Fire Safe Student Housing:

A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators

Frederick W. Mowrer, Ph.D., P.E.

Department of Fire Protection Engineering

University of Maryland

College Park, Maryland 20742

February 1, 1999
Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators

ii

Table of Contents

Introduction.............................................................................................................................1

Background.............................................................................................................................2

The Elements of Fire Safe Student Housing ....................................................................8

Prevention...........................................................................................................................................8

Occupant awareness and training....................................................................................................14

Detection and Alarm ........................................................................................................................16

Suppression ......................................................................................................................................19

Summary................................................................................................................................24

Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................24

Appendix A............................................................................................................................25

A1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................26

A2. IGNITION AND PROPAGATION VARIABLES .............................................................28

A3. CONSTRUCTION VARIABLES.......................................................................................31

A4. OCCUPANT BEHAVIOR VARIABLES...........................................................................33

A5. PROVISION OF FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS..........................................................37

A6. NFPA DATA ANALYSIS..................................................................................................41

A7. FIRE PREVENTION STRATEGIES-PROGRAMS.........................................................51

A8. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................55

A9. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY .........................................................................................60

Disclaimer

References to websites of manufacturers of fire protection equipment are not intended

as endorsements for the products of the manufacturers cited. They are meant only to

serve as examples of resources available for further information regarding different

types of fire protection equipment.
Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators

1

Introduction

As a campus or fraternal housing administrator, you have the duty to provide a safe

environment for the college students housed in

your facilities. You are faced with a number of

different issues competing for your attention and

for the limited resources available to address

them. You must decide how to best allocate

available resources among competing demands

and interests. To make these decisions wisely,

you need to understand the risk factors involved,

the alternatives available to you and the relative

costs and benefits of the different options.

Fire is one of the deadlier perils that threaten student safety. A fire in a student housing

facility can quickly rage out of control if appropriate safeguards are not in place to stop

it. While fatal fires in student housing are not an every day occurrence, they can and do

happen, perhaps more frequently than you recognize. These fires do not make the

headlines unless a number of students are killed, so it is easy to underestimate the risk

of fire in student housing facilities. It is important for you to recognize that fire safe

student housing does not just happen by chance, nor can it be taken for granted. It

requires an ongoing commitment on the part of the community, the institution and the

administration. Careful planning, implementation and maintenance are all essential

ingredients of a successful fire safety program for student housing.

The purpose of this report and the accompanying video is to provide campus housing

administrators, fraternal organizations and others responsible for housing college

students with an overview of the elements of fire safe student housing. The goal is to

present a balanced approach that will permit housing administrators to make riskinformed decisions regarding the costs and benefits associated with different fire safety

features and levels of fire protection. Additional resources that are available to help in

the development of a comprehensive program for fire safe student housing are also

identified.

Ultimately, student-housing administrators need to seriously consider the installation of

automatic sprinkler systems in the residential facilities they manage. These systems

have an established record of preventing catastrophic fires in residential facilities,

making sprinkler protection perhaps the single most effective weapon in the residential

building fire safety arsenal. Over the past 15 years, the hospitality industry in the United

States has embarked on an ambitious program to install sprinkler protection in most

hotels and motels. As part of this effort, various technologies have been developed to

reduce the costs, aesthetic impacts and inconveniences associated with the installation

of automatic sprinklers in existing residential facilities. These technologies translate

directly to both new and existing student housing facilities, providing the opportunity for

college students to enjoy the same high level of fire protection as the traveling public.
Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators

2

Background

On any one campus or in any one college community, building fires are relatively rare

events. As a result, it is easy, perhaps even natural, to become complacent about fire

safety, to confuse good luck with good practice. But when fires do occur, and they do,

they can develop with incredible speed and

have devastating consequences. When

deaths and disfiguring burn injuries result,

the consequences last forever, impacting on

not only the victims and their families, but

on the entire college community as well.

For example, an arson fire that killed two

students in a dormitory at Ohio State

University in 1968 is still remembered – 30

years later – as perhaps the worst tragedy

to ever strike the OSU campus community.

A fire in a fraternity house at the University of North Carolina on Mother’s Day in 1996

further illustrates the type of devastation that fires on campus can wreak. Following a

celebration during the spring graduation weekend, a fire developed in the basement

recreation room of the fraternity during the wee hours of the morning. Fed by the

combustible interior finish and furnishings, the fire reached hazardous proportions while

residents slept. The fire swept through the structure, leaving five students dead and

one student, the only survivor, injured in its wake. What had started as an annual

spring celebration ended with a somber memorial service.

The fire at the University of North Carolina is just one example of campus housing fires.

Table 1 presents a summary of a review of student housing fires that received news

media attention during the 20-year period from 1979 to 1998. Reports of these fires

were obtained primarily from the Lexis-Nexis® Academic Universe website.

Unfortunately, these reports tend to be preliminary and sketchy. Nonetheless, as

indicated in Table 1, multiple death fire scenarios are not very common in student

housing; most fatalities occur by ones or twos. This is similar to the general population,

where most fire fatalities occur by ones or twos in private residences. Table 1 also

indicates, however, that fires in campus housing can displace many students at one

time, creating a logistical problem during the middle of a school term.

Dr. John L. Bryan, Professor Emeritus in the Department of Fire Protection Engineering

at the University of Maryland, recently completed a detailed examination of selected

college dormitory and fraternity house fires in connection with this project. Bryan

selected fifteen fires, including nine dormitory and six fraternity house fires, from 1967 to

1996 for detailed analysis. These fire incidents were selected based on the occurrence

of fatalities or injuries to occupants along with the availability of a published report for

each incident. These fifteen fire incidents resulted in 44 reported fatalities and 143

reported injuries. Bryan’s comprehensive report is attached as Appendix A to this report

for reference.
Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators

3

Table 1. Student housing fires from 1979 to 1998 that received news media attention.

University Date of

Fire

Housing

Type

Cause of

Fire

Property

Loss ($)

# Students

Displaced

Fatalities/

Injuries

Nebraska

Wesleyan

Univ.

Oct. 8,

1998 Off-Campus

Apartment

Cigarette 50, 000 6 1 / 0

Alfred U.

(NY)

Oct. 10,

1998

Dormitory Light bulb NA 140 0 / 0

Kalamazoo

College

(MI)

Sept. 18,

1998 Dormitory Arson NA NA 0 / 0

Murray

State (KY)

Sept. 18,

1998

Dormitory Arson NA +100 1 / 16

Ohio State

Univ.

Sept. 2,

1998

Off-Campus

Apartment

Arson 28,000 +4 0 / 0

Univ. of

Buffalo

(NY)

July 26,

1998 Dormitory Unknown 100,000 25 0 / 0

Univ. of

Arizona

July 14,

1998

Fraternity Arson NA 39 0 / 0

Greenville

College

(IL)

Dec. 9,

1997 Dormitory Unknown NA 40 1 / 7

Johns

Hopkins U.

(MD)

Aug. 31,

1997 Off-Campus

House

Cigarette NA +3 1 / 0

Lindenwood

College

(IL)

April 17,

1997 Dormitory Electrical 10,000 NA 0 / 0

School of

Visual Arts

(NY)

Feb. 21,

1997 Dormitory Cigarette NA +50 1 / 0

U of C

Berkeley

(CA)

Jan. 9,

1997 Fraternity Candle NA +15 0 / 2

Central

Missouri

St. Univ.

Jan. 3,

1997 Dormitory Arson NA NA 1 / 0

Ohio

Wesleyan

U. (OH)

Oct. 19,

1997 Fraternity Unknown NA NA 1 / 0

Ohio State

U. (OH)

Aug. 13,

1996

Off-Campus

Apartment

Electrical 20,000 1 0 / 0

William

Jewell

College

(KS)

Aug. 8,

1996

Fraternity Cigarette 500,000 +5 0 / 0

Univ. of N.

Carolina

May 12,

1996

Fraternity Cigarette NA +10 5 / 3

Mesa State

(CO)

Dec. 21,

1995

Off-Campus

Apartment

Unknown NA 3 1 / 3
Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators

4

University Date of

Fire

Housing

Type

Cause of

Fire

Property

Loss ($)

# Students

Displaced

Fatalities/

Injuries

Marshall

College

(PA)

Aug. 5,

1995 Fraternity Arson NA NA 0 / 0

Univ. of

Florida

March 10,

1995

Fraternity Unknown NA +6 0 / 0

Ohio State

Univ

Nov. 22,

1994

Fraternity Suspicious +20,000 +25 0 / 0

U of C

Berkeley

(CA)

Aug. 15,

1994 Fraternity Unknown 200,000 25 0 / 0

Univ. of

Wisconsin

Oct. 26,

1993

Sorority Unknown +100,000 10 1 / 2

Ohio State

Univ

May

1996

Fraternity Unknown 500,000 NA 0 / 1

Drexel Univ.

(PA)

Feb. 18,

1993

Fraternity Unknown NA NA 0/ 1

State Univ at

Stony Brook

Feb. 25,

1992

Dormitory Unknown NA 200 0 / 1

San Jose

State (CA)

Oct. 19,

1990

Dormitory Unknown NA 178 0 / 20

U of C

Berkeley

(CA)

Sept.

