6/18/2008 / /

PERFORMANCE BASED FIRE PERFORMANCE-BASED PROTECTION

A Overview An O i

Speaker Bobby Patrick, Speaker: Patrick MSFPE, MSFPE PE

Principal / Partner FireLogix Engineering, Engineering Ltd. Ltd P i ly Previously:

Rolf R lf J Jensen & A Associates i t P t &G Procter Gamble bl General Electric Automation Fire Protection Designs Designs, Inc Inc.

Registered Fire Protection Engineer (PE) in multiple states M S Fire Protection Engineering, M.S. Engineering g g, Worcester Polytechnic Polytechnic Institute Instit te (WPI) B S Electrical Engineering, B.S. Engineering University of Florida E il bobby.patrick@FireLogix.biz Email: b bby p t i k@Fi @ L gi bi (513) ( ) 746-6211 746 6211

6/18/2008 / /

Todays Today s Agenda

Wh is performance Why performance-based f b d design based d (PBD) ( ) important? ? Wh is PBD? What S i Society of f Fi Fire P Protection i E Engineer Engineers i s (SFPE) PBD framework PBD case study Some interesting examples of PBD A word of caution: proper application of PBD!

Why is PBD Important?

For designing fire f protection f for unique scenarios

Green G

/ sustainable i bl construction i High High value l p property p ty Unique uses / occupancy Situations S not adequately d l addressed dd d by b current codes d

F i For incorporating i i improved d technology h l S Supports creativity i i i in d design i

6/18/2008 / /

Designer Options

Prescriptive-based design
Based B d

on prescriptive i i codes d

P f Performance-based Performance b d design based d i

May M y

b be b based d on performance p f codes d May be used with prescriptive codes Requires rigorous engineering analysis

Prescriptive Codes and Standards

Thi is This i what h t we are used d to. t

International Building Code (IBC) NFPA 13 (Sprinklers) NFPA 72 (Fire Alarm) NFPA 101 (Life Safety) Consensus Based on loss history (reactive in many cases)

C d making Code ki g process p

Implements p minimum requirements requirements q generic g by y occupancy p y Does not demonstrate how requirements contribute to goals Very appropriate for standard construction projects

6/18/2008 / /

Prescriptive Design: Design An Example

Consider an office building g for XYZ corporation corporation p

IBC p prescribes ib fire fi resistance i ratings i g of f walls ll NFPA 13 prescribes ib sprinkler i kl spacing i /d density i IBC / NFPA 101 prescribes travel distances to exits NFPA 72 prescribes the implementation of notification appliances ppli

Design meets code d b but l loss potential l is unclear l

How much damage is expected in a fire event? Is the environment tenable until the last occupant evacuates?

Now, N w, wh what t if th the office ffi building b ildi g w was a f federal d lb building ildi g housing g FBI, FBI, Homeland Security, Security y, etc?

Performance-Based Performance Based Design

Fi safety Fire f d design i to meet specific ifi goals l d defined fi d by b project stakeholders F d Fundamental, l rigorous i engineering i i approach h to fi fire safety design M b May be applied li d to varying i d degrees (l (levels) l)
Code

equivalency q y with prescriptive p p codes Complete C l PBD for f an innovative facility f l May be applied based on a model performance code Likely Lik l applied li d in i a prescriptive i i environment i through h h Al Alternative Alternative i means and d methods methods h d clause. l

6/18/2008 / /

Performance vs vs. Prescriptive

C it i Criteria
Project j goals g Loss g goals defined by y Engineering rigor Based on Design integration Application Design Costs Construction Costs Lif cycle Life l costs t

P f Performance-Based B d
Clearly y articulated Project j stakeholders Higher Actual facility Higher Unique facilities or needs Higher Depends may be lower D Depends d may be b lower l

P Prescriptive-Based ipti B d
Not considered Code / standard making C g bodies Lower Generic occupancy Lower Standard facilities Lower Depends may be higher D Depends d may be b higher hi h

Performance Codes

What is a p performance code / system y ? Wh Where are they h used? d?

Goal Functional S Statement Operative Requirements Risk Group Performance Measures Meas res V ifi ti Verification

New Zealand (since 1993) United Kingdom (since 1985) Japan ( (since 1994) 994) Sweden S d ( (since early ly 1990s) 1990 990 )

US S Codes C / Standards S b gi i g t beginning to incorporate i p t US Sb building ld regulatory l process more complicated p pli t d than other parts of the world

6/18/2008 / /

Framework for PBD in Fire Safety

PBD may y be applied pp with or without a performanceperformance p based code SFPEs SFPE s SFPE Engineering Guide to Performance-Based Performance Based Fire Protection Protection provides a framework

Prescriptive Performance provides a process by which engineers can develop fire protection measures measures a means to document that specific fire safety goals are achieved for specific hazards for a particular project project. identifies parameters that should be considered in performance-based performance based analysis or design. design.

