthful and accurate information. When
a fire alarm system experiences one or
two nuisance activations per year and no
real alarms, it is 100 percent untrue to
the general occupants. In addition to reducing false and nuisance alarms, there
are other ways to increase system accuracy and occupant confidence. One way
is to always follow up any unwanted
alarm by communicating to the occupants the reason for the alarm and, if
possible, what is being done to prevent
further occurrences. If the system has
manual voice capability, use it to convey
this message immediately following resolution of any unwanted alarm. In some
cases, it may take hours or days to arrive
at a root cause for an unwanted alarm.
The fire department or site management
should immediately share what is
known: “A smoke detector in the elevator lobby on the 7th floor alarmed but
there was no fire. We are investigating
possible causes and will let you know
the outcome of that investigation as soon
as possible.” Of course, it is important to
N UMBER 19
keep this promise and follow up.
If every unwanted alarm is followed
up with a voice message, the perceived
system error is reduced from 100 percent to 50 percent. Further reductions
are possible by using the voice system
for more than just fire alarm announcements. Combination paging, announcement, and EVAC systems breed familiarity and instill confidence in the message
content. Combination systems require
special attention in the planning and design phase to ensure either strict code
compliance or compliance with the intent of the code. This includes factors
such as operational integrity and precedence, emergency power, survivability,
and tamper resistance.
The more any messaging system is
used, whether voice, text, or video, the
more familiar the operators and the occupants become with it. During any fire
incident, repeated truthful communications that correlate with what the occupants are experiencing instill confidence
in the messaging. If the occupants are
told “There is smoke in Stair A. Evacuate
using Stair B”, and they smell smoke in
Stair B, they will question whether they
got the right message or not. Occupants
should be told what has happened and
where, what they should do, and why
they should do it. “There is a fire on the
14th floor. There is heavy smoke in all
of Stair A. Evacuate using Stair B. There
is some smoke in Stair B. Stair B is safe
to use and is the fastest way out.”
Messaging strategies require careful
coordination with the fire service. During any real fire and during most unwanted alarms, the fire service is the
prime user of the system. Their use of
stairs, elevators, and cross-connect corridors affects the choice, wording, and
delivery of messages to occupants.
Another element of successful messaging and communication is “setting
the stage” or preparing the listener. In
theaters and concert halls, the show
should be stopped to get occupants’ attention. A sudden, dramatic change in
the environment removes their focus
and prepares them to receive new information. The Notification Appliances
chapter of NFPA 72 permits, but does
not require, the fire alarm system to control and reduce ambient noise. Where it
is not possible to have such control or
make such drastic changes, an alert tone
is often used to precede any voice mesS UMMER 2003
sage. One idea is to use an alert tone
that almost everyone who has ever used
a telephone is familiar with. It is called
the Vacant Code (VC) Special Information Tone and is a standard signal used
in the telecommunications industry to
indicate that a message is to follow.17 It
uses three tones at different frequencies,
which helps persons who have a partial
hearing impairment, as many do. It’s a
signal familiar to many people when
they dial a wrong number or forget an
area code. We are “trained” to know by
experience that a message will follow.
This SIT consists of three ascending
tones: 985.2 Hz for 380 milliseconds
(ms), 1370.6 Hz for 274 ms, and 1776.7
Hz for 380 ms.
Fire alarm systems by themselves cannot be expected to do everything necessary to ensure that occupants are
warned, take action, and leave before
they meet untenable conditions. However, through careful planning, design,
installation, implementation, testing, and
use, messaging and communication systems can greatly reduce occupant response times and help to generate the
desired occupant behavior.
REFERENCES
1 Schifiliti, R.P., “To Leave or Not to Leave –
That Is the Question!,” National Fire
Protection Association, World Fire Safety
Congress & Exposition, May 16, 2000,
Denver, CO.
2 Ramachandran, G., “Informative Fire
Warning Systems,” Fire Technology,
Volume 47, Number 1, February 1991,
National Fire Protection Association,
66-81.