1990 Fraternity Unknown NA NA 3 / 0

Univ. of

Washington

July 20,

1990

Sorority Spontaneous

Combustion

130,000 NA 0 / 0

Rutgers

Univ. (NJ) ∗

July 18,

1990

Fraternity Arson NA NA 0 / 0

Northern

Illinois

Univ. (IL)

Feb. 25,

1989 Dormitory Suspicious +1,000 +50 0 / 0

Univ. of

Mississippi

Aug. 4,

1988

Fraternity Suspicious 100,000 NA 0 / 0

Columbia

Univ.

Jan. 1,

1987

Fraternity Electrical NA +5 0 / 5

Univ. of

South

Carolina

Sept. 5,

1986 Fraternity Electrical 450,000 58 0 / 3

Indiana

Univ.

Oct.22,

1984

Fraternity Arson NA +30 1 / +30

George

Washington

Univ. (DC)

April 20,

1979 Dormitory Unknown NA +35 0 / 35

∗Represents a string of arson fires that occurred simultaneously in three fraternity houses on the campus.

Fortunately there were no injuries reported from the incident.
Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators

5

Bryan analyzed a number of variables associated with these incidents, including ignition

and propagation variables, construction variables, occupant behavior variables and fire

protection system variables. He also analyzed two sets of data compiled by the

National Fire Protection Association regarding dormitory, fraternity and sorority fires.

The first set of data, published in 1955, was based on fires during the period from 1944

to 1954. The second set, published in 1995, covered the period from 1990 through

1994. Bryan notes the significant social and cultural differences in the campus

environment between these two surveys, particularly changes in the supervision of

residential facilities and the restrictions placed on student residents.

Some disconcerting trends arise from the data. Bryan notes that the occupant behavior

activities of incendiary fire setting, cooking and smoking appear to be the primary

causes of student housing fires, with alcohol consumption being a significant factor.

Most troublesome is the increase in the incidence of incendiary and suspicious fires

between the first and second data sets. Such causes constituted about 10 percent of

the fires in the 1955 data, but jumped to almost 20 percent of the fraternity and sorority

fires and 30 percent of the dormitory fires in the 1995 data. In 1955, incendiary or

suspicious fires ranked fifth as a causative factor; in 1995, incendiary or suspicious fires

ranked first. While arson can never be condoned, neither can it be ignored when it

comes to fire safe student housing.

Bryan further notes the significant role of highly combustible upholstered furniture in the

student housing fires he analyzed. Upholstered furniture, predominately sofas, were the

fuel material ignited first in seven of the fifteen fires he analyzed. Because of this,

Bryan concludes that procedures should be initiated to regulate the inclusion of new

highly combustible upholstered furniture into dormitories, fraternities and sororities.

Based on his analysis, Bryan also concludes that procedures should be initiated to

provide for the installation of smoke alarms in student rooms and automatic sprinklers

throughout new dormitories, fraternities and sororities, as well as in existing facilities

when they are renovated.

Fatal fires are always difficult to accept; when they occur in student housing, they are

particularly devastating. There are a number of reasons for this. Most college students,

particularly those in campus or fraternal housing, are living away from the security of

their parents’ homes for the first time. Parents, sending their children off to college, do

so with a mixture of pride and trepidation, but certainly with the expectation that the

college community will provide a reasonably safe environment for their loved ones.

On the part of the students, a certain sense of immortality seems to come with the

territory as they embark on this exciting period of independence. Many students do not

yet have the maturity or experience to recognize real threats to their personal safety;

consequently, they sometimes indulge in foolish, even dangerous, behavior without

realizing the risks or potential consequences. When it comes to fire safety, most

students are uneducated; that is, unless they have been properly trained in fire

prevention and response should a fire occur.
Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators

6

Because of the relatively rare occurrence of building fires, few people outside the fire

profession have the experience or knowledge to appreciate sometimes subtle

differences between fire safe structures and those that will become hazardous when a

fire occurs. Fewer still, even among fire professionals, fully appreciate the incredible

speed with which fires can develop in buildings or how quickly escape routes can be

blocked if appropriate fire safety features are not present or are compromised.

Accidental fires in residential facilities can reach deadly proportions in less than

three minutes after ignition, incendiary fires even faster!

As a campus or fraternal housing administrator, you are probably aware of the local and

state fire safety regulations that apply to your student housing facilities. These

regulations impose specific minimum requirements with respect to the building fire

safety features required by law. What you may not know is that the Hotel and Motel Fire

Safety Act of 1990 (PL101-391) also applies to your campus if it is used for federally

funded meetings and conferences.

The Hotel and Motel Fire Safety Act of 1990 (PL101-391) was passed into law by

Congress to save lives and protect property by promoting fire and life safety in hotels,

motels and other places of public accommodation. The law encourages and eventually

mandates that federal employees on travel must stay in public accommodations that

adhere to the life safety requirements in the legislation guidelines. PL101-391 also

states that federally funded meetings and conferences cannot be held in properties that

do not comply with the law.

PL101-391 is applicable to all places of public accommodation, and requires that such

properties are equipped with:

• hard-wired, single-station smoke detectors in each guestroom in accordance with

the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standard 72;

• an automatic sprinkler system, with a sprinkler head in each guest room in

compliance with NFPA standards 13 or 13R.

Properties three stories or lower in height are exempt from the sprinkler requirement.

Realistically, it can be difficult to obtain the resources to install fire protection systems if

prevailing regulations do not require such systems. Therefore, if existing state and local

regulations or the federal Hotel and Motel Fire Safety Act do not provide sufficient

incentive, it may be necessary to pursue the local adoption of regulations requiring such

systems. A number of communities have already instituted regulations requiring the

installation of automatic sprinkler systems in college housing facilities. Many of these

ordinances have been adopted in response to local tragedies, but the lessons learned

should not be restricted to any one campus or community.
Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators

7

A number of resources are available to aid in the development and implementation of

local ordinances for sprinkler protection. Some of these can be obtained at the

following websites:

• www.nfpa.org

• www.nfsa.org

• www.firesprinkler.org

Many of the concepts discussed here are the same in principle as those contained in

nationally recognized standards, but specific standards adopted by law should be

consulted to assure at least a minimum level of regulatory compliance.
Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators

8

The Elements of Fire Safe Student Housing

The fire safety of student housing can be

considered in terms of four primary elements:

• Prevention

• Occupant awareness and training

• Detection and alarm

• Suppression

Together, these four elements have the acronym

“PODS.” The PODS acronym is appropriate for

student housing because the term connotes a

protected living environment. The elements of the

PODS concept are discussed.

Prevention

The first element of the PODS concept is prevention.

Fires require three elements to occur: fuel, air and an

ignition source. These three elements have traditionally

been illustrated in terms of the “Fire Triangle” to show

the relationship between elements. The prevention of

fire requires that one or more of the elements of the fire

triangle be removed. Since air is always present and

available in the atmosphere, the prevention of fire

generally requires control or elimination of either fuels or

ignition sources, or separation of the two through

appropriate safeguards.

Potential fuels present in student housing take a myriad of forms, including:

• Upholstered furniture, mattresses and bedding

• Draperies, curtains and other free-hanging decorations

• Combustible wall, ceiling and floor finishes

• Desks, dressers and bookcases

• Books, papers, notebooks and reports

• Trash and recycling materials

• Clothing

• Stored commodities

Upholstered furniture has been implicated in many serious fires in student housing

facilities. Today, these products are typically padded with polyurethane foam. Once

ignited, these products can burn with incredible speed and intensity. As a consequence

of these hazardous burning characteristics, many authorities now require upholstered
Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators

9

furniture intended for commercial or institutional

usage to be made of fire retardant materials and

assemblies. Such products can greatly reduce the

potential for the rapid fire development and

hazardous conditions associated with non-fire

retardant upholstered furniture. As noted by Bryan,

consideration should be given to the specification of

fire retardant upholstered furniture and mattresses

for use in campus housing even if local regulations

do not mandate such products.

Mattresses, like upholstered furniture, are also

typically padded with polyurethane foam. Once

ignited, mattresses and bedding can also burn with

incredible speed and intensity. Bunk beds, which

are fairly popular in student housing, compound the

problem because of the vertical stacking of the

mattresses. While not traditionally required in

residential facilities, fire retardant mattresses have

been developed for institutional occupancies. Their

usage is becoming more widespread. Even with fire

retardant mattresses, however, the flammability of

the bedding materials needs to be considered.

Draperies, curtains and wall decorations, such as

posters, represent thin fuels that can be relatively

easy to ignite with small ignition sources, such as

candles. Because of their relative ease of ignition

and vertical orientation, these products can rapidly

spread a fire beyond ready control. As a

consequence of this potential for ignition and fire

development, some regulations require draperies,

curtains and other free-hanging decorations to be

fire retardant. For example, the Life Safety Code

(NFPA 101), a widely adopted standard, requires these products to be fire retardant in

new and existing hotels and dormitories. Even if not mandated by law, regulation of the

flammability of these products would make a difference for some fire scenarios. It

would also require diligence on the part of the housing administrator to assure that only

approved draperies, curtains and wall coverings were used.