Intent of the guide

PBD Stakeholders

Stakeholder One who has an interest in the successful completion of the project Emergency responders Building owner Building manager Design team Authorities having jurisdiction (AHJ)

Fire B ld g Building I Insurance

Accreditation A dit ti agencies g i C t ti team Construction t T Tenants t

6/18/2008 / /

SFPE PBD Process Overview

D fi project Define j scope Identify goals Define objectives Develop performance criteria Develop D l design d i fire fi scenarios i Develop eve op trial a designs Evaluate trial designs Modify M dif d design i or objectives b

D i b Design brief i f

Design g meets criteria

Select final design Prepare p documentation

PBD Report

Specifications, drawings O&M drawings,

Presenting the Process: Process Case Study

Case study used to provide a basic example Case study simplified to emphasize the process Presented to depict significant considerations during d ig design

6/18/2008 / /

Case Study: Study Atrium Fire Safety

University U i ity setting tti g 4 story y atrium with small footprint p Bridges g across atrium Client concerns
Safety Aesthetics A th ti Return air Exhaust h capacity

P Prescriptive i ti code d system t (IBC / NFPA)

Atrium Layout

Plan view

Section view

6/18/2008 / /

Atrium Layout Continued

The Problem Problem

Applicable pp code code: IBC 2003 Edition S k control Smoke t l required q i d (IBC ( 404 404.4) 4) ) IBC C prescribes calculations f for smoke exhaust systems. Of Often results lt i in f fairly i ly conservative ti exhaust h t rates. t (Hi ( (Higher gh th than previous codes) (IBC Section 909) M k up Make p air i flow fl cannot t exceed d 200 feet f t per p minute i t towards the fire M k up Make p air i should h ld be b a low l l levels l ( (b (below l th the smoke k layer l y interface) W d We dont t h have enough gh wall ll space p t to meet t th these conditions diti C we l Can lower the h exhaust h rate, reduce d number b of ff fans and d l lower make k up p air i requirements? q i t?

6/18/2008 / /

Project Team

A Architects (2 different ff firms) f Owner / facilities operator Mechanical engineer Electrical engineer Fire protection engineer Fire Marshall (state) Fire Marshall (university)

SFPE PBD Process Overview

D fi project Define j scope Identify goals Define objectives Develop performance criteria Develop D l design d i fire fi scenarios i Develop eve op trial a designs Evaluate trial designs Modify M dif d design i or objectives b

D i b Design brief i f

Design g meets criteria

Select final design Prepare p documentation

PBD Report

Specifications, drawings O&M drawings,

10

6/18/2008 / /

1 Define Project Scope 1.

Ad i i Administrative i i in nature Id tifi b Identifies boundaries d i of f th the analysis ly i / d design ig Scope p for our p project project j
Atrium A

space (no ( other h areas) ) Smoke control system Fire Fi d detection i and d alarm l system Fire sprinkler system Egress E and d egress marking ki Atrium contents Atrium At i use

SFPE PBD Process Overview

D fi project Define j scope Identify goals Define objectives Develop performance criteria Develop D l design d i fire fi scenarios i Develop eve op trial a designs Evaluate trial designs Modify M dif d design i or objectives b

D i b Design brief i f

Design g meets criteria

Select final design Prepare p documentation

PBD Report

Specifications, drawings O&M drawings,

11

6/18/2008 / /

2 Identify Goals and 3. 2. 3 Define Objectives

Goal: provide life f safety f f for the public, public building occupants, p t , and d emergency g y responders. p d Obj Objective: j ti ensure no loss l of f lif life for f p people pl i inside id the atrium who are not intimate with the fire itself. itself Typically more goals and objectives are involved. involved S Some may yi include: l d
Maintain

continuity y of business Limit fire and smoke damage to property

Bottom Line Line

Provide a tenable environment inside the atrium long g enough g for occupants p to leave the space p

12

6/18/2008 / /

SFPE PBD Process Overview

D fi project Define j scope Identify goals Define objectives Develop performance criteria Develop D l design d i fire fi scenarios i Develop eve op trial a designs Evaluate trial designs Modify M dif d design i or objectives b

D i b Design brief i f

Design g meets criteria

Select final design Prepare p documentation

PBD Report

Specifications, drawings O&M drawings,

4 Develop Performance Criteria 4.

W at makes Wh What akes th the ee environment vi o e t t tenable? e ab ble? Significant knowledge / research required B conservative! Be ! Th Thorough gh understanding d t di g of f effects ff t of f fi fire and d smoke k upon p h humans
Heat exposure Toxic by products exposure (particularly CO) Visibility Vi ibili y

