From Prescriptive codes to Performance based fire codes - pros and cons.

(1)

COPENHAGEN FIRE BRIGADE

From Prescriptive codes

to Performance based

fire codes - pros and

cons.

(2)

A little bit about myself . . . .

• Claus Schmidt,

• Deputy Head of the Department of Fire Prevention, Copenhagen Fire Brigade, and

• Senior Divisional Officer,

• B.Sc. (hon.) in Civil Engineering, • Master in Fire Safety Engineering, • Teach FSE at The Technical

University of Denmark, and on the • Danish Emergency Management

Agency,

• Fire Brigade Officer for 17 years,

• Over 3.000 turn outs as commander, • Member of the national committee

(3)

• Prescriptive roles can be dated

back to June 5. 1549,

• Sense 1961, 7 versions of the

prescriptive building codes,

• Last Prescriptive Building Codes

updated 1995,

• Empirical Building Codes,

• 2004 first official

Performance-Based Building Codes.

(5)

General Fire Safety Objectives in Denmark

Building code:

• Achieve satisfactory protection against fire and

the spread of fire to other buildings on the same

and neighboring plots,

• There must be appropriate provision for

rescuing people and for fighting fires.

(6)

“Roles of the game” in Denmark

• The local building authority has the

authority,

• The Fire Brigade has no authority

- but advise the building authority.

We possesses the education, the

knowledge and the experience

required,

(7)

6.1 General 6.2 Definitions

6.3 Distance from boundaries etc 6.4 Fire walls and fire-division walls 6.5 Escape routes

6.6 Rescue facilities

6.7 Structural requirements

(8)

COPENHAGEN FIRE BRIGADE_{6.8 Multi-storey housing} 6.9 Hotels etc 6.10 Nursing institutions 6.11 Assembly rooms 6.12 Classrooms 6.13 Day-care institutions

6.14 Shops and similar sales premises 6.15 Office premises etc

6.16 One-storey industrial and storage buildings 6.17 Car parks

6.18 Farm buildings

(9)

“Other buildings must conform to

the fire requirements made by

the local authority.”

• Trade-off,

• Common sense,

• Gut filing,

(10)

Prescriptive Codes

Pros

• Demand for education required is low, • Easy to administrate, “Go or No go”,

• Difficult to argue against prescriptive codes, per definition the code is right,

• For ordinary types of buildings the level og fire safety is well known,

• Fire inspection is “a walk in the park”,

(11)

Prescriptive Codes

Cons

• The intensions are uncertain,

• “For other buildings”, the performance criteria had to be ”invented” using the implicit stated level of safety,

• Low level of education required - architects and fire prevention officers, few MFS,

• Low education => no real dialog, the code and the fire officer was all ways „right‟

(12)

Prescriptive Codes

Cons

• Fire officer was also fire safety advisor, the architect gave no professional sparring,

• The architect had no responsibility in case of fire, “I just did what the man said”,

• The fire officer had no responsibility, “I just did what the code said”,

• Difficult to obtain same trade-off policy between fire prevention officers,

(13)

Consequences with the

Prescriptive Codes

• In general, low level of education, architects and fire prevention officers,

• No need for fire safety engineers,

• No marked for fire safety engineering,

• Almost no development within the profession of fire safety,

• But great need for developing the architectural design, • Buildings with larger degree of complexity,

(14)

“Other buildings must conform to the fire requirements made by the local authority.”

“A new beginning”

around year 2000

• New education on DTU “Master in Fire Safety Engineering”, 2000,

• Hand calculations, • Two-zone models, • Evacuation models, • CFD, FDS, CFX

(15)

PARKEN - National Stadium

The Eurovision Song Contest 2001, 50.000 people

(16)

Field’s Shopping Center 115.000 m2

(17)

3.000 DR staff members, 4 segments, one inner street 600 mill. Euro,

All facilities needed for TV and radio,

2001-2010 Danish National TV and Radio broadcasting Corporation (DR),

(18)

New Opera House 41.000 m2

330 mill. Euro

New Theatre 21.000 m2 24 mill. Euro

(19)

Performance based codes

was officially introduced in 2004

Performance based building code Fire Safety

• Same level of fire safety (?)

• Very difficult to understand

(20)

(21)

Performance based codes

was officially introduced in 2004

• Same level of fire safety (?)

• Very difficult to understand

(22)

“The entrance” to the new roles:

• Day time and/or night time occupancy ?

• Are the people familiar with the escape routes ? • Are they capable of taking themselves unaided

to a place of safety ?

The 3 basic questions =>

6 usage categories

(23)

Offices, industrial and warehouse buildings

1. Daily occupancy, the people are all familiar with the escape routes and capable of taking themselves unaided to a place of safety.

Teaching rooms, school day-care centers etc

2. Daily occupancy by a few people who are not

necessarily familiar with the escape routes but are

capable of taking themselves unaided to a place of safety.

(24)

Shops, assembly halls,

canteens, cinemas and restaurants

3. Daily occupancy by large numbers of people, who are not familiar with the

escape routes but are

capable of taking themselves unaided to a place of safety

4. Blocks of flats, youth dwellings etc

4. Night time occupancy, the people are familiar with the escape routes and are

capable of taking themselves unaided to a place of safety.

(25)

Hotels, student halls of

residence, youth hostels etc

5. Night time occupancy, the people are not

familiar with the escape routes but are capable of

taking themselves unaided to a place of safety.

Assisted living housing

for the elderly, treatment and bed care units in hospitals etc

6. Day time occupancy, and in some cases also for night time occupancy, the people

are not capable of taking

themselves unaided to a place of safety.

