Second Conference on Firesafety Design in the 21st Century

Conference White Paper

Prepared by:

David A. Lucht, P.E.
Conference Chair
Professor and Director
Center for Firesafety Studies
Worcester Polytechnic Institute


Table of Contents

Abstract
Background
Engineering Methods
Performance-based Approaches
Changes in Other Countries
Making the Transition
The 1991 Conference
Barriers
National Goal
Strategies
Changes Since 1991
The 1999 Conference
Speaker Topics
Key Questions to be Addressed by Speakers
Conference Format
References



ABSTRACT

Per capita fire losses in the United States far exceed those of other industrialized nations. Over the past three decades, enormous progress has been made in developing an understanding of fire dynamics and performance-based fire protection methods. There is considerable evidence that this new technology can significantly reduce U.S. fire losses, reduce the cost of construction and enhance American competitiveness in the global marketplace.

While the United States is near the forefront in development of advanced fire technology, it appears to be lagging behind in its application. Held at WPI in 1991, the first Conference on Firesafety Design in the 21st Century sought to better understand why innovative performance-based methods are not used more widely and what could be done to take more advantage of state-of-the-art technology. The purpose of this Second Conference on Firesafety Design in the 21st Century is to take another hard look at progress needed for accelerating the flow of modern fire safety design methods into routine day-to-day regulatory and design practice in the United States, to document the barriers that lay ahead and to identify strategies for overcoming these barriers. This 2 -½ day conference will focus on institutional, social, political, legal, attitudinal and economic changes needed to bring emerging fire safety design methods to bear on solving fire safety problems in the decades ahead.

The conference is sponsored by Worcester Polytechnic Institute and the Society of Fire Protection Engineers, with financial support provided through a grant to WPI from the National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C. SFPE is serving as the Conference Secretariat.

Conference Date: June 9-11, 1999
Place:Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Worcester, Massachusetts
Abstracts Due:September 1, 1998
Papers Due:March 1, 1999 (Firm)

For more information and Instructions to Authors, contact:

Professor David Lucht
Conference Chairman
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Center for Firesafety Studies
Worcester, MA 01609
Phone (508) 831-5593
Fax (508) 831-5680
E-mail fpe@wpi.edu		   OR   Kathleen Almand
Executive Director
Society of Fire Protection Engineers
7315 Wisconsin Ave., Suite 1225W
Bethesda, MD 20814
Phone (301) 718-2910
Fax (301) 718-2242
E-mail sfpehqtrs@sfpe.org


BACKGROUND

In addition to thousands of human casualties, fires cost the American economy on the order of $128 billion each year. And, despite research advances made over the last 30 years, the per capita American fire loss record is among the worst in the industrialized world.

In the United States today, building fire safety design decisions are principally driven by state and local regulations. For the most part, these regulations are based upon one of four model codes published by non-profit model code organizations including:

Generally speaking, these model codes are considered to be "prescriptive" in nature. The principal design goal is most commonly to "meet the code" as opposed to achieving some specified level of safety performance. As an example, the model codes contain extensive details on the size and capacity of exit systems, travel distances and the like. The designer can work through the specific code requirements and design an exit system which complies with the code. However, compliance normally does not include explicit determination of how fast building occupants can escape from a burning building or whether they will escape before untenable conditions are reached (performance).

Engineering Methods

Like other environmental factors which affect the built environment, fire phenomena are amenable to scientific understanding and engineering solution. In fact, over the last 30 years great strides have been made in building a foundation of scientific knowledge in the fire protection field. Writing in Fire Safety Journal in 1987, Harold E. Nelson, P.E., then a senior research engineer at the National Institute of Standards and Technology noted:

"…There is an emerging fire protection engineering technology with the power to evaluate fire safety performance of a building or other facility that may differ widely from current prescriptions of traditional building code requirements" (1).