Wall, ceiling and floor finishes have a broad range of flammability characteristics. By

virtue of the large areas covered by these finishes, combustible finishes all pose some

risk of fire spread. The degree of this threat depends on a number of factors, including

the flammability characteristics of the finish and the fire conditions to which it is

exposed. Combustible wall and ceiling finishes have been implicated in the

development of a number of serious fires, including the 1996 Mother’s Day fire at the
Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators

10

University of North Carolina. Because of their location on the floor, combustible floor

finishes are less likely to contribute to the early development of a fire. However, these

same products can contribute significantly to a fully-developed fire. If safeguards, such

as automatic sprinkler protection, are not in place to prevent fully-developed fire

conditions, consideration should be given to regulating the flammability characteristics

of floor coverings. Carpets and other soft floor coverings should never be used on walls

or ceilings unless they have been specifically qualified for these applications by fire test.

Paper products, including books, notebooks, trash and recycling, are common fuels in

student housing facilities. These products will burn with a variety of intensities,

depending in large part on the quantity and whether the paper is loosely or tightly

packed. Trash and recycling paper, and the containers in which they are deposited,

pose a particularly significant risk because the paper products are more likely to be

loosely packed and there is a greater potential for ignition, from improperly discarded

smoking materials for example. Trash receptacles have been implicated in enough fires

that a simulated trash receptacle fire is used as the standard ignition source in a

number of fire test methods. One way to reduce the incidence and intensity of trash

and recycling fires would be through the use of covered metal or fire retardant waste

and recycling containers. Such receptacles are currently required in some applications.

Desks, dressers, bookcases and other casework have traditionally been made of fairly

dense wood-based materials. Because of their

high density, these products are more difficult to

ignite than padded furniture or decorations, thus

affording a higher degree of fire resistance than

these other products. However, once ignited,

these wood-based products can contribute a

significant amount of heat to a developing fire,

so their potential for contribution to a fire should

not be ignored. Casework made of materials

other than wood or steel should be carefully

evaluated for its ease of ignition and potential

contribution to fire development.

When not strewn about a student’s room, clothing is usually stored in a dresser or in a

closet or wardrobe. Clothing stored in a closed dresser, closet or wardrobe is generally

protected from early involvement in a developing fire. But fires that initiate in open

closets or wardrobes can develop with surprising speed due to the types of fuel and

confined geometries involved.

Finally, stored commodities can run the gamut from innocuous to extremely hazardous.

Particular care should be taken to assure that flammable gases and liquids are not

stored in residential buildings without appropriate safeguards. Everyday products such

as lawnmowers and gas-fired barbecue or camp grills are easy to overlook, but can

represent significant sources of easy-to-ignite fuel if accidentally released. While not
Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators

11

common in dormitories, such products are more likely to be found in fraternities,

sororities and off-campus housing.

Potential ignition sources present in student housing also take a myriad of forms,

including:

• Smoking materials, including cigarettes, matches and lighters

• Candles and incense

• Cooking equipment and appliances

• Electric lamps and appliances

• Building services, including electrical and gas distribution and utilization equipment

• Arson and other incendiary or suspicious devices.

Careless disposal of smoking materials is the sixth ranked cause of reported residential

fires, but is the leading ignition source for residential fire deaths. This difference in

relative ranking can be attributed to two factors. Of primary importance, people

sometimes fall asleep or pass out while smoking. When this happens, the smoker is

frequently a victim if a fire develops because of the proximity to the fire. Secondly, fires

ignited by smoking materials can smolder for extended periods of time before

developing into hazardous fires. Such fires are more likely to go undiscovered than

fires that develop immediately upon ignition. In the meantime, residents may go to

sleep and fail to discover such a fire until roused by an alarm system or some other

indicator. Depending on the nature of the fire, its location relative to the sleeping

residents and the fire protection features in place, the time for escape between

notification and the development of hazardous conditions may be very short, on the

order of a few minutes or even less.

Smoking in campus housing should be vigorously regulated, if not

prohibited. Most public buildings, including college housing

facilities, have become smoke-free in recent years, but a sudden

ban on smoking may be counterproductive by forcing smokers into

the closet, both figuratively and literally. A better alternative may

be to provide designated smoking areas that are properly equipped

with suitable ashtrays and other fire protection features.

Candles and incense are particularly popular in

college residences. The use of such devices

should be regulated through appropriate policies,

if not prohibited outright as on many campuses.

Students should be instructed to use appropriate

candle and incense holders, to locate such

holders away from other combustibles, such as

draperies, and to never leave such devices

burning unattended. Violations of such policies

should be considered serious breaches of

student housing rules.
Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators

12

Cooking is the leading cause of all residential fires, but only the sixth leading cause of

fire deaths. The incidence of cooking fires in college dormitories will be lower because

such housing units do not typically have kitchens. Nonetheless, such units frequently

have cooking appliances like hotplates, coffee makers and hot water immersion

heaters. In some respects, such devices pose an even greater fire risk because they

are being installed in spaces not designed for such usage. Other campus housing

units, such as apartments or group homes, do have kitchens and thus are prone to the

same types of kitchen fires as residences in general. Such fires frequently result from

unattended cooking or from wearing loose-fitting apparel when cooking.

Electric lamps and other electric appliances generate heat. If this heat is not adequately

dissipated, a fire can occur. Lamps can cause fires in a number of ways, including:

• If a lamp is covered with a combustible material, such as an article of clothing, a

towel or some other fabric, the fabric can ignite;

• If a lamp tips over, the bulb can come in contact with a combustible material, such

as bedding or upholstery, and cause it to ignite;

• A bulb might explode, perhaps as a result of a lamp tipping over, permitting the hot

filament to come in contact with an easily ignitable material.

Torchiere lamps with halogen bulbs pose a particularly severe fire hazard.

These halogen bulbs become much hotter than traditional incandescent bulbs.

Recently, the Consumer Product Safety Commission has addressed the fire

safety of these devices as a result of a number of fires caused by them. The

CPSC has required manufacturers to distribute a wire guard for existing lamps

to prevent fabrics from coming in contact with the halogen bulb. New lamps

have an improved design that incorporates such a guard. Nonetheless, there

are many such lamps without guards. Even with guards, there are scenarios

where such lamps can cause ignition. Some campuses have banned the use

of torchiere lamps in residential facilities.

Electric appliances, including radios, stereos, televisions and computers,

require adequate ventilation to prevent heat buildup. If the ventilation to such devices is

restricted, overheating to the point of ignition is possible.

Some devices have thermally-activated safety switches to

prevent runaway overheating, but others do not. Despite the

safety features in place, wherever electricity is utilized there is

a possibility of a short circuit or other malfunction that could

cause ignition under the right circumstances.

Building services, including the electrical distribution system

and gas appliances, also present some potential to act as

ignition sources. The installation of such building services is

generally regulated, but older buildings may have

substandard installations relative to current standards and
Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators

13

usage. In particular, the electrical service provided in older buildings may not have the

capacity for the range of modern electrical equipment now in everyday use. Without

upgrade, such systems may be overloaded, with students resorting to the use of

extension cords and power splitters to get the power they need where they need it.

Such practices increase the potential for fire.

Finally, incendiary and suspicious fires constitute the third leading cause of all

residential fires, the second leading cause of fire deaths and the leading cause of

property loss. Incendiary and suspicious fires have been identified as the leading cause

of campus housing fires, constituting between 20 and 30 percent of all fire causes in

such facilities. While such intentional fires are difficult to prevent completely, other fire

protection measures can be used to reduce the potential for and impact of arson fires.

This fairly lengthy discussion of potential fuels and ignition sources should make it clear

that complete elimination or control of potential fuels and ignition sources is not

practical. Other safeguards are also needed to provide a reasonable level of fire safety.

This does not mean that efforts to control the flammability characteristics of potential

fuels and the presence and safe use of potential ignition sources are for naught. While

such efforts may not be completely effective, they can contribute to a significant

reduction in fire incidents and losses. Unfortunately, measuring this reduction is

difficult, if not impossible, particularly in the short term. While it is possible to measure

changes in the numbers of fires and associated losses over time as a gauge of fire

prevention effectiveness, it is hard to know how many fires may have been prevented

by a particular strategy.

Most campuses have prepared fire safety standards and regulations. Many campuses

now publish these standards online as a service to the campus community. Some of

these websites are identified below. These and other resources useful for identifying

the elements and implementation of a fire prevention plan include:

• www.usfa.fema.gov/safety/

• www.pp.okstate.edu/ehs/

• www.inform.umd.edu/CampusInfo/Departments/EnvirSafety/fire/fire/campus.html

• www.inform.umd.edu/CampusInfo/Departments/EnvirSafety/fire/greek/index.html

• www.cco.caltech.edu/~safety/fpp.html

• http://www-ehs.ucsd.edu/fire.htm

• www.rci.rutgers.edu/~zuccare/reshall.html

• www.ou.edu/oupd/fireprim.htm
Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators

14

Occupant awareness and training

The second element of the PODS concept is occupant

awareness and training. There are two aspects to this

element:

• Fire prevention training

• Fire response training

Fire prevention training should include instruction on

what can be done to reduce the potential for ignition.

The issues discussed previously with respect to fire

prevention need to be conveyed to students to make

them more fire aware. Students should be trained to recognize potentially hazardous

situations, such as smoking in bed, careless use of candles and cooking, use of

excessive flammable decorations, poor housekeeping practices and blockage of exit

paths.

