international.pdf

DEVELOPMENTS IN CODESAROUND THE WORLD

THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OFBUILDING PRODUCT MODELS

THE DEVELOPMENT OFCESARE RISK

28

42

36

FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEER-ING OPPORTUNITIES IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

23

ALSO:

page 10

INTERNATIONALFPE PRACTICES

A Roundtable Discussion:

FIRE PROTECTIONFIRE PROTECTION

THE OFF ICIAL MAGAZINE OF THE SOCIETY OF F IRE PROTECTION ENGINEERS

SUMMER 2003 Issue No.19

www.sfpe.org 1

2 Letters to the Editor

5 Viewpoint

6 Flashpoints

15 Fire Protection Engineering Opportunities in Developing CountriesThis article examines how to address challenges and turn them into opportunities.Jean-Michel Attlan

19 Developments in Codes Around the WorldThis article provides a brief overview of the fire and life safety codes andguidelines 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 RiskCESARE Risk is a building fire-risk assessment model that can help designersand regulators make informed decisions on the suitability of various combina-tions of fire safety system components. Ian R. Thomas, Ph.D.

28 The Potential Impact of Building Product Models on Fire ProtectionEngineeringThis article answers a number of questions related to building product modelsand places them within the context of fire protection engineering.Michael Spearpoint

33 Messaging and Communication Strategies for Fire Alarm SystemsBuilding 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 DirectorMorgan 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.

contents S U M M E R 2 0 0 3

7 COVER STORYA Roundtable Discussion Regarding the International Practice of FireProtection EngineeringThis 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 protectionengineers within their respective region of the world.William E. Koffel, P.E., FSFPE

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: [email protected].

Copyright © 2003, Society of Fire Protection Engineers. All rights reserved.

FIRE PROTECTIONFIRE PROTECTION

Fire Protection Engineering (ISSN 1524-900X) is published quarterly by the Society of Fire ProtectionEngineers (SFPE). The mission of Fire ProtectionEngineering is to advance the practice of fire protectionengineering and to raise its visibility by providing information to fire protection engineers and allied professionals. The opinions and positions stated arethe authors’ and do not necessarily reflect those of SFPE.

Editorial Advisory BoardCarl 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 EditorsU.S. HEARTLAND

John W. McCormick, P.E., Code Consultants, Inc.

U.S. MID-ATLANTIC

Robert F. Gagnon, P.E., Gagnon Engineering, Inc.

U.S. NEW ENGLAND

Thomas L. Caisse, P.E., C.S.P., Robert M. Currey &Associates, Inc.

U.S. SOUTHEAST

Jeffrey Harrington, P.E., The Harrington Group, Inc.

U.S. WEST COAST

Michael J. Madden, P.E., Gage-Babcock & Associates, Inc.

ASIA

Peter Bressington, P.Eng., Arup Fire

AUSTRALIA

Brian Ashe, Australian Building Codes Board

CANADA

J. Kenneth Richardson, P.Eng., Ken Richardson FireTechnologies, Inc.

NEW ZEALAND

Carol Caldwell, P.E., Caldwell Consulting

UNITED KINGDOM

Dr. Louise Jackman, Loss Prevention Council

Personnel

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SFPEKathleen H. Almand, P.E.

TECHNICAL EDITOR

Morgan J. Hurley, P.E., Technical Director, SFPE

PUBLISHER

Terry Tanker, Penton Media, Inc.

ASSOCIATE PUBLISHER

Joe Pulizzi, Custom Media Group, Penton Media, Inc.

MANAGING EDITOR

Joe Ulrich, Custom Media Group, Penton Media, Inc.

ART DIRECTOR

Pat Lang, Custom Media Group, Penton Media, Inc.

MEDIA SERVICES MANAGER

Lynn Cole, Custom Media Group, Penton Media, Inc.

COVER DESIGN

Dave Bosak, Custom Media Group, Penton Media, Inc.

Dear Editor,

I have found the majority of the articlesin the Spring 2003 issue of Fire ProtectionEngineering to be well written and veryinformative. I highly recommend them toanyone interested in the building field.However, in my view, the “Viewpoint:Life Safety in Highrise Buildings after9/11” does not measure up to the qualityof the remainder of the issue.

The article drew parallels to two verysignificant natural disasters that occurredat the beginning of the period of sky-scraper development, the Great ChicagoFire of 1871 and the San Francisco Earth-quake of 1906. Both of these eventsspurred changes in the way buildings aredesigned and constructed. However,these predictable and recurring events arequite different than the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Had a coldwar Soviet Union attacked a building such asthe WTC with an intercontinental ballisticmissile, we would certainly not respondby criticizing the building architecture,structure, or fire protection. The purpose-ful direction of some of the largest com-mercial aircraft into buildings at speedsnear their maximum airspeed is exactlythe same action, and we should assess itsimpact in the same way.

The article states as fact the suppositionthat “sprinkler systems cannot always beexpected to function” and suggests thatsprinkler systems can easily be defeated ina catastrophic event. It also asserts that thereliability of sprinklers is a concern, thatmaintenance and inspection of these sys-tems are not mandatory, and that permit-ted reductions in passive fire protectionmaterials reduce life safety. In fact, sprin-kler systems have an excellent record ofperformance in protecting life safety. Ac-cording to National Fire Protection Associ-ation statistics, the presence of a sprinklersystem is the only aspect, of all choicesthat can be made in providing fire protec-tion, that increases life safety in buildings.The claim of reduced life safety is com-pletely refuted in the actual record of thebeneficial effects of sprinklering on lifesafety. The facts also indicate that buildingcodes DO require inspection of sprinklersystems. Regarding system functionality af-ter a catastrophic event, a specific focus onsprinkler systems is ill-advised. All building

systems – not just sprinkler systems – mustbe designed for the loads and effects of acatastrophic event if a building is to sur-vive.

The statement that the World Trade Center proved that a building can collapseas a result of fire is a bit of a stretch of thetruth. It is recognized that, although rare,buildings can collapse due to fire. A recentHughes Associates report to the NationalInstitute of Standards and Technologyshowed a very small number of buildingsthat suffered full or partial collapse due tofire. The distribution of these cases amongmaterials shows that there is equal suscep-tibility to fire-induced collapse across allstructural materials.

Regarding the WTC experience, theBuilding Performance Study (BPS) clearlyconcludes, “fire played a major role” inthe collapse and that it was the combina-tion of two major events, the structuraldamage and fire, that led to collapse. Hadstrong winds instead of fire been the sec-ond event, a similar ultimate result couldvery well have played out.

Regarding WTC 7, there is both anec-dotal evidence from firefighters at thescene and direct indication in the BPS thatthe building was indeed hit by significantdebris from the collapse of WTC 1. JamesMilke also reports this on page 11 of thesame issue of Fire Protection Engineering.Milke also reports that WTC 5 was hit bydebris from WTC 1 but that one areaseemed to collapse without direct debrisimpact. He goes on to note that the pro-gression of collapse was in fact arrestedby the remaining structure. Thus, thebuilding response is not quite what is described in the Viewpoint.

It is troubling that so much has beenmade of the response of the WTC build-ings while the response of the Pentagon –quite similarly a collapse due to coinci-dent structural damage and fire – hasbeen so significantly downplayed at thesame time. A review of the BPS Pentagonreport shows a number of important fac-tors about the response of that reinforcedconcrete building to an airplane attack.First, the footprint of the damaged area ofthe Pentagon is quite similar to the entirefootprint of one of the WTC Towers. Yet,when the layperson looks at the Pentagonplan, it appears that only a small portionof the building has been damaged. In

reality, a building with the footprint ofthe WTC constructed as the Pentagonwas constructed would likely have beencompletely destroyed.

In addition, the fire protection for a sig-nificant number of the concrete columnsin the Pentagon was completely de-stroyed by both impact and fire, thus sub-jecting them to the same kind of damageas the WTC columns. Robert Iding re-ports, on page 42 of the same issue ofFire Protection Engineering, “Concreteloses strength more slowly at elevatedtemperatures than steel does, but is sus-ceptible to spalling, which may exposereinforcing steel to fire and loss ofstrength.” A review of the many columnphotographs published in the Pentagonreport shows the significant extent towhich this spalling occurred in that eventand the extent to which those columnswere damaged beyond any capability tocarry their imposed load.

Harold Locke makes an important state-ment on page 49 of the same issue of FireProtection Engineering in his discussion ofintegrating structural fire protection intothe design process. While much of therhetoric since September 11, 2001, has implied that the current prescriptive ap-proach to fire protection results in struc-tures that are not safe, Locke notes that“simply meeting the code requirements of-ten results in overdesigning the protectionof structural elements of the building andlimiting design flexibility.”

As we look to the future of buildingdesign, it is important that we consider allthe facts about how our various materialsrespond to extreme conditions. In addi-tion, we must consider from what extreme events we should protect ourbuildings. Earthquakes and fires are natu-rally recurring events that we shouldstrive to resist, while rocket hits seem tobe beyond the design scope for all butthe most important strategic buildings.

Thank you again for the very informa-tive articles you have presented in theSpring 2003 issue. I am only sorry it be-gan with such a misleading Viewpoint.

Louis F. Geschwindner, Ph.D., P.E.Vice President, Engineering and

Research, AISCProfessor of Architectural Engineering,

Penn State University

SUMMER 2003 www.sfpe.org 2

letters to the editor

Author’s Response

In reviewing the comments from theAmerican Institute of Steel Construction, Iwas pleased to learn of a Hughes Associ-ates report to the National Institute of Stan-dards and Technology, documenting build-ings that have suffered full or partialcollapse due to fire.

The steel industry comments object tocriticism of building architecture, structure,or fire protection at the World Trade Cen-ter, but neither the “viewpoint” article northe FEMA report criticized the design, con-struction, or any other aspect of the WorldTrade Center. In fact, the report(2) notedthat, considering that approximately two-thirds of the columns were destroyed onone side of each tower, “The fact that thestructures were able to sustain this level ofdamage and remain standing for an ex-tended period of time is remarkable and isthe reason most building occupants wereable to evacuate safely.”

As stated in the steel industry response,building codes generally do require inspec-tion of sprinkler systems. Unfortunately, inspection requirements are not always en-forced, and the follow-up maintenance onsystems is not always done. For example, aSan Francisco study reported in the March26, 1996 San Francisco Chronicle, noted that“only 14 percent of the 2,276 fire and safetyviolations cited by inspections last year hadbeen corrected.” Among the “serious” viola-tions cited were “sprinkler systems without5-year maintenance certificates.”

The “viewpoint” article did not offer ma-terials limits when recommending designto prevent collapse if a burn-out occurs.The need for reliable fire protection is nota materials issue. Rather, it is a design issue. Although the steel industry inferredthat the recommendation was only forsteel buildings, the recommendation ap-plies to all buildings that require fire-resis-tant structural elements, including those ofconcrete. The suggested design require-ments should apply to all tall fire-resistivebuildings, regardless of material.

The “viewpoint” article did not suggestthat any additional requirements be addedto building codes for resistance to terroristattacks or, as suggested by the steel indus-try response, “intercontinental ballistic missile” attacks. As stated in the BuildingPerformance Study report(2), the nation’s“resources should be directed primarily toaviation and other security measures ratherthan to hardening buildings against airplaneimpact” or bombs.

While it is true that prescriptive fire protection can result in tall buildings withwidely differing degrees of safety againstcollapse caused by fire, such procedureshave resulted in an excellent life safetyrecord over the last 100 years. Neverthe-less, it is now feasible to take advantage ofmodern design procedures for tall build-ings, thus providing consistent safety, de-signing for a minimum fire load, and alsofor larger fire loads that may actually exist.We can and should use these design proce-dures, adopting the philosophy that fire in-duced collapse of tall buildings should beavoided for all structural materials, evenwhen 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 byMr. Morgan J. Hurley, which appeared inthe spring [2003] issue. According to theRhode Island fire code, buildings builtprior to June 1, 1996, are reviewed and in-spected under the 1976 Rhode Island FireSafety Code (RIFSC)1 and Chapters 1-8 and24-43 of the Rhode Island Fire PreventionCode (NFPA 1).2 For buildings built prior to1976, the inspector must refer to the 1968fire code and indicate any “grandfathered”items. The only circumstances which allowan existing building to be inspected underNFPA 101 is if the occupancy has changedor if the building underwent modificationsor additions, which increased the value ofthe building by more than 50% within oneyear. But wait, we aren’t done yet: if thebuilding underwent the modifications oradditions between June 1, 1996, and Febru-ary 1, 1998, the 1991 edition of Life SafetyCode is used. If the building underwent themodifications or additions after February 1,1998, the 1997 edition of Life Safety Codeand all chapters of the Rhode Island FirePrevention Code, (NFPA 1) apply. Keep inmind that under the Code, an existingbuilding for these purposes is one that wasbuilt prior to February 1, 1998. Under Sec-tion 23-28.6-1(a) of the RIFSC, “The regula-tions contained in this chapter shall applyto all places of assembly as defined in Sec-tion 23-28.1-5, except only such places asare expressly exempt in accordance withthe 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) tothree hundred (300) persons in existingbuildings.”The maximum occupancy for a place of

assembly is determined using the followingguidelines, set forth in Section 23-28.6-3 ofthe RIFSC: “The occupant load permitted inany assembly building structure, or portionthereof, shall be determined by dividingthe net square floor area or space assignedto that use by the square feet per occupantas follows:1 Assembly area of concentrated use with-

out 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 concentrateduse such as conference rooms, diningroom, drinking establishments, exhibitroom, 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; pro-vided, that aisle area, except rear crossaisles, shall not be considered in deter-mining the number of standing patronsallowed.”In his article, Mr. Hurley stated “the Sta-

tion nightclub was not required to havesprinklers since it was built before 1974.”Actually, sprinklers are not required in aplace of assembly built before June 1, 1996.Section 23-28.6-7(a), under egress passage-ways – the distance of travel from anypoint within the place of assembly to anapproved egress opening therefrom shallnot exceed one hundred-fifty feet (150’)[46m] in nonsprinklered buildings and twohundred feet (200’) [61m] in sprinkleredbuildings.

I feel that while Mr. Hurley’s intentionswere good, he has taken the opportunity ofa tragedy to promote performance-baseddesign, knowing that the situation wouldnot have been helped using performance-based design procedures. Currently, in theState of Rhode Island, if plans are submittedfor construction using performance-baseddesign, the building owner or future ownerwill need to apply for a variance from theFire Board of Appeal and Review. TheBoard will consider the design approach butwill, more often than not, ask for a third-party review of the performance-based de-sign proposal. As a Fire Plan Examiner andan inspector, I hold the following reserva-tions with performance-based designs:

3 Fire Protection Engineering NUMBER 19

letters to the editor cont.

1. How will the design be validated thatit meets the code requirements, andwho is responsible for this validation?

2. How will the design be inspected, andby whom?

3. How will future inspectors know whatthey are looking at, and what parame-ters will need to be met for failure atfuture inspections?

4. According to NFPA 1, 20033 edition,Section 5.1.3: “The performance-baseddesign shall be prepared by a personwith qualifications acceptable to theAHJ.” Who has acceptable qualifica-tions?

While I understand the concept of per-formance-based design, I don’t think it willbe the cure-all I keep reading about. Thereare too many unqualified people using“canned” packages for performance-baseddesign. Anybody with a computer can usethis method to meet the intent of the pre-scriptive fire codes. There needs to be morecontrol for accountability and liability.

Timothy A. Hawthorne is a Lieutenant withthe Cranston Fire Department.

Author’s Response

The point that I was trying to make inthe column that I wrote for the Spring,2003 issue of Fire Protection Engineeringwas not that performance-based designwould prevent tragedies such as the onethat occurred at the Station night clubfrom occurring. Indeed, as I pointed outin my column, it is not possible to com-pletely eliminate risk in any activity, andaccidents will occasionally occur in build-ings, regardless of whether they are de-signed on a performance basis or to meetprescriptive codes. Rather, I was trying todemonstrate that it is more difficult forlegislators and code writers to balancesafety with flexibility in existing buildingswhen developing prescriptive require-ments. Indeed, Mr. Hawthorne’s clarifica-tion of the sprinkler requirements for assembly occupancies in Rhode Islanddemonstrates how difficult this can be.

Also, Mr. Hawthorne’s concerns aboutregulation of performance-based designsare valid. Fortunately, there are a numberof resources available to help. In addition

to the commentary that can be foundwithin performance-based codes, theSFPE Engineering Guide to Performance-Based Design and Analysis of Buildings,the SFPE “Guidelines for Peer Review inthe Fire Protection Design Process” andthe forthcoming SFPE Enforcer’s Guide toPerformance-Based Design Review are orwill be invaluable resources for designersand enforcement officials alike.

Morgan J. Hurley, P.E.Technical DirectorSociety of Fire Protection Engineers

REFERENCES

1. Rhode Island Fire Safety Code. LexisPublishing, Charlottesville, VA. 2003.

2. NFPA 1, Fire Prevention Code. NationalFire Protection Association, Quincy, MA.1997.

3. NFPA 1, Uniform Fire Code. National FireProtection Association, Quincy, MA. 2003.


R isk-Informed, Performance-BasedIndustrial Fire Protection presentsa systematic approach to establish

risk-informed or performance-based fireprotection solutions for industrial facili-ties. If followed, the comprehensiveapproach will result in successful risk-informed or performance-based engi-neering solutions. Four basic processesare identified; Appraisal, Analysis,Performance, and Assessment. Theseprocesses are comprised of one or moreengineering steps that are presented ineight working chapters. Each chapter isprovided with a description of how theinformation presented within the specificchapter fits into the analysis and deci-sion-making process. Thus, the bookcan take the reader from formulation ofthe problem to the selection of engineer-ing alternatives.