Writing in the First Edition of the SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering in 1988, Editor-in-Chief, Philip J. DiNenno, P.E., prefaced this bellweather publication with the following observations:

"Fire protection engineering is at a threshold in terms of technical development. Substantial progress has been made in developing a theoretical and analytical foundation for the profession. These scientific underpinnings have for the most part not been integrated into daily practice…One of the primary objectives of this handbook is to facilitate the integration of theory and practice by providing this information in a readily accessible form" (2).

The literature reports on a range of engineering methods which are ready or near ready for practical use in areas such as:

While these emerging engineering methods are increasingly being used to support building code alternatives, they have not been "codified" into practice as has been the case in other engineering disciplines.

Performance-based Approaches

In the United States, the 1990's will probably be looked upon as the performance-based era of fire protection. "Performance-based" seems to be emerging as the new age approach to everything from building codes, fire codes and standards, to alarm systems, smoke control and building evacuation modeling. Theoretically, the performance-based approach begins with a design performance goal (e.g. the design shall assure that building occupants can escape prior to untenable conditions) as opposed to the "prescriptive" approach to code compliance which is most common in the model codes today.

While the performance-based approach to building fire safety has not yet become institutionalized in the mainstream of fire safety regulation and design practice, this approach has worked effectively in other engineering disciplines for decades. The most commonly cited example is structural engineering. A structural performance requirement in the BOCA National Building Code reads as follows.

"[Structural members] shall be designed and constructed to support safely all loads… without exceeding the allowable stresses for the materials of construction…". (3)

Practitioners in the fire protection field might ask how such a vaguely stated requirement could possibly be enforced? How does one enforce vague words like "safely" or "allowable?" The answer has to do with a family of other authoritative consensus documents that are specifically referenced by the National Building Code. These other documents are used by designers and regulators alike to further define acceptable procedures and criteria for proving compliance.

Example reference documents would include, for example, the American Society of Civil Engineers Standard ASCE 7 "Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures" (4) and the American Concrete Institute Standard ACI 318 "Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete" (5). These referenced documents provide the professional engineer and regulator with generally accepted procedures for performing calculations, accounting for safety and reliability factors, dead and live loads and the like. The design is aimed toward achieving a performance goal against a prescribed load such as the 100-year windstorm or 500-year earthquake.



CHANGES IN OTHER COUNTRIES

Several countries have undertaken the transition from a prescriptive approach to building code regulations to a performance-based approach. For example, the United Kingdom adopted a performance-based building code in 1991, reducing this 366 page regulatory document to 21 total pages in length (6). New Zealand adopted a completely new performance-based building code in 1992 (7). A typical requirement in the UK performance-based building code would read as follows:

"The building shall be designed and constructed so that there are means of escape…to a place of safety outside the building capable of being safely and effectively used at all material times". (8)

Again, many in the American system of code interpretation, enforcement and compliance might wonder how this could work in the United States. The requirement is so vaguely stated that no one involved in the process could possibly know exactly what is meant by "safely" or "effectively" or other vaguely stated terms. American practitioners are accustomed to specific requirements such as calculating building population, units of exit width in hallways, stairways and doorways, maximum travel distances and the like…which are very specific. And it is fairly clear that compliance with such specific requirements constitutes compliance with the code. The rules are clear to enforcers and those who must comply. On the other hand, compliance with prescriptive requirements tells us nothing about building performance…e.g. how much time will be required to evacuate the building or whether people can escape before untenable conditions are achieved.

Similar to the structural example cited above, the UK building code refers to other "approved documents" which provide procedures and criteria for achieving the performance requirement.



MAKING THE TRANSITION

Many in the American building regulatory and design communities believe that making the transition from prescriptive building code regulations to performance-based approaches is desirable. It is generally believed that performance-based approaches stand to yield higher levels of safety at less cost. Dating as far back as 1983, these kinds of claims were being made by Dorothy M. Simon, then Vice President of Research for AVCO Corporation at which time she submitted commentary to the Senate Sub-committee on Science, Technology and Space noting:

"The construction of new buildings and the rehabilitation of existing buildings runs about $230 billion annually; $7.6 billion is spent on fire safety. Forty percent of this expenditure could be saved by making more informed decisions on the trade-off between safety, cost and function" (9).