Fire response training should include clear instruction on what residents should do in

the event of a fire. The first decision a resident must make is whether to fight the fire,

notify other residents or evacuate immediately. Because of the rapidly changing nature

of many building fires, this decision will depend in large part on the location and state of

the fire when it is discovered, which in turn will depend on the fire safety features of the

building. Relatively small fires can be fought successfully with portable fire

extinguishers. If residents are expected to fight small fires, however, they need to be

trained in the location and operation of portable fire extinguishers, as well as how to

recognize when a fire is too large to attack.

Evacuation behavior should be rehearsed. Residents should know at least two ways

out of the building, a primary path and a secondary path. Paths should be checked for

safety before proceeding; doors should be felt for heat before opening them, then they

should be carefully cracked open to check conditions on the other side. People should

stay low, where the air is generally less smoky, and proceed with deliberate speed to

the exit and out the building. Once outside, residents should not reenter the building for

clothing, valuables or pets. These rules for safe evacuation behavior should be

practiced periodically.

Whether they are going to fight or flee,

residents need to understand how dangerous

fires behave. This includes an appreciation of

how fast building fires can develop and

familiarity with the phenomenon of flashover.

Flashover is a brief period of transition in a fire

when virtually every combustible in a room

ignites and the room becomes engulfed in fire.

Conditions within the room cannot be survived
Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators

15

beyond flashover and conditions in other parts of the building will deteriorate rapidly as

large quantities of heat, smoke and carbon monoxide are pumped from the fire room

after flashover. Without intervention, the time from ignition to flashover can be as brief

as a few minutes in many realistic fire scenarios.

Residents also need to understand the fire safety features of the building. Do rooms

have self-closing doors? What is the purpose of the self-closing feature? How are the

exits arranged? What are the primary and secondary egress paths? What should be

done if the egress paths cannot be used? Does the building have a fire detection and

alarm system? If so, how is the alarm system activated and what does the fire alarm

sound like? Does the alarm system automatically notify the fire department or must the

fire department be notified by phone? Does the building have an automatic sprinkler

system? What does the sprinkler system alarm sound like? These features and issues

need to be discussed with residents in a way that educates without overwhelming.

Residents should be instructed not to tamper with the building fire protection features,

either intentionally or accidentally. Smoke detectors should not be covered or have the

batteries removed. Sprinklers should not be heated or subjected to physical abuse,

such as from thrown articles like frisbees or footballs. Objects should not be stored in

exitways, including hallways, corridors and stairways, where they could obstruct the

egress path or serve as potential fuels for a fire. Doors to rooms and exits should not

be blocked open. In the event of a fire, doors should be shut to hinder the progress of

the fire and the spread of smoke. Severe sanctions should be imposed on students

who violate these rules.

The resources identified at the end of the Prevention section also contain valuable

information regarding occupant awareness and training. In addition, the Eau Claire Fire

Department has produced a videotape and accompanying literature under US Fire

Administration sponsorship. This videotape, entitled “Get Out – Stay Out,” is intended

for students to view. Contact the USFA (www.usfa.fema.gov) to obtain this information

package.
Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators

16

Detection and Alarm

The third element of the PODS concept is detection

and alarm. Automatic fire detection is a key fire safety

feature in any residential building, from detached

single family houses to modern high rise apartments or

dormitories. In particular, smoke alarms installed

throughout a building permit early detection and

notification of incipient fires, particularly while residents

sleep. Different fire safety regulations have somewhat

different requirements with respect to fire detection and

alarm systems.

There are three basic types of fire detection and alarm systems suitable for use in

residential facilities. These include:

• Single- and multiple-station smoke alarms

• Zoned fire detection and alarm systems

• Addressable fire detection and alarm systems

An approved, single-station smoke alarm should be installed in every sleeping room as

well as in every living area within a suite of rooms. At least one smoke alarm should be

provided on each level of multi-level units. Nationally recognized fire safety codes and

standards typically require this level of protection at a minimum.

Battery-operated single-station smoke alarms are

generally permitted in existing buildings, but it must be

recognized that these devices require regular battery

replacement, typically at least annually. Furthermore,

the batteries used in these devices are usually the 9-

volt batteries used in many consumer electronics, so

“borrowing” of smoke alarm batteries is a fairly

common problem in student housing. These factors

reduce the reliability of battery-operated smoke alarms

and demand a relatively high level of ongoing maintenance. A survey sponsored by the

Consumer Product Safety Commission determined that approximately one-third of

battery-operated smoke alarms are not operational; this can leave residents with

inadequate protection and a false sense of security.

A better alternative to battery-operated devices is

“hard-wired” single-station smoke alarms. These

devices receive their primary power from a 120-volt

electrical circuit in the building. This arrangement is

typically required in new buildings, where it is a

relatively simple matter to provide electric power to the

smoke alarms. The Hotel and Motel Fire Safety Act of
Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators

17

1990 also requires “hard-wired” smoke alarms, even in existing buildings. An even

higher level of protection is achieved if hard-wired smoke alarms are provided with a

battery as a secondary power supply; such devices will continue to operate in the event

of a power outage, which might be caused by a fire itself. As these pictures show,

however, it may be difficult for an untrained person to tell the difference between a

battery-operated and a hard-wired smoke detector. You should be aware of the types

of devices installed in your facilities and of the maintenance issues related to their

reliable operation.

In new construction, smoke alarms within a living unit or

suite of rooms typically must be arranged so that

operation of any smoke alarm within the living unit will

cause all smoke alarms within the living unit to sound.

This feature is valuable in large living units, whether new

or existing, because a smoke alarm operating in a

remote part of the unit may not be audible in the

sleeping areas. This multi-station arrangement does not

extend to smoke alarms in individual dormitory or

fraternity rooms, but would apply to multi-room suites

with common living areas.

The purpose of single- and multiple-station smoke alarms is to notify people in the

immediate living unit of the alarm condition. They can also be used to provide remote

annunciation of an alarm condition at a monitored location, although this is not generally

required. Single- and multiple-station smoke alarms are not intended to actuate the

building fire alarm system; some nationally recognized codes actually prohibit actuation

of the building fire alarm system by these devices. This prohibition is due to the

relatively high incidence of nuisance alarms associated with smoke detection systems.

Historically, smoke detection systems have produced more nuisance alarms than real

alarms. Various estimates suggest that for every actual alarm there have been 10 to 20

nuisance alarms. These nuisance alarms are typically caused by non-fire sources, such

as cooking or steam from a bathroom, that are misinterpreted as fire signatures. Many

of these nuisance alarms can be avoided through appropriate system design.

Regardless of the cause or remedy, however, this “crying wolf” syndrome has caused

many people to routinely ignore fire alarms in buildings without independent

confirmation of actual fire signatures, such as the smell of smoke. In large buildings,

such independent confirmation may not occur until the fire has developed to a

hazardous point. In the meantime, valuable time is wasted.

The technology of fire detection and alarm systems has advanced in recent years to

reduce the incidence of nuisance alarms. Where old technology fire detectors were

either on or off, the sensitivity of new, analog detectors can be monitored and adjusted.

These detectors can even identify when they need to be cleaned. Where old alarm

systems were typically zoned to indicate the general area of detector operation, new

systems are addressable so they can pinpoint the specific location of an operating
Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators

18

detector. These two features tremendously increase the reliability of fire detection and

alarm systems, particularly for difficult applications like dormitories. Now, for example, if

a detector activates in a particular room, the room can be identified immediately and

contacted by phone to determine if the source of the smoke is an actual fire or a

nuisance source. If a fire is confirmed, or if there is no answer to the call, appropriate

actions can be initiated. New detectors can also be programmed to recognize certain

signal patterns from nuisance sources as being distinct from fire smoke. This

discrimination further increases the reliability of such systems.

Costs for fire detection and alarm systems and components range from less than ten

dollars for individual single-station battery-operated smoke alarms to thousands of

dollars for complete addressable analog systems. Individual detectors typically cost

between $100 and $150 in commercial systems and control panels typically cost up to a

few thousand dollars, depending on the size of the system. Including installation and

control panel costs, a total cost of approximately $300 per detector is sometimes used

for estimating purposes.

Additional information on current fire detection and alarm technologies is available at

the websites of the manufacturers. Websites for some manufacturers of fire detection

and alarm equipment are identified below:

http://www.cerbpyro.com/

http://www.firstalert.com/

http://www.notifier.com/nfs_home.htm

http://www.simplexnet.com/products/fire/

http://www.worldelectronics.com/

In summary, fire detection and alarm systems are an essential element of a fire

protection program for a residential building. These systems provide early notification of

fire development. In cases of relatively slow fire development, these systems usually

provide sufficient warning to permit effective intervention or evacuation. Regardless of

the type of fire alarm system that is installed, however, these systems do nothing by

themselves to alter the development of a fire. Consequently, in cases of relatively fast

fire development and in cases where people may not hear or react to an alarm signal,

fire alarm systems have limited value. Unfortunately, many fires develop too fast for

effective suppression by the fire department before they become hazardous, even with

prompt detection and notification. In these cases, automatic fire suppression is

desirable.
Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators

19

Suppression

The final element of the PODS concept is suppression.