3 NFPA 72, National Fire Alarm Code,
National Fire Protection Association,
Quincy, MA 2002.
4 Schifiliti, R.P., Meacham, B.E., and Custer,
R.L., “Design of Detection Systems,”
Chapter 4-1, in Philip J. DiNenno, Ed.,
SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection
Engineering, 3rd Edition, National Fire
Protection Association, Quincy, MA, 2002.
5 Moore, W.D., and Richardson, R., Editors,
National Fire Alarm Code Handbook,
National Fire Protection Association,
Quincy, MA 2003.
6 Schifiliti, R.P., Chapter 9.3, “Notification
Appliances,” NFPA Fire Protection
Handbook, 19th edition, February 2003.
7 NEMA Supplement, “Speech
Intelligibility,” Fire Protection
Engineering, Society of Fire Protection
Engineers, Issue No. 16, Fall 2002.
8 Proulx, G., “Why Building Occupants
Ignore Fire Alarms”, National Research
Council of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario,
Construction Technology Update, No. 42,
1-4, December 2000.
9 Bryan, J., “Psychological Variables That
May Affect Fire Alarm Design,” Fire
Protection Engineering, Society of Fire
Protection Engineers, Issue No. 11, Fall
2001.
10 Proulx. G., “Cool Under Fire”, Fire
Protection Engineering, Society of Fire
Protection Engineers, Issue No. 16, Fall
2002.
11 General Services Administration,
Proceedings of the Reconvened
International Conference on Fire Safety
in High-Rise Buildings, Washington, DC,
October 1971.
12 Proulx, G., “Strategies for Ensuring
Appropriate Occupant Response to Fire
Alarm Signals”, National Research
Council of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario,
Construction Technology Update, No. 43,
1-6, December 2000.
13 “Hard Lessons Learned from the
Dusseldorf Fire,” Fire Prevention, Fire
Protection Association, UK Vol. 312, 1998.
14 Proulx, G., and Sime, J. D., “To Prevent
‘Panic’ in an Underground Emergency:
Why Not Tell People the Truth?,”
Proceedings, International Association
for Fire Safety Science 3rd International
Symposium. Elsevier Applied Science,
New York, Cox, G.; Langford, B.,
Editors, pp 843-852, 1991.
15 NIST, “The Advanced Fire Service
Interface,” http://panel.nist.gov/.
16 Gwynne, S., Galea, E. R., and Lawrence,
P. J., “Escape as a Social Response,”
Society of Fire Protection Engineers
(undated).
17 ANSI, “Operations, Administration,
Maintenance and Provisioning (OAM&P)
– Network Tones and Announcements,”
American National Standards Institute,
New York, NY, 1998.
Editor’s Note – About This Article
This is a continuing series of articles that is
supported by the National Electrical
Manufacturer’s Association (NEMA), Signaling
Protection and Communications Section, and
is intended to provide fire alarm industryrelated information to members of the fire
protection engineering profession.
www.sfpe.org
36
Products/Literature
New Output Strobes, Horn/Strobes
New line of SpectrAlert® Selectable Output
Strobes and Horn/Strobes offers a wide
range of candela options. They recognize
and self-adjust for either 12 or 24-volt operation for a lower average current draw than
other similar multi-candela models. With
this efficient operate, the strobes and
horn/strobes allow connection of even
more devices per loop, greatly reducing
installation costs.
Electronic Accelerator
for Dry Pipe Valves
Tyco announces a new electronic
accelerator for its dry pipe systems. It
consists of a modified pressure switch
and control panel and has been listed and approved for use with the
existing Tyco DV-1 dry pipe valve by UL and Factory Mutual. Designed
to eliminate set-up and maintenance problems, this accelerator guarantees that the associated dry pipe valve will trip within three seconds if
installed properly.
www.systemsensor.com
www.tyco-fire.com
—System Sensor, Div. of Honeywell
—Tyco Fire & Building Products
Analog/Addressable Fire Panels
Potter Electric Signal Co. announces the PFC9000 Series Analog/Addressable Fire Panels.