The Appraisal process begins with theestablishment of Program Objectives as described in Chapter 1, and the formationof Risk Tolerance Criteria as described inChapter 2. In addition to explaining how aproject should establish the program ob-jectives, Chapter 1 provides a summary ofthe overall engineering approach. Chapter2 explains how to establish a quantitativebasis to support the engineering approachand introduces how to compare risk results with the risk tolerance criteria.

There are three steps in the Analysisprocess, Loss Scenario Development(Chapter 3), Initiating Event Likelihood(Chapter 4), and Exposure Profile Model-ing (Chapter 5). Chapter 3 describes theprocess to be used to establish the lossscenarios to be modeled. These scenariosdescribe a sequence of events from theinitial fire source, the pathway to a specifictarget, and how the target responds to fireconditions. Chapter 4 suggests methods to

quantify the likelihood of an initial firesource. Several techniques are suggested.These include occupancy-based incipientfire frequencies using historical data andequipment-failure-based ignition estimatesdeveloped using fault trees. These chaptersare fairly comprehensive and provide mostreaders all of the background necessary tocomplete the first four stages of the engi-neering process.

Chapter 5 provides a basic overview ofmodeling techniques to judge fire and explosion severity and how to judge the response of specific targets (people, equip-ment, structure, environment, etc.) to thesedemands. The chapter provides good intro-ductory material for engineers just begin-ning to be involved in fire modeling and isa good refresher for experienced engineerson the multiple facets that must be consid-ered in modeling. Although the text pro-vides a wealth of target damage thresholddata, most readers will find it necessary torefer to other texts to complete the model-ing effort.

The Performance process consists of theevaluation of Fire Protection System Performance Success Probability, which ispresented in Chapter 6. The chapter intro-duces the concept of three fire protectionreliability parameters, System Availability (Isthe system online?), Functional Reliability(Will the system execute its function on demand?), and Mission Time Reliability(Will the system continue to function overthe required demand time?). The chapterprovides performance data for sprinklersystems, water spray systems, water distrib-ution systems, detection systems, fire barri-ers, and manual intervention. Evaluationtechniques are provided to account for variations in inspection, testing, and main-tenance programs.

The Assessment process consists of two

steps: Risk Estimate and Comparison(Chapter 7) and Cost/Benefit Analysis ofRisk Reduction Alternatives (Chapter 8).Chapter 7 presents a very good explana-tion of how to blend deterministic model-ing results with event tree analysis tech-niques. All fire risk practitioners wouldbenefit from a review of this chapter. Thechapter also provides a good discussion ofhow event trees may be coupled withMonte Carlo simulations using commer-cially available spreadsheet software tojudge the uncertainty in a risk estimate.

Chapter 8 provides methods to judgethe effectiveness of different fire protectionstrategies, including ignition source con-trols, failure prevention, and alternativefire protection methods. Techniques topresent 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, theauthor summarizes how the fire protec-tion engineering approaches have evolvedand the promise of risk-informed, perfor-mance-based assessments. It then intro-duces the Fire Risk Forum, which is anonline Internet resource to provide a continuing education platform and infor-mation tool on risk-informed, perfor-mance-based fire safety.

Risk-Informed, Performance-Based In-dustrial Fire Protection integrates conceptsfrom a variety of sources, providing a nov-ice fire-risk practitioner with a workableapproach to identify successful fire-risk so-lutions. Experienced fire-risk professionalswho set the text on a shelf and consider ita handbook will miss the wealth of usefulfire-risk data that is dispersed throughoutthe chapters along with the insightful refer-ences and links to additional information.While it is doubtful that seasoned fire-riskprofessionals will adopt the complete sys-tematic approach, they would be wellserved to read Risk-Informed, Perfor-mance-Based Industrial Fire Protection. Itcontains several unique tools and presen-tation techniques that can be used to translate risk analysis results into a formusable by decision-makers.

D. Allan Coutts, Ph.D., P.E.Resident EngineerWestinghouse Safety Management Solutions

viewpoint

Book ReviewThomas F. Barry, P.E.Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Industrial Fire ProtectionTennessee Valley Publishing (USA), 2002



flashpointsfire protection industry news

The SFPE Corporate 100 Program was founded in 1976 tostrengthen the relationship between industry and the fireprotection engineering community. Membership in the program recognizes those who support the objectives ofSFPE and have a genuine concern for the safety of life andproperty from fire.

BENEFACTORSRolf Jensen & Associates, Inc.Specified Technologies, Inc.

PATRONSAnsul Inc.Code Consultants, Inc.Edwards Systems TechnologyGage-Babcock & Associates, Inc.Hughes Associates, Inc.National Fire Protection AssociationThe Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Company

Schirmer Engineering CorporationSimplexGrinnellTyco Fire and Building Products, Inc.

MEMBERSAltronix CorporationArup FireAutomatic Fire Alarm AssociationBFPE InternationalCybor Fire Protection CompanyFM Global CorporationGE Global Asset Protection ServicesHarrington Group, Inc.HSB Professional Loss ControlJames W. Nolan Company (Emeritus)Koffel Associates, Inc.Marsh Risk ConsultingNational Electrical Manufacturers AssociationNational Fire Sprinkler AssociationNuclear Energy InstituteThe Protectowire Co., Inc.Reliable Fire Equipment CompanyRisk Technologies LLC

TVA Fire and Lifesafety, Inc.Tyco Services, PtyUnderwriters Laboratories, Inc.Wheelock, Inc.Williams Fire and Hazard Control, Inc.W.R. Grace Company

SMALL BUSINESS MEMBERSBourgeois & Associates, Inc.Davidson and AssociatesDemers Associates, Inc.Fire Consulting Associates, Inc.Fire Suppression Systems AssociationFutrell 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

ASHRAE Publishes Free"Risk Management

Guidelines..."

The UK Government FireResearch Web Site

Rhode Island StationNightclub Fire Findings

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 governmentcommittee on fire research. It provides a single point of access to fire research spon-sored by UK government over recent years. The Web site contains details of over 500fire research projects and is fully searchable. Information has been obtained on projectssponsored by the following government departments or bodies:

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister – Fire Research Division (formerly part of theHome Office) Office of the Deputy Prime Minister - Building Regulations Division (for-merly part of the DETR) Health and Safety Executive Engineering and Physical ScienceResearch 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 American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers(ASHRAE) has published "Risk Management Guidelines for Health, Safety, and Environ-mental Security under Extraordinary Incidents." The report describes a new risk man-agement strategy for building owners to use in determining their level of risk in regardto 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 inthe scope of this report. The report provides methods for risk management strategy,

information on infrastructure support, and guidance for owners and designers. It isavailable for free at www.ashrae.org.

The Rhode Island Special Legislative Commission to Study All Aspects of Law andRegulation Concerning Pyrotechnic Displays and Fire Safety has released their full findings and details on the Station nightclub fire that took place in February 2003. Thereport can be found at www.rilin.state.ri.us/FireFinalReport.pdf.


By William E. Koffel, P.E., FSFPE

The Society of Fire ProtectionEngineers (SFPE) is an interna-tional organization representing

those practicing fire protection engi-neering or fire safety engineering.Today, over 20 percent of the Society’smembership consists of individualsoutside the United States, and theSociety now has eleven chapters out-side the United States with severalnew international chapters in variousstages of formation. The currentStrategic Plan for the Society1 containsthe following goal within a programarea referred to as GlobalDevelopment.

Advance the practice and promote therecognition of fire protection engi-neering worldwide.Recognizing that the Society is truly

an international organization, the currentdraft of a revised strategic plan elimi-nates the program area of Global Devel-opment and incorporates the aspectscontained in the above goal statementthroughout all program areas.

To better understand the practice andneeds of fire protection engineers world-wide, the Society convened a roundtableof fire protection engineers. The partici-pants were asked to represent the view-points and considerations of fire protec-tion engineers within their respectiveregion of the world. The roundtable par-

ticipants were as follows (see sidebar foradditional information regarding eachindividual):

• 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

A Roundtable Discussion Regarding the

International Practiceof Fire Protection

Engineering


To begin, the roundtable discussed thepractice of fire protection engineering, orfire safety engineering, in the variousparts of the world represented by theroundtable participants. The roundtableparticipants then discussed the qualifica-tions and background credentials for in-dividuals providing fire protection engi-neering services. The roundtable alsoexplored the participant’s experienceswith performance-based codes and anyother issues or concerns confronting fireprotection engineers. The following is asummary of the roundtable discussion.

Koffel: What types of services dofire protection engineers typi-cally provide?

Frable: In the United States, fire pro-tection engineers are involved in design-ing fire protection systems, performingrisk assessments and hazard analyses,participating in performance-based de-signs, and providing construction periodservices. Fire protection engineers arealso involved in the review of fire pro-tection systems, witness of acceptancetests of fire protection systems, third-party reviews of fire protection designs,and serve in a code-enforcement capac-ity. In addition, fire protection engineersprovide occupant emergency plan train-ing, code interpretations, post-fire-re-lated investigations and analyses, firemodeling, and participate in code-devel-opment activities.

England: The broad range of servicesidentified by Dave are differentiated inAustralia between services provided byfire protection engineers and fire safetyengineers. Typically, fire safety engi-neers derive and justify the fire safetystrategy for a building or facility. Typi-cally, this involves a life safety analysisto demonstrate compliance with theBuilding Code of Australia to the satis-faction of the Authority Having Jurisdic-tion. However, other factors such asbusiness continuity and property protec-tion may also be considered. The strat-egy is usually defined by calling up de-sign, installation, and test standards forfire protection measures.

The term fire protection engineer is

William E. Koffel, P.E., FSFPE – Mr. Koffel is President of KoffelAssociates, Inc., a fire protection engineering and code consultingfirm. Mr. Koffel is also the current president of the Society of FireProtection Engineers and facilitated the roundtable discussion. Mr.Koffel can be contacted at [email protected].

Staffan Bengston, MSc, Structural Engineering(Sweden) – Mr. Bengston is one of the main owners of

Brandskyddslaget AB. He has done extensive fire safety engineeringfor a variety of structures and more recently has been interested indesigns for disabled individuals. He is a Past President of the SFPESwedish Chapter. Mr. Bengston can be contacted [email protected].

Professor W. K. Chow (Hong Kong) – Professor Chow isthe Chair Professor of Architectural Science and Fire

Engineering at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University. ProfessorChow is the Founding President of the SFPE Hong Kong Chapter.Professor Chow can be contacted at [email protected].

Paul England, CPEng, MIEAust. (Austalia) – Mr. Englandis the Managing Director of Warrington Fire Research Aust.

Pty. Ltd. He is currently the National President of the EngineersAustralia Society of Fire Safety and Chairman of the StandardsAustralia Committee responsible for fire safety engineering and firetesting. Mr. England can be contacted at [email protected].

David Frable, (United States) – Mr. Frable is the SeniorFire Protection Engineer, Fire Protection Engineering &

Life Safety Program, U.S. General Service Administration (GSA). Heis responsible for GSA’s national fire protection engineering and lifesafety program and represents the GSA on various technical com-mittees responsible for developing codes and standards in theUnited States. Mr. Fable can be contacted at [email protected].

Anthony Ferguson (United Kingdom) – Mr. Ferguson is afire safety engineer and architect with Arup Fire. He is a

registered architect with an Honours degree from the University ofEdinburgh and an MSc in Fire Safety Engineering also fromEdinburgh. He also chairs the BSI Committee on Fire SafetyEngineering. Mr. Ferguson can be contacted [email protected].

Richard Gillespie, Reg. Eng. (New Zealand) – Mr.Gillespie is a Director at Fire Engineering Solutions

Limited. Mr. Gillespie can be contacted at [email protected].

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 atthe Institute for Research in Construction of the National ResearchCouncil of Canada. He was the Founding President of the SFPENational Capital Region Chapter and a Past President of the SFPE.Mr. Richardson can be contacted at [email protected].

Simone Sacco, P. E. (Italy) – Mr. Sacco is President ofMarsh Risk Consulting Services S.r.l. He has also been a

Lecturer at the Insurance Engineer Master program at thePolytechnic of Milan. He was a founder of the SFPE Italy Chapter andis the current Chairman of the Chapter. Mr. Sacco can be contactedat [email protected].

Shigeo Uehara (Japan) – Mr. Uehara is the Chief Researcherat 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 andEngineering in 2001. He is a Director of the SFPE Japan Chapter. Mr.Uehara can be contacted at [email protected].

Roundtable Participants


normally used to describe engineers thatundertake the design and documentationof active fire protection systems in accor-dance with appropriate standards. Thesepractitioners are commonly services/me-chanical engineers specializing in activefire protection systems. Passive systems,such as fire-resistant elements of con-struction, are normally specified by struc-tural engineers and architects.

Ferguson: The term “fire protectionengineer” is also not a common title inthe United Kingdom. To the extent thatthe term is used, it generally refers tothose who apply services system designsuch as sprinkler, detection, and alarmsystems. Like Paul, my responses willbe based upon the practice of fire safetyengineering that involves those whoprovide strategic advice on fire safety.Fire safety engineers assist the designteam in meeting the life safety require-ments of legislation and may also pro-vide advice on business and propertyprotection against fire. The term “lifesafety” includes the following designconsiderations:

• Means of escape,• Internal fire spread including reac-

tion of fire properties of wall andceiling linings,

• Structural fire resistance,• Compartmentation and fire spread

via cavities and internal openings,• External fire spread between build-

ings and over the exterior surface ofbuildings,

• Broad performance requirements forfire protection systems needed tosupport the options, and

• Access and facilities for the fire service.

Chow: Fire engineers in Hong Kongalso provide consulting regarding struc-tural fire resistance, fire protection sys-tem design, life safety analysis, andsmoke control design including thepreparation of fire strategic reports andnegotiations with the authorities.

Sacco: In addition to what has beenpreviously identified, fire protection en-gineers in Italy also conduct loss controlactivities and audits for the insurance in-dustry.

Richardson: While fire protection en-gineers mostly provide code-consultingservices in Canada, they also provide the

services that have already been identi-fied. However, I want to add fire-related research to the list that has beenidentified by the other participants.

Koffel: With this broad range ofservices, who typically retainsthe services of fire protection en-gineers for projects involvingnew buildings?

Uehara: In Japan, the architect whomanages the design process of construc-tion typically retains the fire preventionengineer.

Bengston: In addition to the architect,in Sweden, the ventilation consultantsalso retain our services. There are timeswhen we are retained by the owner orconstruction contractor.

Frable: I would also like to add gov-ernment agencies who may be theowner of the facility and governmentagencies who retain fire protection engi-neers to assist in the review and ap-proval of fire protection designs.

Gillespie: All of the previously men-tioned parties plus design and build con-tractors. In New Zealand, only the Territor-ial Authority and the building owner cannegotiate a building consent, but it is com-mon for both to delegate that authority.

Ferguson: In the United Kingdom, Ifind that it is the developer, owner, orarchitect.

Koffel: What is the primary rea-son that fire protection or firesafety engineers are involved inthe design of new buildings?

Richardson: Code-compliance issues.

Uehara: The fire protection engineer’sspecial knowledge is needed in per-forming the fire protection design ofnew buildings.

Gillespie: Primarily to provide profes-sional guidance on how to best meet theNew Zealand Building Code objectivesrelated to means of escape (C2), spreadof fire (C3), and structural stability dur-ing fire (C4).

Sacco: The fire department authoriza-

tion process especially for cases not reg-ulated by existing standards that wouldrequire performance-based solutions.

Chow: Code compliance and whenthere are difficulties in following theprescriptive requirements, in particularfor innovative architectural designs.

England: In addition to what has beenstated by others, fire safety engineers areretained for overall cost savings and de-sign freedom.

Ferguson: To minimize the approvalrisk to the project, especially where analternative to a code-compliant solutionis desired.

Frable: Fire protection engineers canensure a reasonable degree of occupantsafety, property protection, and missioncontinuity from fire and its related haz-ards is provided by providing sound,cost-effective fire protection systems anddetection systems that are effective indetecting and extinguishing or control-ling a fire event.

Bengston: To create good fire protec-tion for people and sometimes to dimin-ish damage from fire.

Koffel: Several have mentionedthird-party plan reviews and in-spections as a service providedby fire protection (safety) engi-neers. Are there any problems orconcerns with providing suchservices?

Frable: The biggest problem involvesthe scope of work within the fire protec-tion engineer’s contract. Too manytimes, there may be differences of opin-ion regarding what the client believesthey are going to receive and what thefire protection engineer believes theyare to provide.

Ferguson: Third-party services arequite common when a client requires adue-diligence survey of a property forpotential investment. Other than differ-ences of professional opinion, there areno great problems in the United King-dom with third-party services.

England: In most states and territoriesin Australia, the role of the Authority

■ A Roundtable Discussion


Having Jurisdiction has been priva-tized. There are some concerns in theindustry about the independence ofthe certifiers from the design processand self-certification without indepen-dent review.