The best weapon for controlling a fire in its early

stages, before it becomes too hazardous, is the

automatic sprinkler system. An automatic sprinkler

system is an integrated system of underground and

overhead piping connecting one or more automatic

water supplies, such as a city water main, with

automatic sprinklers. While a sprinkler system may

appear to be a fairly ordinary plumbing system, it is

not. An automatic sprinkler system is a specialized

system requiring professional skills for design,

installation and maintenance in conformance with

recognized standards.

The distinguishing feature of an automatic sprinkler

system is the automatic sprinkler itself. Automatic

sprinklers are closed nozzles that hold back water

under pressure within the pipes, much like a faucet

does when it is closed. Special sprinklers have been

designed for residential occupancies. These devices

are more sensitive than traditional sprinklers used in

commercial and industrial buildings; they are designed

to respond before life-threatening conditions develop

within the room where the fire starts and thus provide

protection even for people sleeping in that room.

Contrary to popular portrayals in the media, sprinkler

systems do not activate when somebody pulls the fire

alarm or when a smoke detector activates. Nor do all

sprinklers open simultaneously when the first one

activates. Each sprinkler has its own heat sensitive

element that must be heated to its activation

temperature of about 165oF before the sprinkler will

operate. This heat sensitive element holds a cap in

place over the sprinkler’s orifice.

Heat

sensitive

element
Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators

20

Once activated, a sprinkler discharges water at a rate

of approximately 20 gallons per minute in a fairly

uniform spray pattern throughout the room. This water

spray cools the fire environment while wetting fuels

surrounding the fire source to prevent or retard their

ignition. In this way, the fire is held in check until the

fire department can respond and complete

extinguishment of the fire.

Typical dormitory and fraternity sleeping rooms only

require the installation of a single sprinkler for

protection. Special sidewall sprinklers can be

installed near the entrance to each room, just off the

corridor. This simplifies the installation process, while

minimizing the aesthetic impact. The only part of the

system evident in a room is the sprinkler itself.

With this arrangement, supply pipes can be installed

at the ceiling along the length of each corridor to

serve every room. These pipes also serve sprinklers

in the corridor. The supply pipes in the corridor can

then be enclosed to minimize the aesthetic impact of

the installation. Special covers have been designed

and developed for this purpose. These covers simply

snap in place to cover the pipes while providing

convenient access when needed.

 

Sprinkler

pipe cover
Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators

21

Delivery of water to each corridor is via “riser” pipes. These

risers are typically installed, along with drainage pipes and

system test assemblies, in exit stairways, where aesthetics

are not as important. In many buildings, standpipes are

already located in the stairways and can be converted to

combined sprinkler-standpipe risers.

Large common areas in student housing,

including living and dining rooms, may require

the installation of more than one sprinkler for

proper coverage. Regardless of the number of

sprinklers installed in a space, however, the

vast majority of residential fires are controlled

by the operation of only one or two sprinklers;

less than 10 percent of residential fires require

the operation of more than four sprinklers.

Thus, the vast majority of fires in sprinklered

residential buildings will be controlled with a

water flow rate of less than 50 gallons per minute.

Compared with the 150 to 250 gallons per minute

discharged by a single fire department hose stream,

concerns about water damage from sprinkler

operation during a fire are put into proper perspective.

Sprinklers respond much earlier than the fire

department possibly can and they concentrate water

delivery where it is needed. Fires remain much

smaller with sprinkler protection, such that the

combined effects of fire and water damage are

generally much lower than in unsprinklered buildings.

Recovery after a fire is typically much quicker as well.
Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators

22

Sprinkler leakage is a potential cause of water damage that raises concern among

facilities managers. Accidental leakage from sprinklers or piping is extremely rare,

about the same as for the other plumbing systems in a building, but sprinklers can be

mechanically damaged to cause leakage. Unfortunately, student horseplay is a fairly

common cause of such damage in student housing facilities. At the University of

Maryland, for instance, campus safety authorities have come to fear the 3 F’s -

Freshmen, Footballs and Frisbees - because of the occasional sprinkler that has been

struck and activated by students playing “catch” in the halls. Students sometimes use

sprinklers to hang clothing or decorations as well, activities that must be discouraged.

Certain features can be designed into a sprinkler system to minimize the potential for

such damage, including the use of concealed sprinklers, but students should be made

aware of the consequences of their actions. Some universities hold students financially

accountable for damages caused by inappropriate activities.

Ultimately, the decision to install automatic sprinkler systems in student housing should

be based on a number of factors, including the costs and benefits associated with the

installation of such systems. However, not all these factors are tangible, while others

are difficult to quantify, so the decision to install sprinklers may not be based purely on

an economic analysis.

In general, the costs and inconveniences associated with the installation of sprinkler

systems are lower in new construction than in retrofit applications. Current nationally

recognized fire safety codes and standards generally require the installation of

automatic sprinkler systems in new dormitories and apartments, so such installations

would be prudent even if not yet mandated by local regulations. This discussion will

focus on retrofit applications.

Direct costs associated with automatic sprinkler systems include initial design and

installation costs as well as ongoing inspection and maintenance costs. The design and

installation of sprinkler systems in retrofit applications generally costs in the range of

$2.00 to $3.00 per square foot, depending on locale and conditions. For comparison,

this is similar to the cost of installing wall-to-wall carpeting in a building. These costs

can be reduced if the installation is coordinated with a major building renovation.

Sprinkler systems are fairly rugged mechanical systems that do not require a lot of

maintenance, but it is important that they be inspected regularly in accordance with

recognized standards to assure they are ready to operate in the event of a fire. Sprinkler

system inspection and maintenance typically costs between about $250 per year and

$1,000 per year, depending on the size of the building. Smaller facilities, such as

fraternity houses, would be near the low end of the scale, while large facilities, such as

high-rise dormitories, would be near the high end. Annual testing of fire pumps typically

costs about $500 per pump.

Some buildings, particularly high-rise dormitories, may require the installation of a fire

pump to boost the pressure of the incoming water supply because water pressure

decreases inversely with building height. Space for the pump and its associated

equipment will need to be provided, typically in a basement or utility space. Fire pumps

contribute significantly to the cost of a sprinkler system, with installed costs in the

neighborhood of $25,000 fairly common for this equipment.
Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators

23

Indirect costs associated with the installation of sprinkler systems include items such as

water connection fees and property taxes. Different jurisdictions have different

requirements regarding these fees, so it is difficult to generalize about them. Some

jurisdictions do not impose these fees for automatic sprinkler protection as one way to

encourage the use of sprinklers in buildings.

Direct benefits associated with the installation of automatic sprinkler systems in student

housing include lower risks of life loss and property damage from fire. These benefits

may translate into reduced insurance premiums as well, helping to defray the costs of

sprinkler protection. In some cases, these reduced premiums translate into payback

periods of 5- to 10-years, so that the sprinkler protection eventually pays for itself.

Less tangible but very real benefits include the good will and peace of mind associated

with providing students with this high level of fire safety. When a fire inevitably does

occur, clean up is also much easier so down time and student displacement are

minimized after a fire. This can be an important factor in the middle of the school year.

Once the decision is made to install sprinklers in your student housing facilities, it is

necessary to procure professional design and installation services to complete the job.

Only properly qualified and certified fire safety professionals should be entrusted with

this job. Competition in the sprinkler industry tends to be strong, so it will usually be in

your best interest to obtain multiple bids for a job. But your selection of a contractor

should not be based on cost alone; references, reputations, credentials and insurance

should also be considered to assure that a contractor is capable and qualified to

complete your job.

The contractor will obtain appropriate permits and approvals from the authority having

jurisdiction before proceeding with the installation. Your insurance representative should

also be involved in the review process to assure maximum credit on your fire insurance

premium.

The primary inconvenience associated with retrofitting sprinklers into an occupied

building is the installation process itself. Fortunately, the hospitality industry has

already addressed this issue and has developed installation materials and techniques

that can minimize this impact. Scheduling the installation during a major building

renovation or during a period when the building is not occupied, such as during winter or

summer breaks, can further minimize this impact, but even when a building is occupied,

the installation can proceed smoothly. In the hospitality industry, it is not unusual for

systems to be installed while the building is occupied. With the installation techniques

described above, most of the work is in the stairways, corridors and other public areas

of a building; the installation time required in individual rooms is only about an hour or

two.

When the installation is completed, the contractor must test the system in accordance

with recognized standards. This testing should be conducted after notification of the

authority having jurisdiction and the owner’s representative so these parties can be

present to witness the testing if they desire. Once the authority having jurisdiction and

the owner have accepted the installation, responsibility for maintaining the system

transfers to the owner or operator of the building. Proper maintenance requires periodic

inspection and testing of system components in accordance with recognized standards.
Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators

24

Qualified employees or independent agencies can perform these activities. The

contractor who installed the system may provide such services under an annual service

contract. Otherwise, many fire safety professionals are qualified to perform these

essential services.

Summary

There are many issues vying for the attention of, and limited resources available to,

campus housing authorities and fraternal organizations. Rational decisions need to be

made with respect to allocating these limited resources to best serve the students and

the campus community. Keys to the decision-making process include a clear

understanding of the risk factors involved, the different risk reduction methods and

strategies available, and the costs and benefits of the different options. The purpose of

this report has been to introduce an integrated approach to fire safe student housing

comprised of Prevention, Occupant awareness and training, Detection and alarm, and

Suppression. You can remember these elements by the acronym “PODS.”