Each analog loop is capable of supporting 127
analog sensors and addressable modules.
Features include 12 Amp power supply with
four class A/B (Style Z/Y) indicating circuits
rated at 1.7 Amps each; three-level password
protection with field programmable definition;
four alarm queues with selector switches and
LEDs, and more.
Upgraded Flexible Fire
Sprinkler Components
FlexHead, inventor and manufacturer of
flexible fire sprinkler connections for
suspended ceilings, has announced all stainless steel construction in its
products, as well as in new model designations resulting in longerlength flexible hose components in each of the standard configurations.
The upgraded product line is shipping now. Pricing remains
unchanged.
www.flexhead.com
www.pottersignal.com
—FlexHead Industries
—Potter Electric Signal Co.
Outlet-T Offers Convenience
Advanced Fire Alarm Control Panel
Victaulic® has made adding 1/2, 3/4, and
1-in. outlets to fire-system piping easier and
more reliable. The new Style 922 FireLock®
Outlet T incorporates a cast strap that will
not dent or crimp piping. Available for
1 1/4-in. through 2 1/2-in. pipe sizes, outlets for sprinklers, drop nipples, sprigs, and
drains can be rapidly slid into position by
removing only one bolt. A locating collar engages in a 1 3/16-in. hole
in the pipe, while the gasket compresses on the OD of the pipe when
the nuts are tightened.
The NFS-3030 fire alarm control panel is
designed for medium to large applications and
is the newest addition to the NOTIFIER Onyx
Series. Modular in design, it allows for one to
10 Signaling Line Circuits (SLCs) and up to
3,180 devices. The auto-programming feature
enables the system to be operational within
minutes. Flexibility is ideal for retrofit and new
construction applications of any size.
www.notifier.com
—NOTIFIER
www.victaulic.com
—Victaulic
Life Safety Control Platform
Test and Drain
Valves
New literature spotlights the EST3 control
platform, which provides for total life safety
solutions. Designed to meet the life safety
needs of any size facility, the function of each
panel is determined using the extensive selection of modules available to plug into the
panel’s chassis. The digitized audio will deliver
up to eight audio messages simultaneously over
a single pair of wires.
www.est.net
—Edwards Systems Technology (EST)
AGF announces Models
2500 and 2511 TESTanDRAIN valves. Both provide the Inspector’s Test
function and the express drain function for a wet pipe fire sprinkler
system floor control assembly. The design incorporates a multi-ported
single handle ball valve that is lightweight and includes a tamper-resistant test orifice. Other features include integral tamper resistant sight
glasses in an angled body, which accommodates either a right or left
drain configuration.
www.testanddrain.com
—AGF Manufacturing, Inc.
37
Fire Protection Engineering
N UMBER 19
Resources
SFPE Reaches Milestone:
Annual Meeting and
Professional Development Week
Together for the First Time
Bethesda, MD – The Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE) will
host its Annual Meeting and Awards Banquet in conjunction with a series of educational programs for the practicing fire protection professional, September 29 - October 3, 2003, in Baltimore, MD.
UPCOMING EVENTS
August 20-22, 2003
2nd International Conference in Pedestrian and Evacuation
Dynamics (PED)
Greenwich, London
Info: http://fseg.gre.ac.uk/ped2003/
September 8-12, 2003
4th International Seminar on Fire and Explosion Hazards
Northern Ireland, UK
Info: www.engj.ulst.ac.uk/4thisfeh/
September 11-12, 2003
ISFSSS International Symposium on Fire Safety of Steel Structures
Cologne, Germany
Info: www.bauem-mit-stahl.dr/veranstaltungen.htm
September 22-25, 2003
6th Asia-Oceania Symposium on Fire Science and Technology
Info: yhpark@office.hoseo.ac.kr
Following three years of successful Professional Development Week
(PDW) activities, the newly combined Annual Meeting/PDW format will
commence with a complimentary one-day program highlighting updates in the science and practice of fire protection engineering and professional issues of concern to the practicing FPE. In keeping with tradition, SFPE will continue to host its familiar ice cream social as part of
the program. The Annual Meeting will be followed by the SFPE Awards
and Honors Banquet, honoring leaders in fire protection engineering.