C it i Criteria T Temperature t C b M Carbon Monoxide d Visibility y

R Requirement i t T Temperature t < 149 F CO Concentration C <1 1,000 ,000 PPM Visibility y > 33 Feet

13

6/18/2008 / /

SFPE PBD Process Overview

D fi project Define j scope Identify goals Define objectives Develop performance criteria Develop D l design d i fire fi scenarios i Develop eve op trial a designs Evaluate trial designs Modify M dif d design i or objectives b

D i b Design brief i f

Design g meets criteria

Select final design Prepare p documentation

PBD Report

Specifications, drawings O&M drawings,

5 Develop Fire Scenarios / Design Fires 5.

Requires strong understanding d d of ff fire dynamics y

Growth rate Maximum heat release rate Heat of combustion Soot yield CO yield i ld

Consider what might be burning

S f ? Sofa? Christmas tree? Kiosk?

14

6/18/2008 / /

Our Design Fire

Considered a combined combined fire fire to be conservative

Higher peak HRR Higher soot yield Higher g CO yield y

Did not consider id decay d

Heat Release Rate for Design Fire
H at R Hea Relea ase eR Ra ate e (BT TU U/ s) s

6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 0 200 400 Time (s) ( ) 600 800

Fire Scenarios: Scenarios Locations

Base of B f the th atrium t i (standard (t d d pl plume) )

Longer to detect Sprinklers ineffective

Designfire location

Under bridge (spill type plume)

Spill S pill type typ p plume l may y cause hi higher gh smoke concentrations due to more air entrainment entrainment. Sprinklers control size of fire efficiently R d d exiting Reduced iti g capacity p ity

In front of main entry / exit

15

6/18/2008 / /

SFPE PBD Process Overview

D fi project Define j scope Identify goals Define objectives Develop performance criteria Develop D l design d i fire fi scenarios i Develop eve op trial a designs Evaluate trial designs Modify M dif d design i or objectives b

D i b Design brief i f

Design g meets criteria

Select final design Prepare p documentation

PBD Report

Specifications, drawings O&M drawings,

6 Develop Trial Designs 6.

Co sid C Consider de sepa separating ati g th the e hi higher ghe b bridge id dge areas with i h glass l / window i d sprinklers i kl Various fan configurations g
F sizes varied Fan d Fan locations varied

V i Various return t air i configurations fig ti

Natural return air through doors and windows Mechanical return air

V i Various b beam d detector configurations fi i

16

6/18/2008 / /

SFPE PBD Process Overview

D fi project Define j scope Identify goals Define objectives Develop performance criteria Develop D l design d i fire fi scenarios i Develop eve op trial a designs Evaluate trial designs Modify M dif d design i or objectives b

D i b Design brief i f

Design g meets criteria

Select final design Prepare p documentation

PBD Report

Specifications, drawings O&M drawings,

7 Evaluate Trial Designs 7.

P Prepare egress calculations l l i ( (computer or h hand) d) determine required safe egress time (RSET) P Prepare Fi Fire D Dynamics i Si Simulator l (FDS) model d l M k multiple Make ltipl runs of f FDS and d evaluate l t against g i t performance f criteria i i d during i the h time i occupants are present Determine available safe egress time present. ( (ASET) ) Bottom line: Can occupants egress the area of threat before conditions become untenable? ASET > RSET

17

6/18/2008 / /

7 Evaluate Trial Designs: 7. Designs Egress

How H ow l long o g does d it t take ake occupa occupants ts t to o ge get t ou out to of f th the e area of f threat? h ? Requires q knowledge g of human behavior in fire Ranges from simple to complex A number b of f computer p t models d l available: il bl
Exodus Pathfinder Etc. E

We used hand calculations for this project since it was very simple. simple Calculations based on hydraulic rd flow ( (see SFPE handbook, handbook, 3 edition, edition, Chapter p 14) )

7 Evaluate Trial Designs: 7. Designs Egress

RSET = Td + Ta T + 2 X (To (T + Ti + Te) T ) Td - The Th detection d t ti ti time i is th the ti time elapsed l p db between tw fi i fire ignition i i and dd detection i T Time Ta Ti between b t detection d t ti and d notification tifi ti (li i d b (limited by NFPA 72) T + Ti Delay To D l y time. ti Time Ti for f occupant p t to t actually t lly take k action i Te Evacuation Te Evacuatio ti time e 2 is a safety y factor