Serious fires in student housing wreak almost unimaginable devastation and disruption;

this potential warrants careful consideration of fire safety options. In particular,

automatic sprinkler systems should be considered as a viable option; they have

established an impressive record of preventing residential fire catastrophes, particularly

in the hospitality industry. With technologies developed specifically for residential

applications, automatic sprinkler systems are now commonplace in hotels and motels,

where they afford the traveling public with a high level of fire safety. College students

deserve this same high level of protection ... and their parents expect it.

In closing, it is reiterated that fire safe student housing does not just happen; it requires

careful planning, coordination, implementation and diligence on the part of campus

housing and safety administrators.

Acknowledgements

This work was sponsored by the United States Fire Administration of the Federal

Emergency Management Agency under Contract No. EME-97-CA-0333. Thanks to Mr.

Larry Maruskin, the Project Manager for the USFA, for his guidance on this project.

Special thanks to Mr. Phil Friday, a graduate student in the Department of Fire

Protection Engineering at the University of Maryland, for stepping in and looking after

the details to bring this project to completion. The videotape that accompanies this

report was developed under the direction of Ms. Sonya Sezun and Mr. Mac Nelson of

the Video Production unit of the University Marketing department at the University of

Maryland. Some of the still images in this report were obtained from the website

maintained by the Building and Fire Research Laboratory of the National Institute of

Standards and Technology (www.bfrl.nist.gov).
Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators

25

Appendix A

AN EXAMINATION AND ANALYSIS OF SELECTED COLLEGE

DORMITORY AND FRATERNITY HOUSE FIRES

By

Dr. John L. Bryan

Professor Emeritus

Department of Fire Protection Engineering

University of Maryland

December 5, 1997
Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators

26

A1. INTRODUCTION

Nine college dormitory and six fraternity house fires for a total of fifteen fire

incidents that occurred from April 5, 1967 until May 12, 1996 were selected from

the review of literature for specific analysis and study. These fraternity and

college dormitory fire incidents were selected based on the criteria of the

availability of a published report and the occurrence of fatalities or injuries to the

occupants. Thus, college dormitory and fraternity house fires illustrated in

published reports without occupant fatalities or injuries are not included in this

examination.

These fifteen fire incidents involved a range of facilities relative to their

locations varying from large metropolitan areas to rural areas and thus the type of

public fire protection available. Four fire incidents occurred in facilities located in

large metropolitan areas with career fire departments including: Washington, D.C.

(3), Providence, RI (6) and Columbus, Ohio (12) (19). Five fire incidents occurred

in facilities located in suburban or small city areas with career or combination fire

departments including: Amherst, MA (1), Baltimore County, MD (4), Berkeley,

CA (9), Chapel Hill, NC (10)(22), and Cambridge, MA (11).

Six fire incidents occurred in facilities located in small town or rural areas

with combination or volunteer fire departments including: Dover, DE (5),
Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators

27

Farmville, VA (5), Cayuga Heights, NY (7), Saratoga Springs, NY (13), Baldwin

City, KS (14), and Bloomsburg, PA (21).

This examination and analysis will review in the first section the factors

identified in the investigations to have been significant in the ignition of the fire

and the propagation of the fire resulting in the fatalities or injuries to the occupants.

The second section of this report will examine the construction, age and height

variables of the facilities with the number and arrangement of the exit stairways.

The third section of this analysis will examine the characteristics of the occupant

population and the human behavior variables of the occupants identified as

contributing to the fire ignition, the fire development, the fatalities and injuries and

jumping behavior. The fourth section of this report will review the information

from the investigation reports relative to the arrangement of the fire protection

systems in the facilities. The fifth section of the report will review additional

NFPA data on college dormitory and fraternity house fires. The final section of

this report will provide a summary of the physical, psycholgical and cultural

factors with the recurring variables that appear to be significant in the college

dormitory and fraternity house fires. This final section will also include an

examination of the similarities and the differences in the fire incidents in these two

unique and specific occupancies housing college age occupants.
Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators

28

A2. IGNITION AND PROPAGATION VARIABLES

The nine dormitory fire incidents and the six fraternity house fires are

identified in Table 1 by the name of the educational institution operating the

dormitory facility or from which the students were members of the fraternity. Nine

of these educational institutions were private facilities: Amherst College (1),

Baker University (14), Cornell University (7), George Washington University (3),

Longwood College (5), Massachusetts Institute of Technology (11), Providence

College (6), Skidmore College (13), and Wesley College (5). In addition to these

nine private institutions there were five state supported institutions involved in the

remaining six fires with Ohio State University having two fires in this study

population: Bloomsburg State College (21), Ohio State University (12)(19),

University of Maryland Baltimore County (4), University of California Berkeley

(9) and The University of North Carolina (10).

The six fraternity house fires involved students from Amherst College,

Baker University, Bloomsburg State College, Ohio State University, University of

California Berkeley and the University of North Carolina. Thus, the fraternity

house fires involved students from two private institutions and four state supported

institutions. The nine dormitory fires occurred on the campuses of Cornell

University, George Washington University, Longwood College, Massachusetts

Institute of Technology, Ohio State University, Providence College, Skidmore
Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators

29

College, University of Maryland Baltimore County and Wesley College. These

dormitory fires occurred on the campuses of seven private institutions and two

state supported institutions.

It is also of interest as indicated in Table 1, that of these fifteen fire incidents

thirteen, or 86 percent of the fires occurred in the early morning hours between

1:00 am and 7:00 am. Only two of these fires both in dormitories occurred outside

this time frame, one at 11:24 am and the other at 10:59 p.m. (11)(19)

Relative to the ignition factors the predominate factors appeared to be

incendiary and smoking materials. Five of these fire incidents were attributed to

incendiary actions, four involving college dormitories (3)(4)(5)(19) and one

involving a fraternity house. (9) Four of these fire incidents were identified as

involving smoking materials, all of these identified smoking caused fires involved

fraternity houses. (1)(10)(14)(21) In four of these fire incidents the investigators

could not determined the ignition source. The remaining two fire incidents were

determined to be caused by burning decorations in a fireplace (12) and an

overloaded extension cord. (5)

Upholstered sofas were the most predominate fuel immediately ignited in

seven of the fire incidents, contributing to the rapid fire propagation in fires

involving five fraternity houses (1)(9)(12)(14)(21) and two college dormitories.

(7)(19) The second most readily involved fuel material consisted of trash being
Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators

30

ignited in three of the fire incidents, involving two college dormitories (4)(11) and

one fraternity house. (10) Wood paneling was identified as one of the principal

factors contributing to the fire propagation in five of the fire incidents involving

four fraternity houses (1)(9)(10)(14) and one college dormitory. (7) Paper

decorations and wall coverings were identified as increasing the fire propagation in

four fire incidents involving three college dormitories (6)(11)(13) and one

fraternity house. (12) Fire propagation was accelerated by carpeting in two college

dormitory fire incidents. (3)(4)

A construction aspect presented in Table 2 relative to the fire propagation of

flame and smoke spread to the upper floors was enhanced by open stairways or

enclosed stairs with the doors blocked opened or removed in seven of these fire

incidents. These seven fire incidents involved all six fraternity houses and one

college dormitory. (7) In addition, one fraternity house fire spread was aided by

the operation of a large fan in the basement providing a mechanical draft up the

single open stairway. The construction variables of the fifteen dormitory and

fraternity house structures involved in the study population will be examined and

analyzed next involving the stairways and stair enclosures.
Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators

31

 Table 1

 Facility Date & Time Ignition Factors Propagation Variables

Cornell University (7) Undetermined, source in Plywood paneling & sofas

Dorm. 4-5-67 0400 basement lounge area

Ohio State University (19) Incendiary in living room of Sofa, spread into room 1142

Dorm. 5-22-68 2259 suite 1140 through open door

Amherst College (1) Smoking & wastebasket to Sofa, oak paneling & open

Frat. 2-2-75 0559 sofa in living room 1st. floor & stairs

Mass. Inst. of Tech. (11) Undetermined, trash in hall Trash in hall & vinyl wall

Dorm. 7-22-75 1124 by trash chute covering

Ohio state University (12) Burning decorations in fire- Paper decorations, trash &

Frat. 1-8-76 0202 place ignited trash & sofas sofas

Skidmore College (13) Undetermined, in trash Vinyl Wall covering

Dorm. 4-5-76 0400 closet on 1st. floor

Baker University (14) Smoking on a sofa in TV Wood paneling from TV

Frat. 8-29-76 0306 room room to open stair

Providence College (6) Undetermined, in room 406 Christmas decorations on

Dorm. 12-13-77 0257 walls & doors

George Washington U. (3) Incendiary, flammable liquid Carpet & flammable liquid

Dorm. 4-19-79 0345 on hall carpet in hall on 5th. floor

U. of MD. Balt. County (4) Incendiary, trash in hall & Trash & carpet in 2nd. floor

Dorm. 2-3-80 0359 trash room, 2nd. floor hall

Wesley College (5) Incendiary, smoke bomb in Room furnishings

Dorm. 4-12-87 0233 room 206

Longwood College (5) Overloaded extension cord Hanging bed linens

Dorm. 4-28-87 0650 in 3rd. floor room

U. Cal. Berkeley (9) Incendiary, lighter on sofa Wood paneling throughout

Frat. 9-8-90 0100 in living room including stairs

Bloomsburg State C. (21) Smoking on sofa Sofa believed out & placed

Frat. 10-21-94 0502 on porch & open stair

U. North Carolina (10) Smoking material & trash Wood paneling in bsmt.

Frat. 5-12-96 0607 Under bsmt. bar open doors & fan in bsmt.