Chow: Fire strategy reports in HongKong are assessed by the authoritiesthemselves, not by a third party.

Uehara: When based on a perfor-mance design, there is an evaluation andapproval by a committee of a designatedperformance-evaluation organization thatconsists of individuals of learning and experience.

Richardson: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, has a “Certified Pro-fessional” program that requires codeknowledge but not necessarily a fireprotection engineer. There have beenno significant problems with the pro-gram; however, the issue of liability in-

surance for the practitioners is signifi-cant and unresolved in a similar pro-gram being developed in Ontario.

Koffel: With the variety of ser-vices provided, what is the educa-tional background of fire protec-tion (safety) engineers in yourarea?

England: Most fire safety engineers inAustralia have a degree in an engineer-ing or science discipline supported bypostgraduate qualifications in fire safetyengineering.

Sacco: In Italy, the services are pro-vided by individuals with an engineeringdegree in various disciplines.

Gillespie: Most hold a bachelor’s de-gree in engineering and some will holda master’s degree in fire engineering.

Richardson: Most fire protection en-

gineers in Canada have an engineeringdegree in a discipline other than fireprotection.

Frable: Fire protection engineers usu-ally have either a bachelor’s degree ormaster’s degree in fire protection engi-neering or are a Professional Engineerwith specialized experience in fire protec-tion engineering.

Ferguson: In the United Kingdom,there is a new generation of engineersthat have first degrees in fire safety engi-neering. However, older practitionersare likely to have had a first degree in arelated discipline of engineering, sci-ence, or architecture with a Ph.D. orMSc in a fire-safety field.

Bengston: Normally fire engineersfrom Lund’s University of Technologybut we also have civil engineers withdifferent specialties.



Koffel: Do you have a licensingrequirement for fire protectionengineers? If not, how are indi-viduals qualified to practice fireprotection engineering?

Bengston: No, not for the moment,but something is planned. Sweden is sosmall that everybody knows almosteverybody and their skills.

Sacco: In Italy, one needs to be a pro-fessional engineer only for the fire depart-ment authorization activity. Such individu-als are included in a Ministry of Interiors(fire department organization) list.

Gillespie: Currently, the engineeringregistration system in New Zealand isbeing changed, and it is not clear whatrestrictions, if any, will be placed onunregistered individuals offering firesafety engineering services. Using regis-tered engineers in any discipline has al-

ways been voluntary in New Zealand,and it will most likely remain so afterthe current changes are implemented.

Uehara: There is no need for a li-cense. The fire protection engineer’squalifications are judged according tothe actual work product.

Frable: The General Services Adminis-tration does not mandate licensing forfire protection engineers. However,there is a professional engineer licensingrequirement imposed by the variousstates and jurisdictions within the UnitedStates, and many offer a specialty examin fire protection engineering.

Ferguson: We do not have a licensingrequirement for fire safety engineers, andit is currently uncontrolled. However, theprofessional body of the Institution ofFire Engineers (IFE) has a rigorousprocess of examination, interview, dis-

sertation, etc., to the requirements of theEngineering Council of the United King-dom for screening candidates for Char-tered status.

England: Some states and territorieshave licensing requirements for firesafety engineers that recognize the Engi-neers Australia National Professional En-gineers Register (NPER). Where thereare no licensing requirements, NPERFire Safety Engineers are generally rec-ognized as having the appropriate com-petencies.

Chow: There is not yet a licensing re-quirement in Hong Kong. Projects aretypically awarded to consulting compa-nies that have a reputation for providingfire protection engineering studies or toindividual engineers with experienceand achievements within the fire engi-neering community such as publica-tions.



Koffel: The SFPE Board has beenapproached in the past about de-veloping a certification programfor fire protection (safety) engi-neers. If one were developed,what is the likelihood that itwould be used in your area?

Uehara: If the certification program ofSFPE is accepted as a fire protection en-gineer’s qualification in Japan, it wouldbe greatly used.

Gillespie: It depends on how practicalthe program was in terms of non-U.S.legislation and codes.

Richardson: It depends on the long-term acceptance of performance-basedcodes and regulatory actions to respondto professional competency initiatives. Acertification program could provide a ba-sis for provinces to establish their re-quirements or could even be accepted asa “Deemed-To-Comply” means ofdemonstrating competence.

Frable: A certification program for fireprotection engineers would have moreminuses than plusses. Depending onhow such a certification program wouldbe developed and enforced would im-pact its usage. However, SFPE shouldconsider the words that a wise elder fireprotection engineer once told me – thatis, “Being certified does not necessarilymean that you are qualified.”

Ferguson: There would obviously bea question of competence for the IFE.Chartered status is the goal of engineersin the United Kingdom, and havingachieved that, they would expect certifi-cation (if required by statute) to be prettymuch a formality.

England: Use of an SFPE certificationprogram would probably be relativelylow because of existing programs inAustralia operated by Engineers Austra-lia. However, if the SFPE certificationscheme was accepted in the UnitedStates, the Engineers Australia Society ofFire Safety would be interested in pursu-ing mutual recognition arrangements.Engineers Australia currently has mutualrecognition agreements with a numberof countries.

Chow: The program would first re-quire agreement from the governmentand engineering professional organiza-tions. We have a registration board inthe government authority where regis-tered fire safety engineers may be a po-tential new category under a govern-ment registration scheme.

Sacco: Use of an SFPE certificationprogram in Italy would be scarce.

Bengston: We have already tried thiswithin the Swedish Branch of the SFPE.Interest has not been big since the au-thorities don’t require certification.

Koffel: Who is the primary employer of fire protection engi-neers in your area?

Gillespie: Small independent consul-tancy practices would account for overhalf of the fire protection engineers inNew Zealand.

Uehara: General contractors, majorbuilding design firms, fire protectionconsultant companies, and fire protec-tion equipment companies.

Frable: Fire protection engineeringfirms and the federal government.

Ferguson: Fire safety engineeringconsultancies.

Chow: Consultancy firms, contractors,and public utilities such as railways andairports.

England: Specialist fire safety consul-tants and multidisciplinary engineeringconsultants.

Sacco: Self-employment and the in-surance industry.

Richardson: Federal government andconsultants.

Koffel: Do you have a perfor-mance code? If so, for how long?Also, generally, what has beenyour experience (successes andfailures) with performancecodes?

Ferguson: In the United Kingdom,building regulations, with some regionaldifferences, are based on functionalrather than performance requirements.The statements of objectives are not ex-pressed in quantitative terms but give asystem with considerable flexibility andfreedom for innovation. The English andWales systems began 17 years ago. Oneof the big effects has been to raise thelevel of professional qualification in theapproving bodies and bringing about achange of attitude in accepting thatcode-compliance is not the only way.

Bengston: Yes, for about 10 years.Generally, it has been a success al-though the fire protection goals aremissing. For example, how many firedeaths are acceptable?

Frable: The General Services Admin-istration (GSA) does not have a so-called “performance code.” However,over the years, GSA has encourageddesign teams to use innovative risk-based designs to solve complex firesafety problems in lieu of only relyingon prescriptive code requirements dueto the wide range of buildings (newconstruction and existing buildings aswell as historic buildings) within ourinventory.

Problems associated with the use ofperformance-based codes in our pro-jects appear to be related to bothschedule conflicts as well as increaseddesign costs. For example, perfor-mance-based designs may take longerto prepare and to receive approvalcompared to a design strictly adheringto prescriptive code requirements. Nor-mally, project managers have not antic-ipated the additional design time asso-ciated with a performance-baseddesign nor have they incorporated thisadditional time into the project sched-ule timeline. All too often, the projectcontinues without the performance de-sign being completed or approved, andthe project team must revert to the pre-scriptive code requirements to maintainthe project schedule. In addition, dueto the increased design time for perfor-mance-based designs, most projectmanagers do not anticipate the addi-tional design costs necessary to com-plete a performance-based design.



Koffel: It should be noted that thetwo model code development organi-zations in the United States, the Inter-national Code Council and the NationalFire Protection Association, have pro-duced performance-based codes as analternative approach to their prescrip-tive codes. With the exception of theperformance option in the 2000 Editionof the Life Safety Code®,2 the perfor-mance-based building codes were in-troduced in the United States in 2002,so there has been minimal experiencewith those codes to date. Furthermore,in contrast to many of the countriesrepresented in this roundtable discus-sion, codes are developed in the UnitedStates by private entities. They have nolegal affect until a jurisdiction adoptsthe document by a legislative or regula-tory process. Therefore, the fact thatperformance-based code recently be-came available does not infer that thecode has been adopted as a regulation.

Chow: Hong Kong does not yet havea performance code, but the fire safetyengineering approach has been ac-cepted since 1998. Over 80 projectshave been designed using this approach,but it is difficult to measure successesand failures. Awareness of the fire safetyengineering approach is increasing.

England: Alternative approaches havebeen accepted for over 50 years in Aus-tralia, and since 1996, a formal perfor-mance code has existed. Overall, the in-troduction of a performance-based codehas been successful. After six years ofexperience, a number of areas for im-provement have been identified, such asquantification of performance require-ments and the standardization of admin-istrative procedures and design meth-ods. These are being examined as partof the development of the next genera-tion of a performance code by the Aus-tralian Building Codes Board togetherwith the ongoing development of theFire Safety Engineering Guidelines. TheEngineers Australia Society of Fire Safetyhas also developed a Code of Practice toaddress a number of critical issues in re-lation to performance-based fire engi-neering design.

Uehara: Japan has had a performance

code since June 2000. Prior to the perfor-mance code, Japan had a system of per-formance design approvals by the Minis-ter of Construction. Approximately 1,000or more projects were designed usingthis approach over a period of 15 years.

Richardson: Canada does not yethave a performance code, but an expertobjective-based code should be com-pleted by 2005. Therefore, our experi-ence is limited to developing equivalen-cies to prescriptive codes anddeveloping the performance expecta-tions of prescriptive codes.

Gillespie: New Zealand has had aperformance code since 1991. Duringthat time period, performance-based fireengineering has demonstrated that theprevious prescriptive codes were, inpart, too conservative and, in part, notconservative enough. With respect tosuccesses, performance codes have pro-vided the ability to use lateral thinkingand engineering to achieve acceptablelevels of fire safety at a reasonable costand in harmony with architectural con-cepts that would previously not havebeen possible. We have also realizedthat smoke control, not fire separation, isat the heart of fire safety design.

Regarding failures, the maintenanceand inspection regime has often faileddue to lack of commercial indepen-dence. This aspect is currently being re-viewed by the New Zealand governmentand seems likely to be changed. Therehas also been a lack of consensus andvalidation of which fire engineeringmethodologies should be used, often re-sulting in the use of models well outsidethe scope of their validation.

Koffel: How have performance-based codes affected the prac-tice of fire protection (safety) en-gineering in your area?

Gillespie: Performance codes havemoved the profession from consideringhow best to work around the prescrip-tive fire protection requirements towardsa better understanding and responsibilitytowards fire safety.

England: The performance-basedBuilding Code of Australia has had a

major impact on the practice of fire safetyengineering by facilitating efficient accep-tance of alternate building solutions. Fireprotection engineering, those who pri-marily design fire protection systems, hasnot been significantly affected.

Uehara: Practical use of a performancedesign progressed, and more rational de-signs were attained in the design of ref-uge areas, design of smoke control sys-tems, and fire-resistance design.

Ferguson: Performance codes haveenabled a great expansion in the num-ber of projects on which fire safety engi-neers are employed. Margaret Law wasone of the earliest practitioners in theUnited Kingdom, and as a result of herwork, there were some notable suc-cesses such as the Royal Exchange The-ater in Manchester and the water-cooledstructure of the Cannon St. Office inLondon. But it was only after the func-tional regulations appeared that our firesafety engineering group was estab-lished as a separate entity.

Bengston: Performance codes have re-sulted in far more calculations and moreopen buildings.

Koffel: Do you see the need forSFPE to develop standards ad-dressing the practice of fire safetyengineering?

Ferguson: No. We have the BS7974that provides a framework for fire safetyengineering. There are the ISO TechnicalReports and the Australian Code ReformCentre’s work. Despite chairing the BS ac-tivity for nearly 10 years, or perhaps be-cause of it, I do not see a great practicalvalue in these documents. That maychange as fire safety engineering becomesmore routine, but at present, they canonly usefully talk about principles, andthere is an odor of apple pie about them.

Chow: Yes, and some in Hong Kongare already thinking about it.

Richardson: Yes, whether or not per-formance codes materialize. Standardsprovide a benchmark against which pro-fessional competence and engineeringperformance can be measured.



Uehara: I agree; it is a necessity that standards be developed.

Sacco: Standards would certainly be useful.

England: There is a need for standards addressing the practiceof fire safety and fire protection engineering to be developed. Ide-ally, these activities should be coordinated with other bodies tomaximize the efficient use of resources. The Society of Fire Safetyis willing to work with the SFPE and other organizations to de-velop guides and standards to facilitate the development of thediscipline of fire safety engineering.

Gillespie: Yes, a huge raft of methodologies need to be devel-oped to a point of consensus within our branch of engineering.

Koffel: We have discussed quite a bit regarding thepractice of fire protection engineering or fire safetyengineering throughout the world. What is the pri-mary issue confronting fire protection (safety) engi-neers in your area?

Bengston: To know the goal in fire protection, how to modela fire in its early stage, and to find design values for the numberof people per square meter.

Gillespie: Developing better and more uniform engineeringmethods and quality.

Sacco: Lack of a fire engineering culture and competition fromlow-level technicians.

Uehara: The lack of a qualification authorization system for fire pro-tection engineers.

England: It is hard to focus on just one issue. Defining accept-able levels of safety for the community where these are notclearly defined in design codes is probably the most important. Itcan have a major impact on community safety and risk exposureof practitioners.

Richardson: The overabundance of unqualified individualspurporting to practice fire protection engineering coupled with alack of recognition for what fire protection engineers can reallydo.

Chow: The cost is too high for fire safety provisions when there isno accident.

Frable: The primary issue confronting fire protection engineersin the United States, if not the world, is how the discipline of fireprotection engineering can be integrated seamlessly into any de-sign process to ensure a successful project. All too often, fire pro-tection engineering is still being thought of as just a “cost over-ride” or “afterthought” and not a fundamental necessity orconcept that needs to be incorporated into every project. Fireprotection engineers are often not seen as a vital necessity re-source in the majority of projects in the United States.

Fire protection engineering impacts in some way or another allaspects of any project design, be it the ventilation system designor security. The view of fire protection engineering though theeyes of many designers has been shortsighted for many years andmust be expanded. Another issue that needs to be looked into isthe fire protection engineer’s inability to assure that the quality de-sign is maintained throughout the useful life of a building.

Koffel: I want to thank all of you for participating in this interna-tional roundtable discussion. While there are some differences af-fecting the global practice of fire protection or fire safety engineer-ing, your responses have indicated that there are more similaritiesthan differences. For those of you who have more experience withperformance codes than others, there is a lot that we can learnfrom your experiences. Dave Frable’s response to the last questionprovides an excellent summary of the issues and concerns facingfire protection (safety) engineers, and many of the items he raisedappear throughout your responses in this discussion. ▲

William E. Koffel, P.E., FSFPE, is President, Society of Fire Protec-tion Engineers.

REFERENCES

1 Society of Fire Protection Engineers Strategic Plan, ApprovedOctober 28, 1999.

2 Life Safety Code®, NFPA 101®, Quincy, MA: National Fire ProtectionAssociation, 2000.



Developing countries are wide openmarkets that offer huge opportunitiesto qualified fire protection engineers.

These markets do, however, present a numberof challenges, including a weak regulatoryframework, underdeveloped physical andhuman infrastructures, and a limited access toskilled labor. Examining how fire protectionengineering is practiced in developing coun-tries offers useful insight into a number of

issues that are relevant to practitioners in thedeveloped world. These include a better under-standing of our own codes and standards, abetter understanding of financial constraints inthis engineering field, an opportunity to getback to basics, an opportunity to promote per-formance-based methodologies, and, last butnot least, an opportunity to advance the scienceand practice of fire protection engineeringworldwide.

Fire ProtectionEngineeringOpportunities in

DevelopingCountries

By Jean-Michel Attlan


DEVELOPING COUNTRIES – AHUGE MARKET FOR FIRE PROTEC-TION ENGINEERING EXPERTISE

Public demand for fire safety is highin every country, irrespective of itslevel of development. Developingcountries offer a wide range of per-spectives because of their high poten-tial for development and because of thelow level of expertise available locally.By and large, most of the fire safety en-gineering expertise is concentrated inthe developed world because poorcountries suffer from inadequate edu-cational facilities. Basic and vital ser-vices such as preventive maintenanceprograms and regular fire safety inspec-tions are mostly implemented by sub-sidiaries of multinational corporationsin most of the developing world.

AN OPPORTUNITY TO BETTERUNDERSTAND OUR OWN CODESAND STANDARDS

For lack of strong regulatory frame-works and for historical reasons, devel-oping countries mostly rely on olderversions of European and U.S. firecodes. It is a refreshing experience toread old fire codes. They are short,concise, and to the point. They remindus of the early days, when the “LifeSafety Code” was called the “BuildingExit Code.” What fires prompted ourregulators to make these old codes ob-solete? What was the influence of lob-bies (insurance companies, sprinklerassociations, fire brigades, etc.) in themodification of the “old” codes? Didcode writers overreact under the pres-sure of public opinion in the aftermathof the latest disastrous fire in the designof new fire codes and standards?