Society President William F. Koffel, Jr., P.E., FSFPE, will preside over the
banquet and present the Class of 2003 SFPE Fellows and other awardwinners.
September 29 – October 3, 2003
SFPE Annual Meeting and Professional Development Week
Baltimore, Maryland
Info: www.sfpe.org
March 2004
International Fire Safety Engineering Conference
Sydney, Australia
Info: www.sfs.au.com
March 2-4, 2004
Use of Elevators in Fires and Other Emergencies
Atlanta, Georgia
Info: www.asme.org/cns/elevators/cfp.shtml
Four days of educational programs, including six seminars and an international conference on Designing Structures for Fire, follow the Annual Meeting and Awards Banquet. The courses cover a wide range of
topics including:
• Principles of Fire Protection Engineering;
• Sprinkler Design for the Engineer;
• Tenability Systems for Smoke Management;
• Introduction to Fire Dynamics Simulator and Smokeview;
• Changes to NFPA 72 & 13, 2002;
• How to Study for the FPE/P.E. Exam; and
• Dust Explosion-Hazard Recognition, Assessment, and Management (NEW COURSE).
The SFPE Annual Meeting and Professional Development Conference
will be held in Baltimore, MD, at the Radisson Lord Baltimore Hotel.
Additional information for this historic weeklong event can be found at
www.sfpe.org or by contacting SFPE at 301.718.2910.
March 17-19, 2004
Fire & Safety At Sea
Melbourne, Australia
Info: conference@rocarm.com
May 2-7, 2004
CIB World Building Congress 2004
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Info: www.cibworld.nl
May 9-14, 2004
5th International Scientific Conference – Wood & Fire Safety
Slovak Republic
The High Tatras
Info: www.wfs.tuzvo.sk
July 5-7, 2004
Interflam, 2004
Edinburgh, UK
Info: www.intercomm.dial.pipex.com
October 6-8, 2004
5th International Conference on Performance-Based Codes and
Fire Safety Design Methods
Info: www.sfpe.org
38
Fire Protection Engineering
N UMBER 19
SFPE’s Engineering Guide to Human Behavior in Fire
SFPE’s newest engineering guide summarizes the state-of-the-art knowledge in the area of human behavior in fire. This guide’s purpose is to identify and review the key factors and considerations that impact the response
and behavior of occupants evacuating a building during a fire. Any life
safety design, whether prepared to meet prescriptive or performance-based
codes, should consider human behavior. The anticipation of human behavior and prediction of human response are the most complex areas of fire
protection engineering.
This guide addresses topics such as occupant factors, response to fire
cues, (including response to fire alarm signals), occupant decision making
and movement. This information should be considered prior to developing
safety factors or exercising engineering judgment in the practical design of
buildings, the development of evacuation scenarios for performance-based
designs, and the estimation of evacuation response. This information may
also be useful and applicable to postevent analysis.
■ The introductory price is $30 for SFPE members,
plus $6 for domestic shipping.
■ For international shipping, please add $7.50.
■ Nonmember price is $50
■ To order, contact SFPE or return (mail or fax)
the order form below.
Please send_____ copies of Human Behavior in Fire
at the SFPE member price of $36./Domestic
$37.50/International (including shipping) OR
Please send_____ copies of Human Behavior in Fire
at the nonmember price of $56./Domestic
$62.50/International (including shipping) to:
Name: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Address: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
City: ______________________________________________________ State/Prov.: ______________________________________________________________
Zip/Postal Code:__________________________________________ Country: __________________________________________________________________
Method of Payment: Check for ___________________is enclosed.