A3. CONSTRUCTION VARIABLES

The construction variables relative to the nine college dormitory and six

fraternity house buildings are presented in Table 2, consisting of the type of

construction, the age and height of the building, the number and enclosure of the

stairways. The age of the buildings at the time of the fire was not reported for
Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators

32

three fraternity houses and for one college dormitory. The range of age for the

eleven reporting facilities involved in these fire incidents varied from 70 years to 9

months, with a mean age of 29.7 years. The range of age for the seven college

dormitories varied from 39 years to 9 months with a mean age of 15.5 years while

the age range for the four reporting fraternity houses varied from 33 to 70 years

with a mean age of 54.7 years. Thus, the fraternity houses when comparing mean

ages were more than three times as old as the college dormitories.

Relative to the height of the structures as would be expected the college

dormitories were the taller structures varying in height from 2 stories and basement

to 24 stories, with a median height for the nine college dormitories of 9.1 stories.

The six fraternity houses varied in height from 2 stories to 3 stories and basement,

with a mean height of 2.5 stories as would be expected, since many of the

fraternity houses were converted single or multi-family residential structures.

There was also a definite difference in the construction of the college

dormitory buildings compared to the fraternity houses. Eight of the college

dormitories were of fire resistive construction and one was of protected

noncombustible construction. (6) Two of the fraternity houses were of frame

construction, (9)(21) three were of ordinary construction (10)(12)(14) and one was

of protected noncombustible construction. (1) All of the fraternity houses were

located off campus and all of the college dormitories were located on campus.
Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators

33

 Table 2

 Facility Age-Years Exit Stairways Height-Construction

Cornell University 14 2 enclosed stairs, doors 2 stories & bsmt.,

Dorm. (7) removed & open fire resistive

Ohio State U. 0.75 2 enclosed stairs 24 stories, fire

Dorm. (19) resistive

Amherst College 57 3 open stairs 2 stories & bsmt.,

Frat. (1) prot. Noncombustible

Mass. Inst. of Tech. Not reported 2 enclosed stairs 24 stories, fire

Dorm. (11) resistive

Ohio State U. Not reported 1 open stair, fire escape- 2 stories & attic,

Frat. (12) 2nd. floor ordinary

Skidmore College 10 2 enclosed stairs, 1 3 stories & bsmt.,

Dorm. (13) enclosed conv. stair fire resistive

Baker University 59 1 enclosed stair-open 2 & 3 stories & bsmt.,

Frat. (14) doors & 1 open stair ordinary

Providence College 39 3 enclosed stairs 4 stories, Prot.

Dorm. (6) noncombustible

George Wash. U. Not reported 2 enclosed stairs 9 stories & bsmt.,

Dorm. (3) fire resistive

U.of MD. Balt. Cty. 10 3 enclosed stairs 3 stories & bsmt.,

Dorm. (4) fire resistive

Wesley College 18 2 enclosed stairs 3 stories & bsmt.,

Dorm. (5) fire resistive

Longwood College 17 Not reported 10 stories & bsmt.,

Dorm. (5) fire resistive

U. Cal. Berkeley 33 3 enclosed stairs-open 3 stories & bsmt.,

Frat. (9) doors wood frame

Bloomsburg St. C. Not reported 1 open stair, 2 stories, wood

Frat. (21) frame

U. North Carolina 70 1 open stair, 2 fire 3 stories & bsmt.,

Frat. (10) escapes-2nd. & 3rd. fls. ordinary

A4. OCCUPANT BEHAVIOR VARIABLES

These nine college dormitory and six fraternity house fires were selected

from the criteria that each fire resulted in occupant fatalities or injuries. Six of the

college dormitory fires resulted in fatalities in a range from 1 to 10, with a total of

24 fatalities. Five of the fraternity house fires resulted in fatalities in a range from
Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators

34

2 to 5, with a total of 20 fatalities. The injuries to the occupants in the nine college

dormitory fires varied in a range from 0 to 60, with a total of 133 occupants

suffering medically treated injuries. One college dormitory fire resulted in a single

fatality and no injuries. The injuries to the occupants in the six fraternity house

fires varied from 0 to 4, with a total of 10 occupants suffering medically treated

injuries. In two of the fraternity house fires, each resulting in 5 occupant fatalities,

there were no medically treated occupant injuries.

Occupants jumping from the windows has been identified as a phenomenon

of the occupant behavior during college dormitory and fraternity house fires. Two

of the occupant fatalities resulted from jumping and six of the occupant injuries

were identified as resulting from jumping behavior. A total of 17 occupants were

identified as having engaged in jumping behavior with jumps varying from the

second, third, fourth and fifth floors.(3)(4)(6)(7)(9)(10)(12)(14) Additional

occupants were reported to have jumped from windows in one fraternity house fire

and one dormitory fire. (1)(13) Jumping behavior was reported to have occurred in

five or 55 percent of the college dormitory fires and in five or 83 percent of the

fraternity house fires. Occupants were rescued from windows with fire department

ladders in three of the college dormitory fires, (3)(5)(6) and in two of the fraternity

house fires. (1)(9)
Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators

35

The total number of occupants in the facility at the time of the fire was often

difficult for the investigators to obtain due to the transient nature of the occupants

in both the college dormitories and the fraternity houses. However, the reported

number of occupants was generally larger in the dormitories due to the larger size

of the facilities. The number of occupants for the seven college dormitories

reporting varied from 84 in a 3 story dormitory to 1,950 occupants in a 24 story

dormitory. The number of occupants in the four reporting fraternity houses at the

time of the fire varied from 9 to 39 occupants. The gender of the occupants in the

six college dormitories reporting this data were mixed in four of the six dormitories

with two dormitories having all female occupants,

resulting in all female fatalities. (6)(13) All six of the fraternity house fires

reported the gender of the occupants at the time of the fire. In these six fraternity

houses there were all male occupants in two of the houses at the time of the fire.

(1)(14) Four of the fraternity houses contained male and female occupants with

both male and female fatalities. (9)(10)(12)(21)

Occupant behavior involved with the alerting of the other occupants of the

facility was reported in 14 of the 15 fire incidents. This behavior consisted of

shouting, knocking on doors and activation of the manual fire alarm stations.

Occupant fire fighting behavior occurred in only two fraternity house fire

incidents. In one case a occupant attempted to utilize a fire extinguisher
Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators

36

unsuccessfully and in the other case a couch believed to have been extinguished

was moved to an outside porch, where it later reignited. (12)(21) This occupant

behavior is summarized in Table 3.

Table 3

Facility No. Gender Fat. Inj. Jumping

Cornell University 69 No report 9 2 Several from

Dorm. (7) 2nd. floor

Ohio State U. 1,940 Mixed 2 1 None

Dorm. (19)

Amherst College 39 Male 0 4 6 from 2nd.

Frat. (1) floor

Mass. Inst. of Tech. No report Mixed 1 0 None

Dorm. (11)

Ohio State U. 22 Mixed 2 1 2 from 2nd.

Frat. (12) floor

Skidmore College 84 Female 1 60 Numerous from

Dorm. (13) all 3 floors

Baker University No report Male 5 0 1 from 3rd.

Frat. (14) floor

Providence College 41-4th.fl. Female 10 12 2 from 4th.

Dorm. (6) Est. 160 floor

George Wash. U. 898 Mixed 0 37 2 from 5th.

Dorm. (3) floor

U.of MD. Balt. Cty. 312 Mixed 0 2 1 from 2nd.