Are buildings and infrastructures lesssafe from fire in developing countries?For lack of reliable data, we cannotreach any definite conclusions.

FINANCIAL CONSTRAINTS IN FIRESAFETY

Poor countries have – by definition –limited financial resources to meet re-quired levels of public safety. In thesecountries, multinational corporationsusually adopt a policy of followingtheir corporate standards, in addition to

the requirements of the host country.This often translates into “belts andbraces” and excessive fire safety bud-gets. In the field of safety, more is notnecessarily better, and multinationalcorporations usually devote large bud-gets for fire safety installations, bothfrom an investment side and from amaintenance and operational side. Incontrast, local corporations adopt a pol-icy of strict compliance with local codesat minimum costs. Neither approach isfully satisfactory, and it is a challengefor fire protection engineers to designcost-effective solutions to fire safetyproblems.

BACK TO BASICS

Developing countries suffer from ob-solete codes and standards, and frominadequate enforcement infrastructures.These deficiencies provide an opportu-nity for flexibility to the fire protectionengineer, who can use his or her exper-tise to provide the required level of firerisk at the lowest possible costs. Takingan holistic approach to fire safety, thequalified fire protection engineer willfind the best mix of software (humanelement) and hardware (physical instal-lations) to reach any required level ofsafety at optimal costs. Low labor costsin developing countries will favor morefrequent inspections, more reliance onhuman response, better emergencyprocedures, and more drills. High costsof mechanical and electrical equipmentwill favor better civil engineering, bet-ter compartmentation, and less relianceon high-maintenance/low-reliability in-stallations.

Automatic sprinkler installations mustbe evaluated carefully, not only for in-surance implications, but also from a“pure” fire safety standpoint. Sprinklersystems may not be as reliable in devel-oping countries since water supply maybe a problem in dry regions, and intropical countries, stagnant water re-serves may be a source of serioushealth problems for the population.

These challenges provide an oppor-tunity to work with Authorities HavingJurisdiction in developing countries toassist them in improving their own firecodes and standards, to make them eas-ier to understand, to implement, and toenforce.

PERFORMANCE-BASED DESIGNSAND METHODOLOGIES

The application of local codes andstandards to the design of modern build-ings is often difficult and cumbersome.Equivalencies were initially accepted onspecific provisions of the codes. Morerecently, equivalencies on a broaderscale have started to become the norm.In adopting a performance-based de-sign, the fire protection engineer implic-itly accepts a higher level of professionalresponsibility and must demonstrate tohis or her client and peers, and to Au-thorities Having Jurisdiction, that pro-posed solutions will reduce the fire riskto required levels. This is a heavy re-sponsibility for the fire protection engi-neer, a responsibility that will reflect onthe entire fire protection engineeringcommunity.

Performance-based methodologieswill become the way to translate codesand standards from various countriesinto a single accepted language. Inter-estingly enough, European countrieshave tried, unsuccessfully, to draft acommon set of fire codes and standardsthat would be acceptable throughoutEurope. Fire codes are too much a prod-uct of local cultures, local histories, localorganizations, and local politics. It isnow becoming obvious that each Euro-pean country will keep its own firecodes and standards, and will acceptperformance-based equivalenciesthroughout the whole of Europe.

Performance-based methodologieswill be accepted in Europe and in therest of the developed world, but therewill always be a temptation for Authori-ties Having Jurisdiction to adopt a de-fensive attitude, fall back on prescriptivecodes, and refuse valid, but unfamiliar,designs. Developing countries, not yetfrozen by litigious environments, shouldoffer better opportunities for the fireprotection engineer to “leap-frog” tech-nologically and propose innovative andcost-effective solutions to fire safetyproblems.

ADVANCING THE SCIENCE ANDPRACTICE OF FIRE PROTECTIONENGINEERING INTERNATIONALLY

The Society of Fire Protection Engi-neers finds here an historic opportunity

■ Opportunities in Developing Countries


to become the liaison between all na-tional and regional fire protection engi-neering societies that are struggling tomove forward in the direction of perfor-mance- based methodologies. FromNew Zealand to South Africa, from theU.S. to Europe and Japan, from everycorner of the world, countries are turn-ing to fire protection engineering totranscend prescriptive codes and stan-dards.

THE NEXT STEPS...

During a U.S. congressional breakfastmeeting held on April 24, 2002, then-SFPE President Fred Mowrer remindedhis audience that “we (fire protectionengineers) are the people who designfire protection systems in buildings tomitigate fire hazards, reduce fire losses,and protect people.”

Fire protection engineers must workto better organize their profession in order to deliver better fire protectionservices in developing countries andthroughout the world. Education, funda-mental and applied research, better international cooperation, and wider useof performance-based methodologieshold the highest potential for futurebenefits in this field.

EDUCATION

Advancing fire protection engineer-ing starts with a wider access to fireprotection engineering education and abetter promotion of this discipline.Only a handful of institutions offerhigh-level education in fire protectionengineering throughout the world. Dis-tance learning is now becoming widelyavailable in this field. All these facilitiesshould be vigorously promoted, andspecific courses should be tailored toevery country, to every situation.

Fire protection tools and toolkitsshould also be made available through-out the world and adapted to all cul-tures and situations. Translations maybe sufficient in some instances, such asvideos or fire reports, but in mostcases, U.S.-made material will need tobe adapted to the specific needs of therelevant country. NFPA Internationalhas been instrumental in translatingsome of their material into Spanish andother languages, and in opening up of-

fices in Latin America, in SoutheastAsia, and in Europe. The InternationalCode Council is also offering buildingcodes, textbooks, videos, and practicecourses. There is a high demand for ba-sic engineering material throughout theentire world.

And finally, guidelines are desper-ately needed by all fire protection engi-neers worldwide. In fire protection en-gineering, no two problems are alike,and there is never a single solution toany problem. Fire protection engineersneed to stay in permanent contact withtheir peers in order to stay abreast ofnew technologies and new discoveriesin the ever-changing field of fire protec-tion engineering. Technical guidelinesare needed, but just as importantly, soare organizational guidelines, method-ological guidelines, and peer reviewguidelines.

RESEARCH

In addition to the traditional researchin fire protection engineering and to theusual fire testing of new materials, com-puter research and analysis of humanbehavior in fire situations are drawingconsiderable attention and offer wide re-search opportunities to the next genera-

tions of fire protection engineers. Re-search is also needed in the areas ofsimulation of fire development andsmoke movement, risk modeling, andrisk evaluation. Once completed, resultsmust be disseminated and integratedinto tools that are used in widespreadpractice.

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

Research is expensive and will requirea more coordinated approach betweennational and international fire servicelaboratories. The European Union is anopportunity for various European firetesting laboratories to engage in transna-tional testing and research programs,and to initiate or strengthen ties withother laboratories throughout the world.

The Society of Fire Protection Engi-neers has a unique role to play in thisprocess, as a catalyst for change, as a fo-rum for exchange, and as the primarysource of fire protection engineering in-formation.

PERFORMANCE-BASED METHODOLOGIES

Performance-based methodologiescan be applied directly to developingcountries where there is no precon-ceived bias towards prescriptive codesand standards. With the assistance ofSFPE, the International Finance Corpo-ration (IFC), the private sector arm ofthe World Bank Group, conducted athorough review of all existing English-language performance-based codes inuse internationally. In the same spirit,IFC determined that all IFC-financedprojects needed to meet three specificfire safety objectives: The first goal was“fire prevention” and dealt with ways toreduce the frequency of fires, mainlythrough adequate employee trainingand through the use of proper appli-ances and electrical equipment. Thesecond goal was related to “fire control”through adequate design, construction,protection, and alarm and evacuationsystems. The third goal was related to“fire protection of adjoining propertiesand the environment” through properlayout and adequate safeguards. TheSFPE study facilitated the establishmentof specific performance criteria for allidentified objectives.



A technical guideline was also issuedthat prescribed the preparation of firesafety master plans by qualified fireprotection professionals to review allIFC-financed projects. Each fire safetymaster plan must adequately addresseach of the following elements: fireprevention, means of egress, detectionand alarm systems, compartmentaliza-tion, fire suppression and control, oper-ations and maintenance, and, finally,emergency response planning.

New guidelines will be needed toprovide objective evaluation methods,in order to ensure the fire risk is keptwithin acceptable limits at all times andto offer a methodological framework(similar to ISO series 9000 and 14000)in analyzing IFC-financed project risks.

WHAT THE FUTURE HOLDS

The trend towards performance-based codes and methodologies isclear, but prescriptive mentalities arevery much embedded into our day-to-day activities. It will take decades forcodes and standards to evolve “natu-rally” towards performance-basedmindsets and methodologies.

Developing countries offer a uniqueopportunity to the international fireprotection engineering community toleap directly into performance-basedcodes and standards. Authorities Hav-ing Jurisdiction in developing countriesare just as interested in public safety astheir counterparts in developed coun-tries. They are dedicated, knowledge-able, and have the added advantage ofan open mind and fewer preconceivedideas about new and more efficientmethodologies. The successful transferof efficient new technologies to devel-oping countries should facilitate theadoption of these very technologies todeveloped countries.

Compliance with two different sets ofcodes can be very expensive, withoutproviding significantly higher levels ofsafety. When dealing with investmentsin the developing world, corporate firesafety engineers should work closelywith local Authorities Having Jurisdic-tion – not to impose their corporatestandards, but rather to improve onthese corporate standards and to opti-mize their fire safety budgets – invest-

ment budgets and operational budgets– to meet or even exceed the level offire safety required by the strict applica-tion of their corporate codes and stan-dards.

Performance-based methodologiesoffer a unique opportunity for all fireprotection engineers to work together

towards a real transformation of theirprofession, across borders, across na-tional codes, across cultural differences,and make the world a safer place. ▲

Jean-Michel Attlan is with the Interna-tional Finance Corporation.



By James Lord and Chris Marrion, P.E., Arup Fire

INTRODUCTION

Over the last fewdecades, the world-wide fire protection

community has made largestrides in advancing buildingfire safety. Advances in tech-nology, in our understandingof fire dynamics, and thedevelopment of design andanalysis tools have led tochanges in the way the fireprotection engineering pro-fession approaches fire safety. With these changes,building and fire codesaround the world have begunto change in an effort toreflect and make use of thisnew knowledge.1, 2

This article provides a briefoverview of the fire and lifesafety codes and guidelinesthat are used in some of thecountries around the globe,including Australia, HongKong, Japan, Sweden, Eng-land and Wales, Canada, andthe United States of America(U.S.). To a varying degree,prescriptive codes play a rolein all of these countries; somerely almost completely onprescriptive codes, while oth-ers have moved towards aperformance-based approachto fire safety.

AUSTRALIA

Australia is divided into six differentstates and two territories, each of whichis governed by its own building control

system. In the first part of the 20th cen-tury, these states and territories hadadopted their own regulations as theysaw appropriate.3 During the 1960s, thevarious state and territory governments,the federal government, and other re-lated organizations jointly formed the In-terstate Standing Committee on UniformBuilding Regulations (ISCUBR), whichproduced the first national model fortechnical building regulations. This doc-ument was titled the Australian ModelUniform Building Code (AMUBC) andformed a basis for the development ofstate and territory technical regulationsduring the early 1970s. In the 1980s, theAustralian Uniform Building Regulations

Developments


Coordinating Council (AUBRCC) wasformed. This organization developed theprescriptive Building Code of Australia(BCA)4 in 1990, which was adopted na-tionwide in 1992.3

In 1994, the AUBRCC was dissolved,and the Australian Building Codes Board(ABCB) was formed to maintain theBCA. In 1996, the Board published theperformance-based BCA, which hasnow been adopted nationwide.

The Australian Fire Safety Engineer-ing Guidelines5 was first published in1996, with the aim of providing a frame-work, process, and guidance documentfor the application of fire engineeringmethods.

Additionally, Australia has dedicatedstandards-writing bodies, such as Stan-dards Australia, that are private organiza-tions similar in nature to NFPA. They areresponsible for the development of spe-cific technical standards that may be in-corporated within, or adopted by, build-ing codes such as the BCA or relevantlegislation.

The performance-based BCA providesprescriptive guidance while allowing aperformance-based approach to firesafety. A building will be “deemed to sat-isfy” the performance requirements of theBCA if it meets the prescriptive require-ments of the BCA. Alternately, buildingdesigners may choose to propose an al-

ternative solution to the authority in or-der to gain approval for a differentmethod of design or construction.

The local government has generallybeen responsible for approving buildingdesigns in Australia, although in recentyears there have been changes to legis-lation that enhance the role of approvedprivate practitioners in the building de-sign and approval process.

UNITED KINGDOM

The first England/Wales building reg-ulations to incorporate fire safety mea-sures outside of metropolitan areas weredeveloped as model bylaws in the1950s. Many local authorities adoptedthese bylaws, although they were notaccepted throughout the UK. In 1965,national building regulations were de-veloped that were adopted throughoutthe UK, with the exception of centralLondon, which abided by its own regu-lations.6 At that time the regulationswere purely prescriptive, similar to mostcurrent model building codes in theUnited States.

In 1985, the UK moved to a system ofbuilding regulations based on functionalrequirements. These are outlined in PartB of Schedule 1 of the England andWales Building Regulations, and sup-ported by a set of guidelines entitled Approved Documents.7 Approved Docu-ment B provides guidance on fire safetyrequirements. In addition to the Ap-proved Documents, there are BritishStandards that provide further guide-lines for the design of various building

in Codes

AROUND THE WORLD


components and systems. The BritishStandards are meant as recommendedguidelines, as are the Approved Docu-ments.

Authorities Having Jurisdiction in Eng-land and Wales generally recognize thatfull compliance with the recommenda-tions of the Approved Documents is notalways possible. Therefore, a fire engi-neering approach can be used to de-velop alternative ways of achievingcompliance with the intent of the re-quirements. Since the 1992 edition, theApproved Documents have recognizedand allowed the use of an alternativeapproach to fire safety design. TheBritish Standards documents (PD 7974-0to 7) on fire safety engineering8 addressthe technical issues associated with de-sign through use of a fire engineeringapproach.

The local government administersbuilding approvals. Alternately, approvalof building designs can be obtainedfrom private-sector “Approved Inspec-tors” if accepted by the local authority.Approved Inspectors are evaluated bythe local authority to determine if theyare technically competent and must becommercially independent of the project.

HONG KONG

Hong Kong’s current system of fire re-lated building ordinance and regulationsare based on a series of four prescriptiveCodes of Practice. These are:

1. Code of Practice for the Provision ofMeans of Escape in Case of Fire,Buildings Department, June 1996.

2. Code of Practice for Means of Accessfor Firefighting and Rescue, Build-ings Department, May 1995.

3. Code of Practice for Fire ResistingConstruction, Buildings Depart-ment, January 1996.

4. Code of Practice for Minimum FireService Installations and Equipment,and Inspection, Testing and Main-tenance of Installations and Equip-ment, Fire Services Department,June 1998.

These codes were developed to alarge degree around UK standards andcodes during the time when Hong Kongwas under British administration. In1995-96, these Codes of Practice offi-cially permitted the principle of adopt-ing fire safety design alternatives. Thesedocuments were issued in the form ofPractice Note for Authorised Persons andRegistered Structural Engineers andPractice Note for Registered Contractorsfor the requirements administered by theBuildings Department and in the form of a “Circular Letter” for the require-ments administered by the Fire Services

Department. Equivalencies to these codes are pos-

sible through the use of a performance-based approach. Fire engineering solu-tions are subject to approval by the FireSafety Committee. This committee ismade up of representatives from Build-ings Department, Fire Services Depart-ment, Academics, and Engineering Specialists and Practitioners. PracticeNote PNAP 204 was issued in 1998 bythe Buildings Department to provideguidance on the objectives, designmethodology, design procedures, andproposed content of a fire safety strategyreport when developing equivalenciesto prescriptive code requirements. Prac-titioners typically make reference tooverseas standards and engineeringmethods when carrying out evaluations.

A Buildings Department official pro-vides approval of the design after receiv-ing comments from the Fire Services Department. The Buildings Departmentadministers passive fire safety require-ments, while the Fire Services Depart-ment typically administers active firesafety provisions, including smoke management.

Hong Kong is currently undergoingefforts to revise their system of buildingand fire codes. They are proceedingwith an extensive effort to develop acompletely new code that will become amodel performance-based code. Thisnew code is being developed by practic-ing engineers under the guidance of theHong Kong Buildings Department and

Fire Services Department and will incor-porate a review of practices fromaround the world.

JAPAN

The Japanese system of building codeshas traditionally been similar to thatused by the U.S. The BuildingStandards Law (BSL)9 is a prescriptivecode that has been in force since 1950.This was originally based on theUniform Building Code (UBC) devel-oped by the international conference ofbuilding officials. There is also a FireService Law (FSL)10 in place thataddresses requirements for active fireprotection systems. These codes applynationwide, although various cities andregions have adopted revisions to thebase codes.

In 1998, the BSL was amended to in-clude performance-based requirements;this document was adopted in June of2000. This new code allows three alter-natives for building design. The first ac-ceptable method is for the building de-sign to meet the Deemed-To-Satisfymethods prescribed in the model code.The second alternative allows a perfor-mance-based design approach, basedon proven alternate methods or materi-als of construction. The third alternativeof design allows the use of an engineer-ing analysis to prove that new alternatemethods or materials will meet the per-formance-based provisions containedwithin the code.