❒ MasterCard
®
❒ VISA
®
❒ American Express
®
Name on Card: ___________________________________________ Card #: ___________________________________________________________________
Expiration Date: __________________________________________ Signature:_________________________________________________________________
Today’s Date: _____________________________________________ Daytime Phone Number: ___________________________________________________
7315 Wisconsin Ave., Suite 1225W, Bethesda, Maryland 20814 USA
301.718.2910 Fax: 301.718.2242 www.sfpe.org
S UMMER 2003
www.sfpe.org
39
FIRE PROTECTION
B R A I N T E A S E R
Sales
Offices
How much carbon dioxide would be created by burning 10 kg of gasoline?
Assume perfect combustion (i.e., no carbon dioxide or unburned hydrocarbons are created) and that the chemical formula for gasoline is C8H18.
HEADQUARTERS
TERRY TANKER Publisher
1300 East 9th Street
Cleveland, OH 44114-1503
216.696.7000, ext. 9721
fax 216.696.3432
ttanker@penton.com
NORTHEAST
Solution to last issue’s brainteaser
A train traveling 80 km/h leaves Chicago heading for New York at 8:00 AM.
Another train, also headed for New York, leaves Chicago on a parallel track one
hour later. If the second train is traveling at 100 km/h, at what time will it pass the
first train?
km
t
h
NORTH CENTRAL
JOE DAHLHEIMER District Manager
jdahlheimer@penton.com
CENTRAL / WEST
AMY COLLINS District Manager
The distance of the second train from Chicago can be expressed as:
D2 = 100
tomcorcoran@penton.com
1300 East 9th Street
Cleveland, OH 44114-1503
216.696.7000, ext. 9279
fax 216.696.3432
The distance of the first train from Chicago can be expressed as:
D1 = 80
TOM CORCORAN District Manager
929 Copes Lane
West Chestor, PA 19380
610.429.9848
fax 610.429.1120
km
(t − 1hr )
h
Where 8:00 AM equates to t=0. Setting D1 = D2, and solving for t yields t = 5
hours. So the second train will pass the first train at 1:00 PM.
3240 Shadyview Lane North
Plymouth, MN 55447
763.404.3829
fax 763.404.3830
acollins@penton.com
SOUTHEAST
DEBBIE ISGRO District Manager
707 Whitlock Avenue SW
Suite B-24
Marietta, GA 30064
770.218.9958
fax 770.218.8966
disgro@penton.com
Index of
Advertisers
40
Advanced Fire Technologies .......................Page 16
AGF Manufacturing......................................Page 45
Ansul Incorporated ......................................Page 21
Blazemaster® Fire Sprinkler Systems .........Page 59
Chemguard ...................................................Page 22
Clarke Fire Protection Products, Inc...........Page 27
DecoShield Systems, Inc..............................Page 20
Edwards Systems Technology ................Page 30-31
Fire Control Instruments..............................Page 33
FlexHead Industries .....................................Page 38
Gamewell .....................................................Page 17
Gast Manufacturing......................................Page 16
Grice Engineering ........................................Page 39
Keltron Corporation.......................................Page 9
Koffel Associates, Inc...................................Page 46
NOTIFIER Fire Systems .................................Page 2
Fire Protection Engineering
OCV Control Valves .......................................Page 5
Potter Electric Signal Company ...Inside Back Cover
The RJA Group...........................Inside Front Cover
Reliable Automatic Sprinkler.......................Page 55
Ruskin ...........................................................Page 35
Siemens Building Technologies, Inc.
Fire Safety Division ...................................Page 13
Silent Knight .................................................Page 49
SimplexGrinnell............................................Page 25
System Sensor ..............................................Page 37
Tyco Fire & Building Products .............Back Cover
University of Maryland ................................Page 14
Vision Fire & Security ..................................Page 15
Victaulic Company of America ...................Page 41
Wheelock, Inc. ...............................................Page 6
Worcester Polytechnic Institute ...................Page 57
N UMBER 19
from the technical director
Why Should We Practice Performance-Based Design?