There is every expectation that prudent application of this emerging technology will yield substantial savings for American business and industry. Unfortunately, little of this American know-how has yet found its way into the mainstream of codified practice to date.

The transition from prescriptive to performance-based codes and design practices is not an easy one. An entirely new way of thinking must be instilled in the minds and practices of designers, authorities having jurisdiction and others. And new tools must be evaluated for their validity and adopted by reference in the model codes and standards. Barriers standing in the way of this transition are many…and not just technological in nature. Other hurdles that must be overcome include social, legal, political, attitudinal, economic and institutional changes that must be made to institutionalize innovative methods into actual practice.



THE 1991 CONFERENCE

The first Conference on Firesafety Design in the 21st Century was held on the Worcester Polytechnic Institute campus in 1991 with financial support from the National Science Foundation. The purpose of the conference was to focus on why new performance-based engineering methods for achieving building fire safety have not yet found their way into routine application…and conferees sought strategies to accelerate the use of innovations in day-to-day design and regulatory practice. The focus was on social, legal, political, attitudinal, economic and institutional barriers to innovation and the documentation of strategies for shaping the future.

The 2-½ day conference was the culmination of more than two years of planning, research and documentation. Each of the 29 conference papers presented a thoughtful treatment of the author's point of view on relevant issues. (10) Conference participants shared a commitment to improved fire safety design. They represented perspectives ranging from practicing engineers, architects, members of the fire service and building officials to insurance engineers, attorneys, researchers and academicians. They worked together through a highly interactive conference of plenary sessions, panel sessions and breakout groups to focus on barriers to the adoption of fire safety design innovations and strategies for speeding the application of new technologies into day-to-day practice. Given the diversity of conference attendees, remarkable consensus emerged.

Barriers

Conferees identified a host of barriers to innovation including:

National Goal

The 1991 conference report (11) recommended a national goal:

"By the year 2000 the first generation of an entirely new concept in performance-based building codes be made available to engineers, architects and authorities having jurisdiction…in a credible and useful form."

Strategies

Five areas of strategic thrust were identified for achieving this national goal:

Subsequent to the conference, more research was conducted on innovations reported in the UK and Australia with additional support from the National Science Foundation; over 60 practitioners in all facets of design and regulatory practice were interviewed by David Lucht, Jon Traw and Charles Kime (12) . These findings, along with results of the conference itself, helped define a roadmap for the future as shown in Figure 1.



CHANGES SINCE 1991

Much progress has been made toward implementing many of the strategies outlined in the 1991 conference report. For example, the three model building code organizations have combined their efforts to form the International Code Council and a performance building code committee has been appointed. A first rough draft performance-based building code for use throughout the United States has been written.

The Society of Fire Protection Engineers has shifted emphasis to include technical activities as one of its primary focus areas. SFPE has begun building a technical staff and committee structure to accomplish validation of technical tools and development of design guides.

The National Fire Protection Association has established an in-house task group aimed at supporting its Standards Council and over 250 technical committees who are beginning to incorporate performance-based criteria in NFPA documents.

Given the momentum that has already been established in the United States, it is reasonable to expect that a new performance-based building code will be available to state and local officials at the turn of the century.

Figure 1
A Roadmap for the Future Acceptance of
Performance-based Firesafety Design Methods

This will be a momentous change in the overall approach to fire safety design and regulatory practice in the United States. And it should not be expected that this transition will be easy or without its problems and challenges. Many of the issues raised at the 1991 conference are still looming over this process. Barriers and landmines probably lay ahead. While many of these will be technological in nature, others will also be in non-technical areas having to do with political, economic and legal issues.