The BSL stipulates the objectives andfunctional (qualitative) performance re-quirements. Quantitative (technical) per-formance criteria and Deemed-To-Satisfyprovisions are provided in the docu-ment entitled Enforcement Order, theMinistry Order and Notification.

The Ministry of Construction and theFire and Disaster Management Agencyadminister approval of prescriptivebuilding and fire regulations. For designs

■ Codes Around the World


that use performance-based analysis, ap-proval is based upon a review by a des-ignated Performance Evaluation Body.

SWEDENSweden devel-

oped its first pre-scriptive rules forfire safety over acentury ago, in1874, after severaldevastating fireshad occurred indensely popu-lated areas. Thesecodes were basedon the premisethat loosely trans-lates to the ideathat “to acciden-

tally burn down your house is not as badas burning down your neighbor’s house.”This initial set of rules gradually evolvedthrough several revisions of prescriptivebuilding codes until 1994, when a partialperformance-based code was issued bythe National Board of Housing Buildingand Planning (BBR94).11

Two handbooks provide the engi-neering methods, tools, and acceptableprocedures for fire engineering designand calculations. The translated Englishtitles of the two handbooks are FireSafety Engineering Guidelines andGuidelines on Fire Safety Design ofHVAC Systems.

A standard prescriptive approach isused for most types of buildings in Swe-den. A set of acceptable Deemed-To-Sat-isfy design solutions has been providedthat meet the performance requirementsof BBR94. Compliance with these solu-tions provides an acceptable design.

Performance-based fire engineering isused on a smaller number of buildingdesign aspects but is still fairly common.This approach was basically acceptedeven before the introduction of BBR94.This option is generally exercised whenseeking an alternate method for a partic-ular system design rather than for a fullbuilding fire safety design.

There is no formal inspection bodythat regularly enforces Swedish buildingregulations. Generally, it is the responsi-bility of the building owner to verify thattheir building is compliant. Individualsystems, such as alarms, sprinklers, andventilation systems, are inspected regu-larly by certified persons and may be

checked by the Fire Safety Service.

CANADA12

Canada has a centralized system fordeveloping and maintaining their modelcode that began in 1937. The first editionof the National Building Code was pub-lished in 1941. The Canadian Commis-sion on Building and Fire Codes (CCBFC)develops and maintains six of the modelconstruction and fire codes. This is donethrough a consensus-based processwhere codes are updated approximatelyevery five years. While the model codesare prepared centrally under the directionof the CCBFC, the adoption and enforce-ment of the codes are the responsibilityof the provincial and territorial AuthoritiesHaving Jurisdiction.

The model national building, plumb-ing, and fire codes have equivalencyprovisions. These permit the use ofequipment, materials, systems, methodsof design, or construction proceduresthat are not specifically prescribed. If adesigner proposes an alternate approach,then the designer must demonstrate thatthe alternative provides the level of per-formance required by the codes.

The National Building Code, NationalFire Code, and National Plumbing Codeare being changed into an objective-based format for the 2004 editions. Thiswill offer several advantages, including abetter understanding of each require-ment’s intent, additional information forevaluating alternative approaches, andmore flexibility to adapt to innovation.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICAIn the U.S., the federal government

does not draft or enforce building andfire regulations on a state or local level.Building and fire regulations are draftedby private organizations, such as the In-ternational Code Council (ICC) and theNational Fire Protection Association(NFPA). These codes are then madeavailable for adoption by state and local

governments. These codes have tradi-tionally been prescriptive codes for bothbuilding design and fire protection sys-tems, as well as for other building-re-lated areas such as zoning, mechanicalsystems, and electrical wiring. The 50states have either adopted existingcodes with modifications or have writtentheir own codes. In addition, some ofthe major cities write or adopt their owncodes rather than following the codesadopted by their state.

Until recently, the major building andfire codes used in the U.S. were varia-tions of the Uniform Building Code,13

the Standard Building Code,14 or the National Building Code.15 In 1994, the three organizations that developed thesecodes merged their existing codes underthe newly created entity called the Inter-national Code Council (ICC). In 2003,the organizations formally consolidatedinto the ICC. Several states have alreadyadopted the ICC codes. Another recentdevelopment in the U.S. code commu-nity is the publication of NFPA 500016 bythe National Fire Protection Association(NFPA). Both the ICC and NFPA havepursued the development of perfor-mance codes but in fairly different ap-proaches. ICC has published a stand-alone performance code titled the ICCPerformance Code for Buildings andFacilities,17 and NFPA has incorporated aperformance option within NFPA 5000.Both approaches will continue to sup-port the use of prescriptive documentsas the primary available solutions.

Both the ICC set of codes and NFPA5000 provide prescriptive requirementsthat must be met by the design teamand be approved by the local AuthorityHaving Jurisdiction before a certificateof occupancy will be issued and thebuilding can be legally opened. How-ever, for designs that do not use thecompanion performance-based code orthe performance option within the code,both of these sets of codes allow alter-

■ Codes Around the World


native methods and materials to be used upon approval of the lo-cal authorities.

COMMON TRENDS

The countries discussed above have all developed a set ofDeemed-To-Satisfy prescriptive requirements that provide a mini-mum acceptable level of safety from fire. These documents typi-cally provide guidelines from which engineers can design mostbuildings. However, many countries have found that traditional,purely prescriptive codes do not always offer the flexibility that isneeded to accommodate specific design or functional needs of thestakeholders, or for more modern methods of design and con-struction. A trend towards acceptance of the performance-basedapproach has begun to emerge in many countries around theglobe. Some have used this approach for many years, while othersare in the initial stages of developing and accepting this process.2

It should be noted that although many code systems have movedtowards a performance framework, the traditional methods(Deemed-To-Satisfy) are still widely used. The difference betweenprescriptive codes and performance-based codes is that the per-formance-based regulations are focused upon acceptable out-comes and not on a limited set of solutions.

In addition to the worldwide codes and standards mentioned inthis article, several documents that have recently been published inthe United States help to provide guidelines for engineers whowish to go outside the prescriptive or Deemed-To-Satisfy approachto building design, whether to obtain an equivalency or to suggesta completely new method of design for a building. At the sametime, these documents provide building officials and other authori-ties with a framework on which to base their examination of theproposed building designs. Among these publications are NFPA101, the Life Safety Code,18 which provides a performance option,and the SFPE Engineering Guide to Performance- Based Fire Protec-tion Analysis and Design of Buildings.19 The Society of Fire Protec-tion Engineers is also developing several other guides to assist inundertaking performance-based designs, including the ICC/SFPEEnforcer’s Guide to Performance-Based Design Review.20 ▲

REFERENCES1 Meacham, B., The Evolution of Performance-Based Codes and Fire

Safety Design Methods, National Institute of Standards andTechnology, NIST-GCR-98-761, November 1998.

2 Custer, R.L.P., Meacham, B., Introduction to Performance-Based FireSafety, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA, 1997.

3 History of the Building Code Australia, http://www.abcb.gov.au/con-tent/about/history.cfm

4 Building Code of Australia. Australian Building Codes Board,Canberra, Australia, 1996.

5 Fire Engineering Guidelines. 2nd edition, Fire Code Reform CentreLtd, Sydney, Australia, 2001.

6 London Building Acts (Amendment), 1939.

7 The Building Regulations 1991 Approved Document B Fire Safety2000 Edition. Department of the Environment Transport and theRegions, London, 2000.

8 BS 7974, Application of Fire Safety Engineering Principles to theDesign of Buildings – Code of Practice, 2001.

9 The Buildings Standard Law, Building Centre of Japan.

10 The Fire Services Law Enforcement Order, International Fire ServiceInformation Centre, Japan.

11 Brandskydd, Boverkets Byggregler, Teori & Praktik. (Swedish)11

Brandskyddslaget and LTH – Brandteknik, Stockholm, Sweden,1994.

12 Canada’s Code Development Process, National Research Council ofCanada, http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/codes/home_E.shtml

13 Uniform Building Code, International Conference of BuildingOfficials, Whittier, CA, 1997.

14 Standard Building Code, Southern Building Code CongressInternational, Birmingham, AL, 1999.

15 National Building Code, Building Officials and Code AdministratorsInternational, Country Club Hills, IL, 1999.

16 NFPA 5000, Building Construction and Safety Code, National FireProtection Association, Quincy, MA, 2003.

17 ICC Performance Code for Buildings and Facilities, InternationalCode 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 ProtectionAnalysis and Design of Buildings. National Fire ProtectionAssociation, Quincy, MA, 2000.

20 SFPE Enforcer’s Guide to Performance-Based Design Review – ReviewDraft. Society of Fire Protection Engineers, Bethesda, MD, 2003.


By Ian R. Thomas, Ph.D.

The value of an holistic approachto fire safety in buildings haslong been recognized in

Australia. This may be because evenurban dwellers in Australia are wellaware of the potential for destructionand the threat from unwanted fires.[As this article is being written, the sunhas not come up over Melbourne,Victoria, Australia, this morningbecause the sky is full of the smokefrom bushfires that occurred nearbyyesterday. On the same day, due inpart to extreme weather conditionsover a prolonged period, suburbs ofCanberra, the national capital, wereattacked by bushfires (wild fires), andover 400 houses were destroyed, four

lives were lost, andmany people wereinjured.]

However, it iscomparatively re-cently that buildingcode writers and en-forcers have becomeaware, supportive,and accepting ofrisk oriented ap-proaches to firesafety. Twenty years

ago, if an attempt was made to discussrisk due to fire in buildings with a build-ing code official, it was likely that theattempt would be summarily dismissedwith a comment to the effect that thereis no risk in buildings built to the(Deemed-To-Satisfy) building code.That is, because the building was builtto code requirements, the occupantswere totally safe. The fact that liveswere lost, people were injured, andproperty was destroyed in such build-ings escaped the attention of many offi-cials or was excused by the assumptionthat the affected buildings were in someway noncomplying.

Despite this, other engineering-ori-ented people were beginning to probethe building fire safety problem from arisk-oriented perspective. And these ef-forts have resulted, among other things,

in the development of CESARE Risk (abuilding fire-risk cost-assessment com-puter model also sometimes known asFire Risk) substantially through the fi-nancial support of Australian buildingcode authorities along with the adoptionby the Australian Building Codes Board(ABCB) and the state Authorities HavingJurisdiction of a performance- and risk-oriented approach to building regulationdevelopment and reform.

CESARE Risk was developed based oninitial research by Vaughan Beck begunin 1979 to use risk-assessment modelingto develop cost-effective building de-signs that would achieve acceptable lev-els of fire safety.1, 2 In 1989, a major pro-ject on Fire Safety and Engineering wasundertaken at the Warren Centre for Ad-vanced Engineering at the University ofSydney, which built on this modeling.3

This project involved a large number ofAustralian participants and a consider-able contribution from many invited in-ternational experts. Subsequently, theFire Code Reform Centre (FCRC) was es-tablished through the cooperation and fi-nancial support of government, industry,and research organizations. The FCRCsupported the development of CESARERisk through a project aimed at the de-velopment of alternative fire safety sys-tem design solutions for the BuildingCode of Australia (BCA).

The Development of CESARE Risk:

A Fire-RiskCost-Assessment

PROGRAM


CESARE Risk is a fire-risk cost-assess-ment computer program that can beused to help designers and regulatorsmake informed decisions on the suitabil-ity of various combinations of fire safetysystem components. CESARE Risk hasbeen developed to enable quantificationof the effect on fire safety in buildings ofchanges in fire safety system designs.CESARE Risk is applicable to apartmentbuildings, hotel and motel buildings,

and aged-care facilities. The model esti-mates the expected risk of injury and tolife, and the fire cost expectation. It isspecifically intended to provide a basisfor consideration of proposed or poten-tial changes to Deemed-To-Satisfy provi-sions in building codes.

CESARE Risk consists of several linkedcomputer programs using both deter-ministic and probabilistic calculations toestimate the numbers of building occu-

pants killed and injured, and the extentof damage to a building for each firescenario considered. Many of the pro-grams are run many times, once foreach fire scenario, building up a pictureof casualties and damage. The results foreach scenario are combined to producean estimated risk of injury (ERI) and esti-mated risk to life (ERL) for the buildingoccupants and an estimate of the firecost expectation over the life of thebuilding (FCE).

The ERI and ERL may be expressed inmany forms, but are usually expressedas the expected number of casualties(injuries and fatalities) per 1,000 fires re-ported to the fire brigade, so that theymay be compared directly with fire sta-tistics obtained directly from U.S. andAustralian fire data. The FCE may alsobe compared with fire data, usually onan average-cost-per-fire basis.

In CESARE Risk, a total of 384 fire sce-narios are considered:

• three fire types – smoldering (threerealizations), flaming (three realizations),and flashover (three realizations withoutfire spread beyond the room of fire ori-gin [RFO] and three realizations with firespread beyond the RFO).

• for each of these, four combinationsrelating to the ventilation conditions inthe RFO – the door open and closed,and the window open and closed.

• for each of these, four further com-binations relating to the smoke and firespread situation in terms of the apart-ment of fire origin door being open andclosed, and the stair doors being openand closed.

• for each of these, two further com-binations for the occupants being awakeand asleep.

The three realizations mentioned foreach fire type are three levels of maxi-mum burn rate for the smoldering firesand three rates of fire growth within theRFO for the flaming and flashover fires.

In theory, each scenario may have aninfinite number of realizations. A simpli-fied approach has been used in someparts of CESARE Risk to account for themany possible variations in some fac-tors: continuous distributions have beenreplaced by equivalent three-point dis-crete distributions in the Fire Growth,Occupant Response, and Fire BrigadeIntervention models. Thus, CESARE Riskprobabilistically models fire growth andsmoke propagation by repeatedly usingdeterministic models and probabilistc

■ A Fire-Risk Cost-Assessment Program


models for predicting occupant re-sponse and evacuation, and fire brigadeintervention by direct consideration ofthree realizations within the models.

CESARE Risk calculates the ERI andERL for each scenario by multiplying thenumber of injuries and the number offatalities in the scenario by the probabil-ity of the scenario occurring. CESARERisk calculates the FCE by summing allproperty losses for each scenario multi-plied by the probability of the scenariooccurring and adding other fire-safety-related costs over the design life of thebuilding.

The submodels in CESARE Risk aregrouped into two parts which functiondifferently: the time-dependent part(TDP) and the non-time-dependent part(NTD).

The TDP models, on a time-step ba-sis, the growth and effects (includingsmoke spread throughout the building,occupant response, and fire brigade in-tervention) of a fire in the RFO. TheNTD part deals with the fire after it hasspread out of the RFO, but purely on aprobabilistic basis (not on a time-stepbasis). The two models are assumed torun “parallel” to each other, but to avoiddouble-counting of casualties, the occu-pants who may be affected by the NTDpart are those that remain in the build-ing after the TDP ends.

A component of CESARE Risk thatperforms a Monte Carlo simulation onstructural and barrier performance is runwhen required. It calculates probabilitiesof smoke and fire spread to each part ofthe building with the data used as an in-put for the NTD part.

In order to limit the computationaltime, constraints have been placed onthe complexity of the submodels, on thenumber of scenarios that are considered,and various other aspects.

The factors considered by CESARERisk include:

• building layout and dimensions• rate and location of fire starts• rates of fire growth and the fuel

load• presence and type of smoke detec-

tors, sprinklers, and smoke manage-ment

• probabilities of doors and windowsbeing open and shut, etc.

• types and condition of occupants• intervention by the fire brigadeFire growth and smoke spread are

modeled in the TDP using three sub-

models: the RFO fire growth model (asingle-zone model), the level of fire origin (LFO) smoke spread model (atwo-zone smoke spread model), and anetwork model for the movement ofsmoke through the floors above the LFO.

In the NTD part, the probability ofsmoke and fire movement through thebuilding is calculated for postflashoverfires in the RFO based on the probabili-ties of failure for individual barriers ob-

tained from the Monte Carlo simulationand on probabilities of spread throughopenings in barriers or via windows anddoors. These probabilities are used inthe NTD part to determine fatalities foroccupants who do not respond or aretrapped in their apartments. There is nodirect modeling of overall structural col-lapse of the building, but allowance ismade for structural collapse of elementsof construction.


The model distributes occupantsthroughout the building in the apart-ments of non-fire origin (ANFO) in pro-portion to their percentage of the wholepopulation. The occupant groups (ortypes) vary in mobility and responsive-ness. In addition, the occupants are con-sidered when awake and when asleep.

The response model considers the re-sponse of the occupants in the recogni-tion and coping stages of an unintendedfire, estimating the times at which occu-pants will be exposed to the cues of:

• smoke• alarms (seven different types of

alarm)• warnings by other occupants• sound of breaking glassThe probability of recognition of a

cue and the probability of action there-after were obtained from data obtainedfrom research at CESARE.4 The actioncan be to do nothing, to evacuate, or toinvestigate. Two types of occupant re-sponse times are calculated by themodel:

• the direct evacuation time• the investigation timeThese times are dependent on the

time to recognize the cues and the timefor the occupant to start moving, the lat-ter using a three-point realization. Thus,for each scenario, occupants evacuatingare assigned three different possibleevacuation times with associated proba-bilities.