Morgan J. Hurley, P.E.
Technical Director
Society of Fire Protection Engineers
D
uring the last 15 years, the fire
protection engineering profession has made great strides in
developing an infrastructure that will
facilitate the application of performance-based design. In 1988, the first
edition of the SFPE Handbook of Fire
Protection Engineering was published.
Second and third editions of the
Handbook were published in 1995 and
2002, respectively. SFPE has also published six engineering guides, beginning in 1998, each intended to facilitate performance-based design by
making engineering tools available to
designers and enforcement officials in
an easy-to-use format. Internationally,
several countries have published performance-based codes, and in the U.S.,
both the International Code Council
and the National Fire Protection
Association have published performance-based codes. However, there is
still a sizable fraction of the fire protection community that is resistant to the
use of performance-based design.
41
Fire Protection Engineering
Almost all buildings today are designed and constructed to meet the provisions of prescriptive codes and standards. Most engineering design
resources are expended on commercial
properties, and commercial properties
perform very well in fire. For example,
in 2001, there were 6,196 civilian fire
deaths in the United States. Excluding
the 2,451 of these deaths that were directly caused by the terrorist actions on
September 11, there were 3,745 civilian
fire deaths; 3,110, or 83% of these deaths
occurred in a home.1
Therefore, there is limited potential
for performance-based design to improve fire safety in commercial buildings. Regardless of whether buildings
are designed according to a prescriptive
or a performance basis, it is not possible
to achieve a risk-free environment. Application of additional resources will
eventually run up against the law of
diminishing returns.
However, a fundamental tenet of
engineering is providing the necessary
level of safety at the most reasonable
cost. If this were not true, all structures
would be built using the most massive
structural elements possible, all buildings would be provided with the largest
HVAC equipment manufactured, and engineering economics would not be offered as part of engineering curricula.
While the buildings to which engineering has traditionally been applied
have an excellent history of fire performance, they also have an unknown
safety margin. If this safety margin is too
large, the extra costs associated with
providing this margin have a negative
impact on the economy, as the added
construction costs could show up as
higher costs for products and services or
dissuade the construction of new or renovated buildings. Performance-based
design would allow the fire protection
that is provided in a building to be tailored to the characteristics of the build-
ing, the items stored within the building,
the people that would use the building,
and the level of safety expected by society and the building owner.
Another fundamental tenet of engineering is doing the best that can be
done with the scientific knowledge that
is available. Application of prescriptivebased design typically is accomplished
with minimal reference to the engineering and scientific literature, so one can’t
be sure that they are doing the best job
possible.
Structural fire resistance can be used
as a case study. Consider three relatively
recent fires that occurred in the U.S. –
One Meridian Plaza, First Interstate
Bank, and World Trade Center Buildings
1 and 2. In the case of One Meridian
Plaza and the First Interstate Bank, both
buildings withstood fires of very long
duration. However, World Trade Center
Buildings 1 and 2 collapsed after 102
minutes and 57 minutes of fire exposure,
respectively.2 While the fires in World
Trade Center Buildings 1 and 2 were
ignited by aircraft collisions, the bulk of
the fire exposure resulted from ordinary
combustibles.2
Although the fires did not start in the
same manner, each of the fires in these
buildings was similar in magnitude.
Regardless of the performance intended
by compliance with prescriptive codes,
these buildings did not all perform in a
similar manner. Through performancebased design, we could design structures
such that structural fire performance
would meet the needs of the community
and the building owner in the most efficient means possible.
1 Karter, M,. “Fire Loss in the United States
During 2001,” National Fire Protection
Association, Quincy, MA, November,
2002.
2 Milke, J., “Study of Building Performance
in the WTC Disaster,” Fire Protection
Engineering, 18, Spring, 2003, pp. 6-16.
N UMBER 19