18

6/18/2008 / /

7 Evaluate Trial Designs: 7. Designs Fire Modeling

Prepare the FDS model Consider factors such as

block bl block k

size size i Materials M t i l Build in exhaust air Build in return air Build B ild in i detection d t ti

7 Evaluate Trial Designs 7.

19

6/18/2008 / /

SFPE PBD Process Overview

D fi project Define j scope Identify goals Define objectives Develop performance criteria Develop D l design d i fire fi scenarios i Develop eve op trial a designs Evaluate trial designs Modify M dif d design i or objectives b

D i b Design brief i f

Design g meets criteria

Select final design Prepare p documentation

PBD Report

Specifications, drawings O&M drawings,

8 Select Final Design 8. g /9 9. Prepare p Doc Documentation mentation

Final report issued Drawings and specifications prepared O&M manual prepared

20

6/18/2008 / /

Case Study Conclusions

Exhaust rate was reduced somewhat (less than expected p t dd due t to f footprint). tp i t) ) Af fan was eliminated li i t d A return t air i configuration fig ti was selected l t d( (natural t l air) i) Fl Floor l level l egress g marking ki g was added dd d Th architects The hit t creativity ti ity was ultimately lti t ly supported pp t d by a performance-based design

More Examples Examples

Consider a casino with a sprawling sprawling floor plan Prescriptive egress cannot be met by the design Concerns:

Occupants can cant t egress before conditions are untenable Concept design cannot be implemented

Solution:

Use cigarette smoke removal system Space fire detection / sprinklers closer to provide an earlier response. p p Human Behavior in Fire effects of fire and smoke on occupants p and fire and p plume dynamics y

Required q application pp of

21

6/18/2008 / /

More Examples Examples

Consider a boat storage facility with racks of fueled boats Prescriptive p codes do not adequately q y address the scenario. Group p A plastics p (filled ( with fuel) ) Concerns: C

Fi is Fire i shielded hi ld d Water can collect in boats (structural failure) Not economically feasible to install sprinklers under every boat Smoke development N interlock Non l k preaction sprinkler kl system with hl linear h heat d detection Extra II with E t Hazard H d Group G ith overhead h d design d i density d it enhanced h d Boats must be equipped with covers Fire department to vent building as necessary

Solution:

Required application of fire and plume dynamics. Human behavior v not as heavily v y applied pp since facility y is only y occupied p by 1-2 1 2 attendants. attendants

More Examples Examples

Consider C id a flame fl effects ff t wall ll in i an entertainment t t i t complex pl AHJ and owner concerned with potential ignition of surroundings d and d / or h harm to occupants Used FPEtool and hand calculations of radiant exposure to humans and surroundings to verify that ignition or pain would not occur Required knowledge of heat transfer, transfer ignition properties of materials and pain thresholds for humans materials,

22

6/18/2008 / /

A Word of Caution!

A complete and proper board board of f stakeholders must t be b assembled bl d at t th the b beginning gi i g P f Performance b based dd design ig often ft makes k use of ft tools l which can be manipulated or misused Make sure the designer is qualified! Enlist an expert third party reviewer when needed

A Word of Caution!

Review safety y factors in the model closely y

Egress E g time i Design D i fire fi

HRR Growth G th rate t Soot yield CO yield Visibility factor (N)

Conservative use of performance criteria

Ensure the designer provides consideration to sensitivity analysis of their model model what factors, factors when changed slightly significantly change the model results. slightly, results

23

6/18/2008 / /

Conclusions Benefits of PBD Conclusions:

Add Addresses unique requirements of f a particular l project P d ab Provides basis f for selection l of fd design alternatives l P id a b Provides basis i f for comparing i safety f of f various i designs Requires increased engineering rigor Can provide more cost effective solutions Results in systems and features being tightly integrated Provides a better understanding for risk / loss. loss

Conclusions Limitations of PBD Conclusions:

R i a hi Requires higher h l level l of f engineering i i skill kill f from designers and enforcers R i greater engineering Requires i i and d review i effort ff (more time) C id the Consider h lik likelihood lih d of f change h of f occupancy and d its effects I is It i bounded b d db by current engineering i i and d scientific i ifi knowledge. knowledge I t necessarily Isnt Isn il economical i l or feasible f ibl to apply l to all projects

24

6/18/2008 / /

Future Presentations?

Human Behavior in Fire / Effects ff of f Fire and Smoke on H Humans A O An Overview i of f Fire Fi Dynamics Dy i Fi M Fire Modeling: d li g Si Simple pl t to Hi Highly ghly C Complex pl
FDS CFAST Others Oh

E Egress M Modeling d li / Analysis A l i

QU S ONS QUESTIONS?

25