Examination of coroner’s records andfire statistics has determined the Apart-ment of Fire Origin (AFO) is the mostcritical apartment during a fire with re-gard to the ERI, ERL, and FCE.5 Initial at-tempts to use human behavior data ap-plicable to other apartments, obtainedfrom interviews and examination of ac-tual fires, was unsuccessful in that thedelay times and probabilities of actionwere such that the resulting probabilityof fatalities was far higher than occurs inreality.

The evacuation model calculates thetime for occupants to move from theirapartments to the corridor, from the cor-ridor to the stairway, and then down-stairs to the building exit; the accumula-tion of carboxyhaemoglobin (COHb) inthe blood; and the exposure of occu-pants to heat radiation. Critical levels ofexposure define when incapacitationand death occur. The toxic gases consid-ered are CO and CO2. Temperature is

also used to define an occupant fatalitycondition.

The evacuation model classifies occu-pants as either being mobile or nonmo-bile. Nonmobile occupants are eitherdisabled, trapped, incapacitated, or fatal-ities. Trapped occupants cannot evacu-ate by themselves because of smokeconditions and require assistance fromthe fire brigade.

The CESARE Fire Brigade InterventionModel is a simplified version of the Aus-tralasian Fire Authorities Council’s(AFAC) Fire Brigade Intervention Model.It is a probabilistic model and takes ac-count of all stages of fire brigade actionsin attending the scene, fighting the fire,helping occupants reach the building ex-its, and rescuing injured occupants. Itmay be used in CESARE Risk or may beexcluded from CESARE Risk runs if re-quired, enabling estimation of the effectof fire brigade activities on the outcomes.

The Economic Model is used to esti-mate the monetary costs and losses as-sociated with fire safety and protectionprovisions, and fire events in buildings.The monetary components are aggre-gated into the FCE parameter.

In calculating the expected losses, theprobabilities of smoldering, flaming, andfully developed fires are estimated, andthe losses owing to fire damage, smokedamage, and water damage for eachtype of fire are calculated. Results fromthe overall fire spread model are used toestimate the losses from the estimatedspread of fire in fully developed fires.Results from the smoke spread modelare used to estimate the smoke damagefrom smoke spread in fully developedand flaming fires. Spread of fire andsmoke to areas outside the AFO is con-sidered for flaming and fully developedfires, whereas only smoke damage inthe AFO is considered for smolderingfires. Water damage from fire brigade in-tervention in fully developed fires andsprinkler activation in flaming fires isalso considered. The present value ofexpected losses is calculated over thewhole life of the building.

Capital costs associated with fire pro-tection including both active and passivefeatures are also used in the calculationof the fire expectation cost, as are an-nual costs for maintenance and inspec-tion.

CESARE Risk has been tested using anextensive range of sensitivity studies6 in

which results from CESARE Risk werecompared, where possible, with avail-able fire statistics.

A requirement for proposed codechanges in Australia is that they do notincrease the risk to building occupants,and it is in assessing this requirementthat CESARE Risk is currently beingused. For example, CESARE Risk has re-cently been used to assess the implica-tions in relation to the risk to the occu-pants of possible changes to the BCA fora range of multistory residential occu-pancies.

Desirable improvements to CESARERisk have been identified, and it ishoped that further development will oc-cur in the future. ▲

Ian Thomas is with Victoria University.

REFERENCES

1. Beck, V.R., “Outline of a StochasticDecision-Making Model for Building FireSafety and Protection,” Fire SafetyJournal, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp 105-120, 1983.

2. Beck, V.R., “Performance-Based FireEngineering Design and Its Applicationin Australia,” Fire Safety Science-Proceedings of the Fifth InternationalSymposium, pp 23-40, Hasemi, Y.(Editor), International Association for FireSafety Science, 1997.

3. Beck, V.R., et al, “Project Report” and“Technical Papers, Books 1 and 2,” FireSafety and Engineering Project, TheWarren Centre for Advanced Engineering,The University of Sydney, Sydney,Australia, 1989.

4. Bruck, D., and Brennan, P., “Recognitionof Fire Cues During Sleep,” Proceedingsof the Second International Symposiumon Human Behavior in Fire, pp 123-134,Interscience Communications, London,UK, 2001.

5. Brennan, P., and Thomas, I.R., “Victimsof Fire? Predicting Outcomes inResidential Fires,” Proceedings of theSecond International Symposium onHuman Behavior in Fire, pp 123-134,Interscience Communications, London,UK, 2001.

6. Thomas, I.R., and Verghese, D., “CESARERisk: Summary Report,” Fire CodeReform Centre and Victoria University of Technology, June, 2001 (available onthe ABCB Web site along with manyother CESARE Risk-related reports:http://www.abcb.gov.au/content/publica-tions/ see FCRC 01-03 under Research).

■ A Fire-Risk Cost-Assessment Program


By Michael Spearpoint

Information exchange can be an issue common to anyarea of modern life where computers are used to storeand manipulate information. The ability to efficiently

exchange information increases productivity and reduceserrors. Recently, and in particular with the explosion in theuse of the Internet, this topic has emerged as an area of par-ticular importance. This article answers a number of ques-tions related to building product models and places themwithin the context of fire protection engineering.

WHAT ARE THE PROBLEMS ASSOCIAT-ED WITH CURRENT COMPUTER-BASEDINFORMATION EXCHANGE?

Without a standard format for the contentand transfer of information between softwaretools, conversion processes are necessary.Each conversion process may “devalue” theinformation, as the content has to match thelowest common format. Furthermore, ambigu-ities may occur in the data that cannot be re-solved during the conversion. The use of soft-ware tools across a whole range ofengineering disciplines means that interoper-ability between these tools is becoming ofcritical concern.

Building product models provides a meansin which efficient information exchange cancome about.

The Potential Impact of

BUILDINGPRODUCTMODELS

on Fire ProtectionEngineering

The Potential Impact of

BUILDINGPRODUCTMODELS

on Fire ProtectionEngineering


WHAT IS A BUILDING PRODUCTMODEL?

Fully automated, one-time data entryand seamless integration of project life-cycle work processes can be identifiedas a significant trend for the constructionindustry that have the potential to revo-lutionize the industry. The constructionprocess covers the complete life-cycle ofthe structure, from inception to demoli-tion. Fire protection engineering is onlyone domain of many that make up theoverall construction process. Additionaldomains might include architecture,structural engineering, environmentalengineering, building services, and manyothers. Many parameters related to astructure are common to a range of disci-plines. These parameters may includethe building geometry and topology, thematerials and components used in theconstruction, and the location of thestructure within the broad environment.

In general, any product can be con-sidered to consist of a collection of “en-

tities.” A product model expresses thetype of entities that represent the prod-uct; the properties that are needed to de-scribe those entities and the interrela-tionship between entities. A buildingproduct model is a product model thatspecifically relates to buildings whereentities may be physical objects such asdoors, windows, walls, etc., or moreconceptual entities such as spaces orprocesses. Within a building productmodel, a door entity has specific proper-ties (such as its dimensions and con-struction materials) and the relationshipwith the wall in which it is located (itsposition, orientation, etc.).

Conventional software tools are notable to describe the performance orproperties of the entities and their com-ponent parts. A common feature in allmainstream CAD packages is the abilityto transfer files in Data Exchange For-mat (DXF). However DXF files are onlyable to represent entities as a collectionof points and arcs. They are not able tocarry additional information or parame-

ters such as density, thermal conductiv-ity, etc., in a standardized way. Thenew generation of CAD tools over-comes these limitations through the useof object-oriented technologies. Entitiesare described by using properties,which could include geometric infor-mation that can be rendered graphi-cally, and other information relevant tothat entity.

There is considerable work at an in-ternational level, both within the con-struction industry and in commerce ingeneral, that is developing methods forstoring, transmitting, and manipulatingmeaningful product data in an open en-vironment. Without such methods, theconstruction industry will continue to beat a disadvantage because of the lack ofintegration between its various propri-etary systems. Projects will continue torequire labor-intensive and error-pronemanual interpretation with the reentry ofinformation at the interfaces betweendifferent partners and across the bound-aries of work processes.

MaterialPropertyResource

2x platform2x nonplatform partnext candidateout of platform

ExternalReferenceResource

Shared BldgServicesElements

ConstraintResource

ActorResource

ApprovalResource

Date/TimeResource

ProfileResource

GeometryResource

TopologyResource

CostResource

ReferenceGeometryResource

PropertyResource

ConstructionManagement

Domain

SharedSpatial

Elements

ControlExtension

SharedBuildingElements

Kemel

ProductExtension

SharedServicesElements

ProcessExtension

SharedFacilitiesElements

FacilitiesManagement

Domain

HVACDomain

ElectricalDomain

ArchitectureDomain

Domain layerThese provide details for a domain process ortype of application. Domain models provide leaf node classes that enable information from an external property set to be attached appropriately.

Interoperability layerThis layer describes concepts (or classes)common to two or more domain models.

Core extensionsThese provide specialization of concepts definedin the Kemel. They extend the Kemel constructs for use within the construction industry.

KemelThe Kemel provides all the generalized high-levelconcepts required for IFC models. It alsodetermines the model structure anddecomposition.

Resource layerResources can be characterized as general- purpose concepts or objects that areindependent of application or domain need,but which rely on other classes in the modelfor their existence.

Figure 1. The IFC Model 2x architecture, adapted from Liebich & Wix.1


WHAT IS THE IFC MODEL?

Many of the issues discussed above arealready being addressed through theInternational Alliance for Interoperability(IAI), a worldwide group of engineeringprofessionals, software developers, andresearchers who are developing a build-ing product model, referred to as theIndustry Foundation Class (or IFC)Model, that permits an object-orienteddescription of many aspects of buildingsand related services (Figure 1).

The IFC Model development beganaround 1996 and is an extension of anumber of earlier projects. It is not in-tended that the IFC Model should describeevery aspect of a building down to the de-tail required by all of the engineering dis-ciplines involved in the constructionprocess. This would make the buildingproduct model too unwieldy. Instead, it isdesigned to describe the most commonparameters that may be required.

In order to facilitate the inclusion of ad-ditional properties, the IFC Model in-cludes a mechanism referred to as “prop-erty set definitions.” This mechanismallows the IFC Model to expand on theproperties that characterize an entity be-yond what is included in the IFC Model. Aproperty set definition allows for the shar-ing of standard sets of values across enti-ties and for the definition of differentproperty values within individual copiesof an entity.

WHAT DOES THIS ALL MEAN FORFIRE PROTECTION ENGINEERING?

There are several potential ways inwhich the development of building prod-uct models might enhance the work offire protection engineers, and some ofthese are discussed here. Although someof these concepts are not necessarily newto fire protection engineering2 the latestdevelopments in the technology allowthese ideas to be implemented now.

Improved exchange of building geometry

Building product models will facilitatethe automated import of building plansinto computer calculation tools. Althoughsome currently available computer calcu-lation tools can read CAD floor plans,their facilities are limited. For example,the SIMULEX egress model3 has the ability

■ Impact of Building Product Models

Architect

Interiordesigner

Engineer (structural,

Fire protection engineer

AHJ

Sprinklerinstallationcontractor

Quantitysurveyor

Shipping &delivery

Exchange of code requirementsfrom the AHJ to the fire protectionengineer

Building product documentgrowth and exchange

Property set definitionexchange

Further exchange ofbuilding product

document

Sprinklerhardware

manufacturer

Fire

database

Firemodeling

1 2

3

4

6

1

Interior designer specifies contentsand their typical locations2

Building product document sharedby various engineering professionals3

Fire modeling calculations using thebuilding product document, adatabase of fire-specific properties,information from other engineeringprofessionals, and the sprinklercomponent property data sets

4

Exchange of property set definitionsbetween the sprinkler hardwaremanufacturer and associated groups

5

Sprinkler hardware deliveryinstructions6

Figure 2. The exchange process for a building product document and propertyset definitions.


to read DXF files, but these files generallyneed to be edited manually prior to usingSIMULEX because of the limitations ofthe DXF format. In the future, buildingdescriptions will be exchanged in such away that computer models can more ef-fectively make use of the data.

Property set definitionsManufacturers of fire protection hard-

ware could publish property set defini-tions on their Web servers using industry-agreed-upon classifications for thespecific products. The property set defini-tions would contain essential informationrequired to characterize the product suchas physical dimensions, performancemetrics, and listing documentation. Thedefinitions may also include optionalcharacteristics and characteristics uniqueto a particular manufacturer. Thus, for asprinkler, we might want to provide de-tails such as the model number, dimen-sions, Response Time Index (RTI), tem-perature rating, construction material,organizations that have listed the sprin-kler, etc.

Standards, codes, and certificationInstead of being static paper docu-

ments, standards and codes could soonbe published as dynamic electronic docu-ments. This form of publication couldlead to the automatic incorporation of rel-evant code requirements in the designprocess and documentation. Further-more, the electronic publishing of listingsand certification will allow up-to-dateverification that a product meets any spe-cific regulatory requirements.

Fire test databasesFire test results and fire-related material

properties can be published electroni-cally. These data can be imported into anelectronic building model using propertyset definitions.

HOW MIGHT A BUILDING PRODUCTMODEL AND PROPERTY SET DEFI-NITIONS BE USED?

Let us imagine that a fire protection en-gineer wants to assess a sprinkler systemusing a computer fire model in order toexamine specific fire scenarios using abuilding product model and property setdefinitions. An architect has already cre-ated a description of the spaces in a doc-ument that uses a specified buildingproduct model. The fire protection engi-

neer can use this document in order tocomplete their assessment in associationwith other relevant parties and then passthe revised document on through the de-sign process. Thus, the building productdocument grows as the design proceeds,with new information being added astasks are carried out.

In creating the fire scenarios, the fireprotection engineer might need the rateof heat release from the furniture itemsthat have been identified by the interiordesigner and specified in the buildingproduct document. At this point, the fireprotection engineer could access a data-base of fire properties in order to selectan appropriate design fire for the furni-ture. The heat release data are extractedfrom the database and appended to thefurniture entities in the building productdocument as a property set definition.The computer fire model now obtains thebuilding geometry and furniture proper-ties (which include the rate of heat re-lease) from the building product docu-ment. At this stage, the fire protectionengineer might also obtain additionalproperties from an HVAC engineer (suchas air movement due to the ventilationsystem), the properties of the sprinklersthey intend to use, and information fromthe AHJ relating to any code require-ments. Since the sprinkler manufacturerspublish the property set definitions oftheir sprinkler hardware in a format thatis compatible with the building productmodel, the fire protection engineer candirectly import the relevant performancemetrics such as the temperature ratingand RTI into the computer fire model.

Once the fire protection engineer hascompleted the modeling and decided onan appropriate sprinkler design, thebuilding product document can bepassed to the sprinkler installer. Thesprinkler installer could then use an hy-draulic design tool to determine pipeschedules, again using the building prod-uct document to obtain pertinent infor-mation supplied by the fire protection en-gineer and the sprinkler manufacturer.The completed sprinkler network isadded to the building product documentready for the quantity surveyor to gener-ate bills of quantities. Again, this is donethrough the building product documentby efficiently identifying the requiredpipe lengths, etc. Finally, the bill of quan-tities can be related back to the sprinklermanufacturer in order that a contractorcan deliver the correct hardware to the

construction site. Figure 2 illustrates theabove sprinkler design and deliveryprocess showing the linkages betweeneach step.

The above description is only one wayin which a building product model couldbe used. The example describes a linearprocess, whereas some tasks might takeplace concurrently or at different stagesof the design process. The important as-pect is that a single document is usedthroughout, where each participant in theprocess uses information supplied by oth-ers and adds their task-specific data backinto the building product document.

WHERE ARE WE NOW WITH BUILD-ING PRODUCT MODELS?

The above hypothetical sprinkler de-sign scenario is still somewhere in the fu-ture. Some of the tools that are requiredto realize the above scenario are alreadyavailable or under development whileothers are a considerable way off.• The IFC Model – The current version of

the IFC Model (2x) includes details ofthe geometry and topology of a build-ing and identifies walls, windows,doors, furniture, and HVAC entities,many of which are useful to fire protec-tion engineers. The model has a verylimited set of properties relating to fireprotection engineering. For example,walls, doors, and windows can be as-signed a fire resistance rating; fire andsmoke dampers are included in themodel; stairs can also be given a fire-resistance rating and declared as exitpaths; and insulation materials have aflammability-rating property.

• IFC-compliant tools – There is an ever-increasing range of software tools ap-pearing that are able to exchange IFCdocuments. These tools currently in-clude CAD (Figure 3), thermal design,quantity take-off, model consistencychecker (Figure 4), and others. Thereare also a significant number of toolsin development or under test includingHVAC design, energy simulation andcode checking, electrical system de-sign, and the list goes on. In terms offire protection engineering, very littlehas been done so far. Preliminarywork has already been undertaken atthe University of Canterbury into a toolto interface IFC Model documents toCFAST.

• Codes and standards – Currently inAustralia, there is a move to provide



the next edition of the Building Codeof Australia (BCA) in an electronicform. This will allow automatic search-ing of the code for particular clausesrelevant to a discipline or specificbuilding component. It will mean thatthe BCA could be viewed on-line suchthat all clauses relevant to a particulardiscipline or subdiscipline could beeasily extracted.