THE 1999 CONFERENCE

The purpose of the Second Conference on Firesafety Design in the 21st Century is to take another hard look at progress needed for accelerating the flow of modern fire safety design methods into routine day-to-day regulatory and design practice in the United States, to document the barriers that lay ahead and to identify strategies for overcoming those barriers.

The implementation of innovative performance-based fire safety design and regulatory practices will require a concerted effort from a host of organizations, individuals and disciplines… and the impact will be widespread. It is intended that attendees will represent a broad cross-section of the community involved in or affected by this transition including leaders from all aspects of business, government and academia…architects, engineers, building owners and managers, building code officials, fire officials, attorneys and insurance professionals.

This is not a conference on research theory. The conference will focus on social, legal, political, attitudinal, economic, institutional and technical changes needed to accelerate the flow of innovative performance-based fire safety design and regulatory concepts into routine real world practice. Participants will identify barriers laying in the way of progress in these vital areas, strategies for overcoming barriers and who should do what.

Speaker Topics

Qualified speakers are sought to discuss not only problems/issues but also realistic solutions in the following areas:

Key Questions to be Addressed by Speakers

With regard to the topics listed above, speakers and conference attendees will be asked to address the following types of questions:

Conference Format

This highly interactive working conference will provide a forum for public discussion of key strategic issues…realistic measures which individuals and organizations can pursue to better move new techniques into design and regulatory practice.

All attendees will participate through panel discussions, breakout groups and group reports.

Copies of available papers and/or abstracts will be furnished to attendees in advance of the conference. Papers generally will not be presented in full; authors will discuss key points in panel/open session formats and interact with participants and breakout groups.

All attendees, speakers and moderators will be divided into small working groups at various stages of the conference to consider key issues and discuss answers to the questions listed above.

Moderators and recorders will synthesize the results of each breakout group session for presentation at plenary sessions later in the conference.

At the end of the conference, as was done in 1991, capstone summary reports will be provided in an attempt to synthesize the results of the overall 2-½ day conference sessions.

Following the conference, a summary conference report will be issued along with a bound proceedings of all papers and abstracts prepared in advance.

The 1991 conference identified a host of issues and strategies and provided a vision for the future. This 1999 event will review the 1991 conference results, progress made since that time and issues facing the future.

As was the case seven years ago, this will be a somewhat unique and highly interactive working conference. WPI will provide a campus setting for a creative process among leaders in all aspects of building fire safety design and regulatory practice…a neutral forum within which to debate issues and achieve understanding among a spectrum of diverse views. The conference results will be forged among thoughtful experts in all facets of fire safety design and regulatory practice and, hopefully, will shed more light on the roadmap to the future.



REFERENCES

  1. Nelson, H. E., "Concepts for Life Safety Analysis", Fire Safety Journal, 12 (1987).
  2. DiNenno, P. J., Editor-in-Chief, SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, First Edition, 1988.
  3. National Building Code, Building Officials and Code Administrators International, Thirteenth Edition, 1996.
  4. American Society of Civil Engineers, "Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures", ASCE 7, 1988.
  5. American Concrete Institute, "Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete", ACI-318-89, 1989.
  6. The Building Regulations 1991, No. 2768, Secretary of State, London, England, 1991.
  7. The Building Regulations 1992, Governors General in Council, Wellington, NZ, 1992.
  8. Ibid.
  9. Simon, D. M., Hearing before the Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, February 22, 1983.
  10. Lucht, D., et al "Proceedings of the Conference on Firesafety Design in the 21st Century", Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA, May, 1991.
  11. Lucht, D., "Strategies for Shaping the Future", Report on the Conference on Firesafety Design in the 21st Century, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA, May, 1991.
  12. Lucht, D., Traw, J., Kime, C., "International Developments in Building Code Concepts", Building Standards, International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, CA, Jan.-Feb., 1994.

[Back]

fpe@wpi.edu
Last modified: Tue Jan 12 11:55:44 EST 1999