(26)

COPENHAGEN FIRE BRIGADEPerformance based building code

Fire Safety

1 General

1.1 Usage categories

2 Escape routes and rescue provisions 3 Structural factors

4 Fire safety installations (Prescriptive ?)

5 Spread of fire and smoke

5.1 Spread of fire and smoke in the room where the fire starts 5.2 Spread of fire and smoke in the building where the fire

starts or to other buildings on the same plot 5.3 Spread of fire to buildings on other plots 6 Emergency services access

6.1 Access and facilities for the emergency services 6.2 Smoke venting

(27)

Performance based codes

versus

Prescriptive codes

• Escape routes

shall have a width

of at least 10 mm

per person

• Exits and escape

routes must be

designed for the people

whom the exits and

escape routes are

intended to serve

(28)

COPENHAGEN FIRE BRIGADEPerformance based building code Fire Safety Guideline #1 “Examples” 6.8 Multi-storey housing 6.9 Hotels etc 6.10 Nursing institutions 6.11 Assembly rooms 6.12 Classrooms 6.13 Day-care institutions

6.18 Farm buildings

(29)

COPENHAGEN FIRE BRIGADEPerformance based building code Fire Safety Guideline #1 “Examples” 6.8 Multi-storey housing 6.9 Hotels etc 6.10 Nursing institutions 6.11 Assembly rooms 6.12 Classrooms 6.13 Day-care institutions

(30)

COPENHAGEN FIRE BRIGADEGuideline #1

“Examples”

• For ordinary buildings, NO “FSE solutions”,

• Is an interpretation of the performance based codes,

• Gives examples on have to meet the level of fire

safety,

• But many solutions that complies with the

requirements,

• Explains what to achieve,

• A helpful tool !

(31)

COPENHAGEN FIRE BRIGADEPerformance based building code

Fire Safety

Guideline #1 “Examples”

Guideline #2

“Fire Safety Engineering”

6.8 Multi-storey housing 6.9 Hotels etc 6.10 Nursing institutions 6.11 Assembly rooms 6.12 Classrooms 6.13 Day-care institutions

6.18 Farm buildings

Other buildings must conform to the fire requirements made by the local authority.

(32)

COPENHAGEN FIRE BRIGADEGuideline #2

“Fire Safety Engineering”

• For complex buildings, = “FSE solutions”,

• Suggest acceptance criteria,

• The contents of a fire strategy rapport,

• Some FSE formula,

(33)

FSE - but when ?

• Complex buildings, • Many people,

• Not an “ordinary” building, • Great deal of Openness, • Multi storey warehouse, • Buildings more then 22 m,

(34)

Performance based Code - FSE

Cons

• The process itself is tricky - until a tradition is established, • In the beginning, the architects had to accept one more

player on the field,

• No official acceptance criteria‟s in relation to ensure safe fire fighting,

• The safety of the property is not part of the game, • A political problem: The Fire safety Level (FSL=

Tevak/Tcritical) is x 2,

• No official system to certify fire safety engineer,

• The fire safety engineer meets different Fire Brigade officers around the country,

(35)

Performance based Code - FSE

Cons

• No official standards or guidelines in FSE, what is the right way of doing it ?

• The fire safety is offend depending on active fire installations,

• FSE is vulnerable, does it work, owners responsibility, • Complex buildings => great complexity in fire fighting, • When the fire safety engineer has been paid he is gone, • Small changes in the building “tomorrow” => great cost ? • Expensive for the Fire Brigade, we have to invest many

hours in the process,

(36)

comming cases

Number of cases Number of preliminary/follow-up cases

(37)

• The level of education is much higher today, on both side of the table, • Professional communication, fire engineer and the fire prevention

officer,

• Today co-operation often is based on confidence,

• Very few engineers are working in the field of fire safety - “a small world” (pros and cons),

• Today, the process is understood and accepted,

• Now we understand the objectives, and get a more uniform level of fire safety,

• More skills, knowledge and experience => development, • Open minded in relation to other standards/codes,

• Everything is possible as long as it can be documented, and the level of fire safety is ok !,

Performance based Code - FSE

Pros

(38)

The implementation of

the Performance based Codes in 2004

• The new codes came over night, with 6 month overlap, • The architects did the job before, but not now,

• Very few qualified Fire Safety Engineers, less then 10, but little experience,

• Almost no consulting firms in FSE,

• The local authorities was not ready - and not qualified, • Have to ensure fire safety when “not ready” ?,

(39)

The implementation of

the Performance based Codes in 2004

• But jet no generally accepted methods, and no standard procedures,

• Is the computer programs valid ?, • Did we loose control ?

• Have do we ensure safe fire fighting in performance based buildings ?

• Have to do fire inspections in performance based buildings ?

(40)

The good process of implementation of

Performance based Codes

Announce in good time before coming into force - and be ahead of time: • Ensure time for preparations and be in control,

• Both consulting firms and authorities most be ready,

• Ensure enough qualified staff (FSE or other skills), educate ! • Try to plan “Have to do Performance based cases”,

• But accept you will “Learn by doing”,

• Try (eventually) to get generally accepted methods,

• Agree on the use of computer programs, FDS or others ?,

• Think have to ensure safe fire fighting in performance based buildings ? • Think have to do fire inspections in performance based buildings ?

(41)

The use of CFD

• Several CFD programs on the marked, • A lot of “buttons to push”,

• Different use of the programs ? • The Output depends on the Input,

• Almost all consultants use CFD (FDS), • The use of CFD is increasing,

• How to get the right estimate ?,

• No official guideline / norm for FSE, • No guideline for the use of CFD,

V_(-y) V_(+y) V_(+z) V_(-x) V_(-z) V_(+x) y x z

(42)

Safety Safety

This document is accepted by everyone

(43)

From Prescriptive codes to Performance based fire codes - pros and cons.