• Property set definitions – So far, thereis little work on developing propertyset definitions for fire protection engi-neering-related components. Somework has begun on providing rate ofheat release information suitable forincorporation into the IFC Model,5 andit is hoped new initiatives will expandon this work.

WHAT DOES THE FUTURE HOLD?

There is still much work to do beforeseamless electronic data exchange be-

comes widely available. The IFC Modelcontains only a certain level of detail re-garding many domains, and there is onlya limited amount of information that re-lates to fire protection engineering. How-ever, the IFC Model already has a rich de-scription of the fundamentals ofbuildings, and the development of do-main-related information is proceedingthrough international efforts. Softwaretools that are IFC-compliant are nowavailable, and many others are under var-ious stages of development. As moretools become available, so will the de-mand that additional tools be able to ex-change IFC files increase.

The next release of the IFC Model willdeal with Facilities Management, Struc-tural Engineering, Codes and Standards,and Building Services. There is somework already being undertaken to de-scribe specific building products usingproperty set definitions. Other issues suchas the contractual and legal aspects of us-

ing electronic building models, the abilityto concurrently share data, and the devel-opment of a lexicon of building terminol-ogy are also being investigated.

At this stage, it is important that the fireprotection engineering community beaware of the developments in buildingproduct models to avoid being left be-hind. Developers of fire-related softwaretools need to assess whether they shouldbe enhancing their programs to read andwrite building product models such asthe IFC Model documents. Manufacturersof fire protection-related hardware mightconsider the formulation of agreed-uponproperty set definitions. Regulators mightwant to consider alternative means ofpublishing codes and standards. The useof Information Technology and compu-ter-based software tools will continue togrow in both the construction industryand more widely. Building product mod-els and their associated technologies willplay an important part in integrating thisgrowth.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author wishes to thank AndyBuchanan, University of Canterbury, andRobert Amor, University of Auckland, fortheir helpful comments during the prepa-ration of this article. ▲

Michael Spearpoint is with the Univer-sity of Canterbury.

REFERENCES

1. Liebich, T., and Wix J., (eds.), IFC techni-cal guide, Industry Foundation Classes –Release 2x, International Alliance forInteroperability, October 2000.

2. Mowrer, F. W., and Williamson, R. B.,“Room fire modeling within a computer-aided design framework.” InternationalAssociation for Fire Safety Science. 2ndInternational Symposium, 1988.

3. Thompson, P. A., and Marchant, E. W., “AComputer Model for the Evacuation ofLarge Building Populations,” Fire SafetyJournal 24 (1995), pp 131-148.

4. Industrial Use of the Building ModellingApproach. interop AEC+fm 2001, Sydney,Australia 2001.

5. Spearpoint, M. J., The development of aWeb-based database of rate of heatrelease measurements using a markup lan-guage. 5th Asia-Oceania Symposium onFire & Technology, Newcastle, Australia.2001.


Figure 4. Designmodel checker –Checkingconstruction rulesin a buildingmodel4

Figure 3. CADsoftware tool – 2Dplans of buildingand contents(Previouslyavailable from the BLIS projectWeb site athttp://www.blis-project.org/).


Building occupants often reactslowly, or not at all, when thefire alarm sounds. Many factors

contribute to this behavior, including:• inadequate audibility of a signal or

inadequate intelligibility of a voicemessage;

• uncertainty, misinterpretation, andfailure to recognize a fire alarm signal; and

• loss of confidence and trust in thefire alarm system.

This article reviews some of the prob-lems and their causes. Possible solutionsare outlined, including those that can beimplemented today and those that maybe possible in the future. The emphasisis on what technology can and cannotdo to address the issues and underlyingproblems of occupant response to firealarms.

When a fire occurs in a building, theusual goal is to evacuate the occupantsor relocate them so that they are not ex-posed to hazardous conditions. The ex-

ception occurs in occupanciesusing SIP/DIP1 (Stay In Place,Defend In Place) strategies. Itmay also be necessary to alertand provide information totrained staff responsible forassisting evacuation or reloca-tion. Figure 1 shows severalkey steps in a person’s reac-tion and decision-makingprocess.2

Evacuation or relocationcannot begin until the personis aware that there is a prob-lem. Except when there is di-rect observation by visual, au-ditory, tactile, or olfactorysenses, a fire alarm system isthe most prevalent source foralerting occupants. Problemsoccur when there is inade-quate audibility of a signal orinadequate intelligibility of avoice message. For nonvoice

signaling, the audibility of tones is wellunderstood and addressed by codessuch as NFPA 72.3 There are methods tomeasure, analyze, and design for ade-quate audibility.4, 5, 6 For voice signaling,it is not possible to measure audibility inthe same way as tone signals. The intel-ligibility of the voice signal is measuredin a different way that includes audibil-ity, clarity, distortion, reverberation, andseveral other important components.7

A person can be alerted but not bewarned if the signal they hear is not rec-ognized as a fire alarm signal. Codes,such as NFPA 72, require signals to bedistinctive and not used for other pur-poses. When the desired action is evac-uation, NFPA 72 also requires that newtone signals use a Temporal Code Threepattern regardless of the sound used –bell, horn, slow whoop, etc., can all usethe Temporal Code Three pattern. How-ever, the occupant must be trained torecognize the sound or the pattern asbeing the fire alarm signal. Thus, theremay still be a decision that must bemade: “Is that sound a warning of fire?”

Many occupants will seek additional

Messaging and CommunicationStrategies for Fire Alarm Systems

Warning ReceptionInformationAcquisitionTime

MessageIdentificationTime

Decision to EvacuateResponse Time

Type of EvacuationResponse Choice Time

Perceived Reception

Seek AdditionalInformation?

Decision to Evacuateor Relocate

Evacuation Behavior(Exit Route)

Figure 1. Occupant Decision Process


information or confirmation of the warn-ing even if they know it is a fire alarmsignal. In the absence of other cues, mostpeople do not associate a general firealarm signal with immediate danger, orthey may lack confidence or trust in thefire alarm system. One of the key causesof the lack of confidence is nuisance orunwanted alarms.8 For the most part, pro-fessionally designed and installed firealarm systems are free of nuisancealarms. One exception is alarms causedby vandals or pranksters. Even alarmsduring regular testing are perceived asunwanted nuisance alarms to the generaloccupants of the building. Long testingperiods at random times and durationsdo not allow regular occupants to differ-entiate testing from real alarms. It is alsopossible that people “transfer” and relyupon their experience with other alarms,such as smoke alarms in their home,when they experience an alarm in an-other building. Thus, false and nuisancealarms in one place can affect behaviorin other, more stable environments.

Once an occupant is alerted, warned,and confident in the reason for thealarm, they still undergo a thoughtprocess regarding whether to evacuate,relocate, or stay in place. If they do de-cide to move, they must then choose anexit path.

Occupants rarely panic in fire situa-tions.9, 10 The behavior that they adopt isbased on the information they have, theperceived threat, and the decisions theymake. The entire decision path is full ofthought and decisions on the part of theoccupant, all of which take time beforeleading to the development of adaptivebehavior. In hindsight, the actions ofmany occupants in real fires are some-times less than optimal. However, theirdecisions may have been the bestchoices given the information they had.

Fire alarm systems that only use audi-ble tones and/or flashing strobe lightsimpart only one bit of information: FireAlarm. It has long been recognized thatenvironments having complex egress sit-uations or high hazard potentials requireoccupant notification systems that pro-vide more than one bit of information.11

To reduce the response time of the oc-cupants and to effect the desired behav-

ior, the message should contain severalkey elements.9, 12 These include:

• Tell them what has happened andwhere.

• Tell them what they should do.• Tell them why they should do it.There does not seem to be any re-

search that has tested actual messagecontent to determine the best way to in-form occupants. The problem is thateach building and each fire are unique.Messaging is further complicated by theneed to give different information to dif-ferent people depending on their loca-tion relative to the fire, their training,and their physical/mental capabilities.

In the United States, most codes use amessage strategy that warns occupantson the fire floor, floor above, and floorbelow. They may be told to leave thebuilding or to relocate three or fourfloors below their current level. This re-quires only one “channel” of messaging.The fire alarm system decides whichfloors get the message (receive the chan-nel) based on the origin of the fire alarminitiating device. Other designs may uti-lize a second channel to broadcast a dif-ferent message to other, nonaffected oc-cupants. This may be done to warnthem to prepare to accept relocation ofoccupants from other areas or to allayany anxieties caused by seeing fire ap-paratus and personnel or other occu-pants leaving. Even though the messageis different, the same three key elementsare required.

If the fire alarm system only knowsthat a waterflow alarm has been acti-vated for the 16th floor, it cannot directoccupants to one exit versus anothermore remote from the fire. As the reso-lution of input to the fire alarm increase,so can the resolution of output. Resolu-tion, and hence information content, canbe increased by the use of more firealarm initiating devices, such as address-able smoke detectors and by splittingsprinkler systems with waterflow alarmsserving smaller, distinct areas. Multi-channel systems can then send specificmessages directing some occupants tocertain stairs and telling others to movehorizontally or to stay in place.

As the number and resolution of in-puts to the fire alarm increase, the com-

plexity of the output matrix (program-ming logic) and number of output chan-nels increase also. Because fires are socomplex, it is possible that the auto-mated system response could tell occu-pants to move in a direction that placesthem in a more dangerous situation.This occurred during the fire at the Dus-seldorf airport.13 Messaging strategiesmust include provisions for manualoverride and for changes based on thereal dynamics of the emergency. Theuse of operators who have access to in-formation and are trained to make deci-sions and broadcast appropriate mes-sages can reduce the likelihood oferror.14 The information sources can in-clude more than just the fire alarm – forexample, CCTV, energy managementsystems, and security sensors. The Na-tional Electrical Manufacturer’s Associa-tion (NEMA) is sponsoring a researchprogram at NIST that is investigating theuse of multiple sensor data to show firedepartment personnel the origin andreal progress of a fire.15 The systemcould also use the real sensor data in amodel to predict possible changes inconditions. The same research programis investigating a common panel inter-face as is NFPA’s National Fire AlarmCode Task Group on User Interfaces.

When the message delivery mode isby voice communication, an EmergencyVoice Alarm Communication System(EVAC) is most often used. Even whenvoice communication is not required bycode, it should be considered becauseof its higher success rate in motivatingpeople to move.16 The cost of an EVACsystem is not any greater than tone-onlysystems for moderately sized projectsand may be less costly for large projects.The actual crossover point depends onmany factors. Designers should explorethe costs and benefits of voice signalingfor most projects before assuming that atone-only system is more economical.For example, circuit size and capacityare greater for voice systems. Also, voicesystems use speakers that have ad-justable power taps allowing adjustmentof system loudness after installation. Atone-only system would require addingor eliminating appliances to adjust audi-bility.


Messaging and communication strate-gies also require attention to installationand programming details. For example,stair towers, elevator lobbies, differentfire zones, and, in some cases, differentsmoke zones require separate notifica-tion appliance circuits (NACs) if it is de-sired to send different channels of infor-mation to different spaces.

Early in the planning process, the de-signer should list all areas where itmight be desirable to provide a discretemessage. Each of these areas is a pagingzone. Depending on the size and haz-ards present, a single paging zone maybe served by more than one notificationappliance circuit (NAC). When morethan one circuit is used, they must beprogrammed to act as a single pagingzone. The designer then prepares an in-put/output matrix to show how pagingzones are grouped into evacuationzones when certain inputs (initiating de-vices) are received. A sample matrix isshown in Figure 2 with paging zonesand evacuation zones highlighted.

The designer of the messaging strategymust determine which initiating devicestrigger which messages. Should a water-flow switch serving the hallway triggerthe same message as the waterflow

switch serving the apartments on thesame floor? Should a smoke detector inan exit stair tower trigger any automaticmessage at all? One jurisdiction requiressmoke detectors in stairs to activate thealarm sequence as if they were on thatfloor. So, a smoke detector on the 10thfloor of the stair would send a message tothe 9th through the 11th floors plus in thestair tower. This will not give occupantsaccurate information about the fire orabout their best course of action. Com-munications in stairs should be manualonly, not automatic, and only when thereis a need to reassure or change occupantbehavior. Communication between occupants in hallways and stairs is an important part of their ability to obtainand exchange information and confirmtheir behavioral choices.8

While an EVAC system is the mostcommon method of communicating in-formation to occupants, it is not the onlymethod. Research has shown that textand graphical messaging greatly en-hance occupant movement during evac-uation and relocation.2 The message de-livery can be via large screens used insports arenas or by small LCD display orCRT information kiosks located through-out a property.

The importance of instilling occupantconfidence in message reliability cannotbe overemphasized. Messaging andcommunication strategies instill confi-dence when they consistently providetruthful and accurate information. Whena fire alarm system experiences one ortwo nuisance activations per year and noreal alarms, it is 100 percent untrue tothe general occupants. In addition to re-ducing false and nuisance alarms, thereare other ways to increase system accu-racy and occupant confidence. One wayis to always follow up any unwantedalarm by communicating to the occu-pants the reason for the alarm and, ifpossible, what is being done to preventfurther occurrences. If the system hasmanual voice capability, use it to conveythis message immediately following reso-lution of any unwanted alarm. In somecases, it may take hours or days to arriveat a root cause for an unwanted alarm.The fire department or site managementshould immediately share what isknown: “A smoke detector in the eleva-tor lobby on the 7th floor alarmed butthere was no fire. We are investigatingpossible causes and will let you knowthe outcome of that investigation as soonas possible.” Of course, it is important to

System OutputsOccupant Notification & Information

272829303132333435363738394041424344454647

BsmtG

1st2nd3rd4th5th

M Level6th Connector7th Connector

S LevelConn. Elev. Pent.

6th7th8th9th10th11th12th

Penthouse 1NPenthouse 1S

Bsm

t spe

aker

s an

dst

robe

sG

floor

spe

aker

s an

dst

robe

s1s

t flo

or s

peak

ers

and

stro

bes

2nd

floor

spe

aker

s an

dst

robe

s3r

d flo

or s

peak

ers

and

stro

bes

4th

floor

spe

aker

s an

dst

robe

s5t

h flo

or s

peak

ers

and

stro

bes

M fl

oor s

peak

ers

and

stro

bes

6th

Conn

ecto

r flo

orsp

eake

rs a

nd s

trobe

s

6th

floor

spe

aker

s an

dst

robe

s7t

h flo

or s

peak

ers

and

stro

bes

8th

floor

spe

aker

s an

dst

robe

s9t

h flo

or s

peak

ers

and

stro

bes

10th

floo

r spe

aker

s an

dst

robe

s11

th fl

oor s

peak

ers

and

stro

bes

12th

floo

r spe

aker

s an

dst

robe

sPe

ntho

use

1N s

peak

ers

and

stro

bes

Pent

hous

e 1S

spe

aker

s an

d st

robe

sPe

ntho

use

2N s

peak

ers

and

stro

bes

Pent

hous

e 2S

spe

aker

san

d st

robe

s

7th

Conn

ecto

r flo

orsp

eake

rs a

nd s

trobe

sS

floor

spe

aker

s an

dst

robe

sCo

nnec

tor e

lev.

pen

t.sp

eake

rs a

nd s

trobe

s

Floor

Paging zones

1886465122390961466701

Evacuation zone forground floorsmoke detection

Evacuation zone for simultaneousM level and 6th fl. Connectorsmoke detection.

Qty A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W

s/h detections/h detections/h detections/h detections/h detections/h detections/h detections/h detections/h detections/h detections/h detections/h detections/h detections/h detections/h detections/h detections/h detections/h detections/h detections/h detections/h detection

Device/Inputs - smokeh - heat

Figure 2. Sample Input/Output Matrix (partial).


keep this promise and follow up.If every unwanted alarm is followed

up with a voice message, the perceivedsystem error is reduced from 100 per-cent to 50 percent. Further reductionsare possible by using the voice systemfor more than just fire alarm announce-ments. Combination paging, announce-ment, and EVAC systems breed familiar-ity and instill confidence in the messagecontent. Combination systems requirespecial attention in the planning and de-sign phase to ensure either strict codecompliance or compliance with the in-tent of the code. This includes factorssuch as operational integrity and prece-dence, emergency power, survivability,and tamper resistance.

The more any messaging system isused, whether voice, text, or video, themore familiar the operators and the oc-cupants become with it. During any fireincident, repeated truthful communica-tions that correlate with what the occu-pants are experiencing instill confidencein the messaging. If the occupants aretold “There is smoke in Stair A. Evacuateusing Stair B”, and they smell smoke inStair B, they will question whether theygot the right message or not. Occupantsshould be told what has happened andwhere, what they should do, and whythey should do it. “There is a fire on the14th floor. There is heavy smoke in allof Stair A. Evacuate using Stair B. Thereis some smoke in Stair B. Stair B is safeto use and is the fastest way out.”

Messaging strategies require carefulcoordination with the fire service. Dur-ing any real fire and during most un-wanted alarms, the fire service is theprime user of the system. Their use ofstairs, elevators, and cross-connect corri-dors affects the choice, wording, anddelivery of messages to occupants.

Another element of successful mes-saging and communication is “settingthe stage” or preparing the listener. Intheaters and concert halls, the showshould be stopped to get occupants’ at-tention. A sudden, dramatic change inthe environment removes their focusand prepares them to receive new infor-mation. The Notification Applianceschapter of NFPA 72 permits, but doesnot require, the fire alarm system to con-trol and reduce ambient noise. Where itis not possible to have such control ormake such drastic changes, an alert toneis often used to precede any voice mes-

sage. One idea is to use an alert tonethat almost everyone who has ever useda telephone is familiar with. It is calledthe Vacant Code (VC) Special Informa-tion Tone and is a standard signal usedin the telecommunications industry toindicate that a message is to follow.17 Ituses three tones at different frequencies,which helps persons who have a partialhearing impairment, as many do. It’s asignal familiar to many people whenthey dial a wrong number or forget anarea code. We are “trained” to know byexperience that a message will follow.This SIT consists of three ascendingtones: 985.2 Hz for 380 milliseconds(ms), 1370.6 Hz for 274 ms, and 1776.7Hz for 380 ms.

Fire alarm systems by themselves can-not be expected to do everything neces-sary to ensure that occupants arewarned, take action, and leave beforethey meet untenable conditions. How-ever, through careful planning, design,installation, implementation, testing, anduse, messaging and communication sys-tems can greatly reduce occupant re-sponse times and help to generate thedesired occupant behavior.

REFERENCES

1 Schifiliti, R.P., “To Leave or Not to Leave –That Is the Question!,” National FireProtection Association, World Fire SafetyCongress & Exposition, May 16, 2000,Denver, CO.

2 Ramachandran, G., “Informative FireWarning 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 ProtectionEngineering, 3rd Edition, National FireProtection 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, “NotificationAppliances,” NFPA Fire ProtectionHandbook, 19th edition, February 2003.

7 NEMA Supplement, “SpeechIntelligibility,” Fire Protection

Engineering, Society of Fire ProtectionEngineers, Issue No. 16, Fall 2002.

8 Proulx, G., “Why Building OccupantsIgnore Fire Alarms”, National ResearchCouncil of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario,Construction Technology Update, No. 42,1-4, December 2000.

9 Bryan, J., “Psychological Variables ThatMay Affect Fire Alarm Design,” FireProtection Engineering, Society of FireProtection Engineers, Issue No. 11, Fall2001.

10 Proulx. G., “Cool Under Fire”, FireProtection Engineering, Society of FireProtection Engineers, Issue No. 16, Fall2002.

11 General Services Administration,Proceedings of the ReconvenedInternational Conference on Fire Safetyin High-Rise Buildings, Washington, DC,October 1971.

12 Proulx, G., “Strategies for EnsuringAppropriate Occupant Response to FireAlarm Signals”, National ResearchCouncil of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario,Construction Technology Update, No. 43,1-6, December 2000.

13 “Hard Lessons Learned from theDusseldorf Fire,” Fire Prevention, FireProtection 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 Associationfor Fire Safety Science 3rd InternationalSymposium. Elsevier Applied Science,New York, Cox, G.; Langford, B.,Editors, pp 843-852, 1991.

15 NIST, “The Advanced Fire ServiceInterface,” 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 ArticleThis is a continuing series of articles that issupported by the National ElectricalManufacturer’s Association (NEMA), SignalingProtection and Communications Section, andis intended to provide fire alarm industry-related information to members of the fireprotection engineering profession.


Electronic Accelerator for Dry Pipe ValvesTyco announces a new electronicaccelerator for its dry pipe systems. Itconsists of a modified pressure switchand control panel and has been listed and approved for use with theexisting Tyco DV-1 dry pipe valve by UL and Factory Mutual. Designedto eliminate set-up and maintenance problems, this accelerator guaran-tees that the associated dry pipe valve will trip within three seconds ifinstalled properly.

www.tyco-fire.com—Tyco Fire & Building Products

Upgraded Flexible FireSprinkler ComponentsFlexHead, inventor and manufacturer offlexible fire sprinkler connections forsuspended ceilings, has announced all stainless steel construction in itsproducts, as well as in new model designations resulting in longer-length flexible hose components in each of the standard configurations.The upgraded product line is shipping now. Pricing remainsunchanged.

www.flexhead.com—FlexHead Industries

AGF announces Models2500 and 2511 TESTanDRAIN valves. Both provide the Inspector’s Testfunction and the express drain function for a wet pipe fire sprinklersystem floor control assembly. The design incorporates a multi-portedsingle handle ball valve that is lightweight and includes a tamper-resis-tant test orifice. Other features include integral tamper resistant sightglasses in an angled body, which accommodates either a right or leftdrain configuration.

www.testanddrain.com—AGF Manufacturing, Inc.

Test and DrainValves

Products/Literature

Life Safety Control Platform

New line of SpectrAlert® Selectable OutputStrobes and Horn/Strobes offers a widerange of candela options. They recognizeand self-adjust for either 12 or 24-volt oper-ation for a lower average current draw thanother similar multi-candela models. Withthis efficient operate, the strobes andhorn/strobes allow connection of evenmore devices per loop, greatly reducinginstallation costs.

www.systemsensor.com—System Sensor, Div. of Honeywell

New Output Strobes, Horn/Strobes

Analog/Addressable Fire PanelsPotter Electric Signal Co. announces the PFC-9000 Series Analog/Addressable Fire Panels.Each analog loop is capable of supporting 127analog sensors and addressable modules.Features include 12 Amp power supply withfour class A/B (Style Z/Y) indicating circuits rated at 1.7 Amps each; three-level passwordprotection with field programmable definition;four alarm queues with selector switches andLEDs, and more.

www.pottersignal.com—Potter Electric Signal Co.

Advanced Fire Alarm Control PanelThe NFS-3030 fire alarm control panel isdesigned for medium to large applications andis the newest addition to the NOTIFIER OnyxSeries. Modular in design, it allows for one to10 Signaling Line Circuits (SLCs) and up to3,180 devices. The auto-programming featureenables the system to be operational withinminutes. Flexibility is ideal for retrofit and newconstruction applications of any size.

www.notifier.com—NOTIFIER

Victaulic® has made adding 1/2, 3/4, and1-in. outlets to fire-system piping easier andmore reliable. The new Style 922 FireLock®Outlet T incorporates a cast strap that willnot dent or crimp piping. Available for 1 1/4-in. through 2 1/2-in. pipe sizes, out-lets for sprinklers, drop nipples, sprigs, anddrains 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 whenthe nuts are tightened.

www.victaulic.com—Victaulic

Outlet-T Offers Convenience

New literature spotlights the EST3 control platform, which provides for total life safetysolutions. Designed to meet the life safetyneeds of any size facility, the function of eachpanel is determined using the extensive selec-tion of modules available to plug into the panel’s chassis. The digitized audio will deliverup to eight audio messages simultaneously overa single pair of wires.

www.est.net—Edwards Systems Technology (EST)


ResourcesSFPE Reaches Milestone:

Annual Meeting and Professional Development Week

Together for the First TimeBethesda, MD – The Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE) will

host its Annual Meeting and Awards Banquet in conjunction with a se-ries of educational programs for the practicing fire protection profes-sional, September 29 - October 3, 2003, in Baltimore, MD.

Following three years of successful Professional Development Week(PDW) activities, the newly combined Annual Meeting/PDW format willcommence with a complimentary one-day program highlighting up-dates in the science and practice of fire protection engineering and pro-fessional issues of concern to the practicing FPE. In keeping with tradi-tion, SFPE will continue to host its familiar ice cream social as part ofthe program. The Annual Meeting will be followed by the SFPE Awardsand Honors Banquet, honoring leaders in fire protection engineering.Society President William F. Koffel, Jr., P.E., FSFPE, will preside over thebanquet and present the Class of 2003 SFPE Fellows and other award-winners.

Four days of educational programs, including six seminars and an in-ternational conference on Designing Structures for Fire, follow the An-nual Meeting and Awards Banquet. The courses cover a wide range oftopics 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 Man-

agement (NEW COURSE).

The SFPE Annual Meeting and Professional Development Conferencewill be held in Baltimore, MD, at the Radisson Lord Baltimore Hotel.Additional information for this historic weeklong event can be found atwww.sfpe.org or by contacting SFPE at 301.718.2910.

August 20-22, 20032nd International Conference in Pedestrian and Evacuation

Dynamics (PED)Greenwich, LondonInfo: http://fseg.gre.ac.uk/ped2003/

September 8-12, 20034th International Seminar on Fire and Explosion HazardsNorthern Ireland, UKInfo: www.engj.ulst.ac.uk/4thisfeh/

September 11-12, 2003ISFSSS International Symposium on Fire Safety of Steel StructuresCologne, GermanyInfo: www.bauem-mit-stahl.dr/veranstaltungen.htm

September 22-25, 20036th Asia-Oceania Symposium on Fire Science and TechnologyInfo: [email protected]

September 29 – October 3, 2003SFPE Annual Meeting and Professional Development WeekBaltimore, MarylandInfo: www.sfpe.org

March 2004International Fire Safety Engineering ConferenceSydney, AustraliaInfo: www.sfs.au.com

March 2-4, 2004Use of Elevators in Fires and Other EmergenciesAtlanta, GeorgiaInfo: www.asme.org/cns/elevators/cfp.shtml

March 17-19, 2004Fire & Safety At SeaMelbourne, AustraliaInfo: [email protected]

May 2-7, 2004CIB World Building Congress 2004Toronto, Ontario, CanadaInfo: www.cibworld.nl

May 9-14, 20045th International Scientific Conference – Wood & Fire SafetySlovak RepublicThe High TatrasInfo: www.wfs.tuzvo.sk

July 5-7, 2004Interflam, 2004Edinburgh, UKInfo: www.intercomm.dial.pipex.com

October 6-8, 20045th International Conference on Performance-Based Codes and Fire Safety Design MethodsInfo: www.sfpe.org

UPCOMING EVENTS


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

SFPE’s newest engineering guide summarizes the state-of-the-art knowl-edge in the area of human behavior in fire. This guide’s purpose is to iden-tify and review the key factors and considerations that impact the responseand behavior of occupants evacuating a building during a fire. Any lifesafety design, whether prepared to meet prescriptive or performance-basedcodes, should consider human behavior. The anticipation of human behav-ior and prediction of human response are the most complex areas of fireprotection engineering.

This guide addresses topics such as occupant factors, response to firecues, (including response to fire alarm signals), occupant decision makingand movement. This information should be considered prior to developingsafety factors or exercising engineering judgment in the practical design ofbuildings, the development of evacuation scenarios for performance-baseddesigns, and the estimation of evacuation response. This information mayalso be useful and applicable to postevent analysis.

SFPE’s Engineering Guide to Human Behavior in Fire■ 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 Fireat the SFPE member price of $36./Domestic $37.50/International (including shipping) OR

Please send_____ copies of Human Behavior in Fireat the nonmember price of $56./Domestic $62.50/International (including shipping) to:


Advanced Fire Technologies .......................Page 16AGF Manufacturing......................................Page 45Ansul Incorporated ......................................Page 21Blazemaster® Fire Sprinkler Systems .........Page 59Chemguard ...................................................Page 22Clarke Fire Protection Products, Inc...........Page 27DecoShield Systems, Inc..............................Page 20Edwards Systems Technology................Page 30-31Fire Control Instruments..............................Page 33FlexHead Industries .....................................Page 38Gamewell .....................................................Page 17Gast Manufacturing......................................Page 16Grice Engineering ........................................Page 39Keltron Corporation.......................................Page 9Koffel Associates, Inc...................................Page 46NOTIFIER Fire Systems .................................Page 2

OCV Control Valves .......................................Page 5Potter Electric Signal Company ...Inside Back CoverThe RJA Group...........................Inside Front CoverReliable Automatic Sprinkler.......................Page 55Ruskin ...........................................................Page 35Siemens Building Technologies, Inc.

Fire Safety Division ...................................Page 13Silent Knight .................................................Page 49SimplexGrinnell............................................Page 25System Sensor ..............................................Page 37Tyco Fire & Building Products .............Back CoverUniversity of Maryland ................................Page 14Vision Fire & Security ..................................Page 15Victaulic Company of America ...................Page 41Wheelock, Inc. ...............................................Page 6Worcester Polytechnic Institute ...................Page 57

Index ofAdvertisers

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 onehour later. If the second train is traveling at 100 km/h, at what time will it pass thefirst train?

The distance of the first train from Chicago can be expressed as:

The distance of the second train from Chicago can be expressed as:

Where 8:00 AM equates to t=0. Setting D1 = D2, and solving for t yields t = 5hours. So the second train will pass the first train at 1:00 PM.

How much carbon dioxide would be created by burning 10 kg of gasoline?Assume perfect combustion (i.e., no carbon dioxide or unburned hydro-carbons are created) and that the chemical formula for gasoline is C8H18.

B R A I N T E A S E R

HEADQUARTERSTERRY TANKER Publisher

1300 East 9th StreetCleveland, OH 44114-1503216.696.7000, ext. 9721fax [email protected]

NORTHEASTTOM CORCORAN District Manager

929 Copes LaneWest Chestor, PA 19380610.429.9848fax [email protected]

NORTH CENTRALJOE DAHLHEIMER District Manager

1300 East 9th StreetCleveland, OH 44114-1503216.696.7000, ext. 9279fax [email protected]

CENTRAL/WESTAMY COLLINS District Manager

3240 Shadyview Lane NorthPlymouth, MN 55447763.404.3829fax [email protected]

SOUTHEASTDEBBIE ISGRO District Manager

707 Whitlock Avenue SWSuite B-24Marietta, GA 30064770.218.9958fax [email protected]

SalesOfficesSalesOffices

FIRE PROTECTION

Dkm

ht1 80=

Dkm

ht hr2 100 1= −( )


During the last 15 years, the fireprotection engineering profes-sion has made great strides in

developing an infrastructure that willfacilitate the application of perfor-mance-based design. In 1988, the firstedition of the SFPE Handbook of FireProtection Engineering was published.Second and third editions of theHandbook were published in 1995 and2002, respectively. SFPE has also pub-lished six engineering guides, begin-ning in 1998, each intended to facili-tate performance-based design bymaking engineering tools available todesigners and enforcement officials inan easy-to-use format. Internationally,several countries have published per-formance-based codes, and in the U.S.,both the International Code Counciland the National Fire ProtectionAssociation have published perfor-mance-based codes. However, there isstill a sizable fraction of the fire protec-tion community that is resistant to theuse of performance-based design.

Almost all buildings today are de-signed and constructed to meet the pro-visions of prescriptive codes and stan-dards. Most engineering designresources are expended on commercialproperties, and commercial propertiesperform very well in fire. For example,in 2001, there were 6,196 civilian firedeaths in the United States. Excludingthe 2,451 of these deaths that were di-rectly caused by the terrorist actions onSeptember 11, there were 3,745 civilianfire deaths; 3,110, or 83% of these deathsoccurred in a home.1

Therefore, there is limited potentialfor performance-based design to im-prove fire safety in commercial build-ings. Regardless of whether buildingsare designed according to a prescriptiveor a performance basis, it is not possibleto achieve a risk-free environment. Ap-plication of additional resources willeventually run up against the law of diminishing returns.

However, a fundamental tenet of engineering is providing the necessarylevel of safety at the most reasonablecost. If this were not true, all structureswould be built using the most massivestructural elements possible, all build-ings would be provided with the largestHVAC equipment manufactured, and en-gineering economics would not be of-fered as part of engineering curricula.

While the buildings to which engi-neering has traditionally been appliedhave an excellent history of fire perfor-mance, they also have an unknownsafety margin. If this safety margin is toolarge, the extra costs associated withproviding this margin have a negativeimpact on the economy, as the addedconstruction costs could show up ashigher costs for products and services ordissuade the construction of new or ren-ovated buildings. Performance-baseddesign would allow the fire protectionthat is provided in a building to be tai-lored 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 soci-ety and the building owner.

Another fundamental tenet of engi-neering is doing the best that can bedone with the scientific knowledge thatis available. Application of prescriptive-based design typically is accomplishedwith minimal reference to the engineer-ing and scientific literature, so one can’tbe sure that they are doing the best jobpossible.

Structural fire resistance can be usedas a case study. Consider three relativelyrecent fires that occurred in the U.S. –One Meridian Plaza, First InterstateBank, and World Trade Center Buildings1 and 2. In the case of One MeridianPlaza and the First Interstate Bank, bothbuildings withstood fires of very longduration. However, World Trade CenterBuildings 1 and 2 collapsed after 102minutes and 57 minutes of fire exposure,respectively.2 While the fires in WorldTrade Center Buildings 1 and 2 were ignited by aircraft collisions, the bulk ofthe fire exposure resulted from ordinarycombustibles.2

Although the fires did not start in thesame manner, each of the fires in thesebuildings was similar in magnitude. Regardless of the performance intendedby compliance with prescriptive codes,these buildings did not all perform in asimilar manner. Through performance-based design, we could design structuressuch that structural fire performancewould meet the needs of the communityand the building owner in the most effi-cient means possible.

1 Karter, M,. “Fire Loss in the United StatesDuring 2001,” National Fire ProtectionAssociation, Quincy, MA, November,2002.

2 Milke, J., “Study of Building Performancein the WTC Disaster,” Fire ProtectionEngineering, 18, Spring, 2003, pp. 6-16.

Why Should We Practice Performance-Based Design?

Morgan J. Hurley, P.E.Technical DirectorSociety of Fire Protection Engineers

from the technical director

Date post:	26-Jan-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	jkhgvdj-mnhsnjkhg
View:	222 times
Download:	0 times