Dorm. (4) floor

Wesley College 180 No report 1 4 None

Dorm. (5)

Longwood College No report No report 0 15 None

Dorm. (5)

U. Cal. Berkeley 10 Mixed 3 2 1 from 2nd.

Frat. (9) floor

Bloomsburg State C. 9 Mixed 5 0 None

Frat. (21)

U. North Carolina No report Mixed 5 3 2 from 3rd.

Frat. (10) floor

 Total 3,723 44 143 17+
Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators

37

A5. PROVISION OF FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS

None of the nine college dormitories or the six fraternity houses were

completely equipped with an automatic sprinkler system. Two of the college

dormitories that were high-rise structures were partially sprinklered. One of these

dormitories had sprinklers provided in the storage and service areas. (11) The

other dormitory had a complete suite arrangement, with the suite’s living rooms,

kitchens and corridors sprinklered, and the student’s sleeping rooms non

sprinklered. (19) Two of the fraternity houses had partial sprinkler systems. One

of the fraternity houses had sprinklers throughout the basement of the facility. (1)

The other fraternity house had a single sprinkler at the top of the trash chute and at

the top of the laundry chute. (9)

Eight of the college dormitories had a local fire alarm system with manual

stations and one college dormitory had no fire alarm system. (7) The fire alarm

system at one of these dormitories was connected directly to the fire department (6)

and two were connected directly to campus communication centers.(11)(19) Of

the eight fires involving college dormitories with alarm systems, the systems were

activated in six of the fires. The system failed to operate in one dormitory fire and

the system was turned off in another dormitory at the time of the fire. (5)
Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators

38

In one college dormitory fire the manual station was activated by the fire exposure

(11) and in another college dormitory fire the system was deactivated by the fire

exposure following the initial activation. (3)

Considering the six fraternity houses in this study population, only two of

the houses had fire alarm systems. The manual fire alarm system was not activated

in one of the fires (9) and in the other fire the thermal detectors connected to the

system activated the system. (1) The fire alarm system in this fraternity house had

rate-of-rise and fixed-temperature detectors installed throughout the house and the

fire alarm system activation was transmitted directly to the fire department. (1)

Five of the college dormitories were reported as having either smoke or

thermal detectors installed in portions of the buildings. Two of the college

dormitories had smoke detectors in each students room. (4)(5) In the fire in one of

these dormitories the smoke detector failed to operate in the room of fire origin,

and subsequent investigation determined that 85 percent of these detectors in the

dormitory were inoperative. (5) One of the college dormitories had thermal

detectors of the combination rate-of-rise fixed-temperature type in each students

room and the basement trash room, the fire started in the first floor trash room. (13)

One college dormitory had thermal detectors of the rate-of-rise fixed-temperature

type installed at the top of each stairway. (6) One college dormitory had smoke

detectors in all the trash rooms and at the top of the trash chutes and exhaust ducts.
Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators

39

(11) Considering the six fraternity houses involved with fires in this study, two of

the houses had no detectors as well as no alarm system.(12)(14) Two of the

fraternity houses had partial installations of smoke detectors, one with singlestation detectors in some sleeping rooms. (9) The other fraternity house had

thermal detectors in the basement mechanical room and smoke detectors in the

basement stairway and the second and third floor corridors. (10) One fraternity

house was reported to have had both thermal and smoke detectors which

apparently failed to operate at the time of the fire incident. (21) One fraternity

house was completely protected with thermal detectors of the rate-of-rise fixedtemperature type and smoke detectors at the top of the stairs connected directly to

the fire department which activated in the fire incident. (1) The facilities fire

protection systems are summarized in Table 4.
Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators

40

 Table 4

Facility Alarm System Detectors Sprink.- Standp.

Cornell University None None None

Dorm. (7)

Ohio State U. Manual, sprink. act. None Standp.- stairs, stor.

Dorm. (19) to campus PD & ser. areas sprink.

Amherst College Manual, detectors & Smoke-stairs, Basement-sprink.

Frat. (1) sprink. act. to FD thermal throughout

Mass. Inst. of Tech. Manual, detectors & Smoke- top of exh., Suite ex.stud. rms.

Dorm. (11) sprink. act to Con.C trash chutes &rooms trs.chs. standp-strs.

Ohio State U. None None None

Frat. (12)

Skidmore College Manual, detectors Thermal-bsmt. trash None

Dorm. (13) act. bldg. alarm rm. & student rooms

Baker University None None None

Frat. (14)

Providence College Manual, detectors Thermal top of None

Dorm. (6) act. to FD stairs

George Wash. U. Manual No report Standp. - stairs

Dorm. (3)

U. of MD.Balt. Cty. Manual Smoke - student Standp. - stairs

Dorm. (4) rooms

Wesley College Manual None None

Dorm. (5)

Longwood College Manual Smoke - student Standp. - stairs &

Dorm. (5) rooms hose cabinets

U. Cal. Berkeley Manual Smoke-some student Standp. - hose

Frat. (9) rooms cabinets

Bloomsburg State C. None Smoke & thermal None

Frat. (21) detectors

U. North Carolina None Thermal-bsmt.rm. None

Frat. (10) smoke-stair & hall
Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators

41

A6. NFPA DATA ANALYSIS

The National Fire Protection Association has published data identifying the

established causes of the fires from a review of 260 college dormitory, fraternity

and Sorority house fires in 1954. (17) In 1995 the NFPA published data relative to

the established causes of the fires in college dormitories separately from the

fraternity and sorority house fires for the fires reported from 1990 through 1994.

(16) It should be recognized the causes of the fires published in 1954 were based

on the ten year time period from 1944 through 1954.

Although there are obviously significant social and cultural differences in

both the institutions and the students, a comparison of the fire cause data between

this approximate 40 year interval appeared to be at least of historical value. In the

1940’s and 1950’s there were more restrictions on the student’s behavior in both

college dormitories and the fraternity and sorority houses with hour limitations and

adult supervision consisting of “house directors” being the norm. It should also be

remembered in both 1944 and 1945 a large percentage of the college age

population were in the military service, and in the late 40’s and early 50’s this

population was in college providing a culturally different population from the

college students of the early 90’s. There would also appear to be some

construction differences with the use of high-rise dormitories, since the 1970’s

with enclosed stairways and fire resistive construction. Obviously, smoke
Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators

42

detectors were not available until the early 1960’s for residential occupancies.

Table 5 presents the causes of the college dormitory, fraternity and sorority house

fires as published by the National Fire Protection Association in 1954. (17)

 Table 5

 NFPA 1954 Data

 Causes of Fires Percentage of Fires

Smoking and matches 24.2

Misuse of electricity 22.7

Defective chimney 10.0

Heating equipment, defective 9.6

Incendiary or suspicious 9.6

Spontaneous ignition 6.2

Kitchen hazards 5.8

Open fireplaces 5.3

Lightning 0.8

Exposure 0.8

Explosion 0.8

Miscellaneous 4.2

 Total 100.0

The National Fire Protection Association has presented the data separately

for college dormitory, fraternity and sorority house fires for the period from 1990

to 1994. This data is also developed in the form of an annual average for the five

year period estimated from both NFPA and NFIRS (National Fire Incident

Reporting System) data. It should be remembered the NFIRS data is generated by

the incident reports of the fire department agencies involved in each fire incident.

Thus, fire incidents not reported to a fire department would be excluded. Table 6

presents the causes of fire data with the dollar loss as developed and published by

the NFPA for fraternity and sorority houses in 1995. (16)
Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators

43

Table 6

 NFPA 1995 Data

 Causes of Fires No. % Dollar Loss %

Incendiary, suspicious 33.89 19.5 497,497.00 20.1

Cooking 25.93 14.9 15,759.00 0.6

Electrical distribution 16.90 9.7 822,738.00 33.3

Smoking 15.62 9.0 126,790.00 5.1

Other Equipment 12.04 6.9 12,729.00 0.5

Other heat, flame, spark 10.25 5.9 156,178.00 6.3

Open flame, ember, torch 9.35 5.4 19,463.00 0.8

Heating 8.96 5.2 296,958.00 12.0

Appliances, air conditioning 8.46 4.9 54,364.00 2.2

Natural causes 1.78 1.0 179.00 0.0

Children playing 0.90 0.5 354.00 0.0

Exposure 0.89 0.5 0.00 0.0

Unknown 28.53 16.4 466,528.00 18.9

 Total 173.49 100.0 2,469,538.00 100.0

Table 7 presents the identical fire cause categories as Table 6 with the NFPA

1995 fire cause and dollar loss data for college and University dormitories. (16)

 Table 7

 NFPA 1995 Data

 Causes of Fires No. % Dollar Loss %

Incendiary, suspicious 428.92 29.9 2,231,154.00 40.0

Cooking 225.06 15.7 116,815.00 2.1

Smoking 155.54 10.8 188,031.00 3.4

Other equipment 86.42 6.0 262,063.00 4.7

Appliances, air conditioning 85.13 5.9 663,876.00 11.9

Electrical distribution 77.16 5.4 520,370.00 9.3

Open flame, ember, torch 73.03 5.1 78,778.00 1.4

Other heat, flame, spark 70.48 4.9 210,223.00 3.8

Heating 35.69 2.5 251,368.00 4.5

Exposure 8.52 0.6 3,887.00 0.1

Natural causes 7.16 0.5 63,422.00 1.1

Children playing 7.13 0.5 3,834.00 0.1

Unknown 176.30 12.3 980,059.00 17.6

 Total 1,436.54 100.0 5,573,879.00 100.0

Comparing the 1995 NFPA data for fraternity and sorority houses to the

identical data for college and university dormitories identifies some interesting

differences and similarities. As can be noted, the greatest causes of fires in both

occupancies are “incendiary, suspicious” and “cooking” accounting for 34.4
Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators

44

percent of the fires in fraternity and sorority houses and 45.6 percent of the fires in

the college dormitories. “Smoking” is the fourth leading cause of fire in the

fraternity and sorority houses following “electrical distribution” as the third

leading cause. When these four leading causes of fire are considered they account

for 53.1 percent of all the fires during this 1990 through 1994 period as reported by

the NFPA and thus, should be the focus of the fire prevention efforts in these

occupancies.

In the college dormitories “smoking” is the third leading cause of fires

followed by “other equipment” as the fourth leading cause of fires. Thus, in the

college dormitories these four causes of fire account for 62.4 percent of all the

fires. However, since the “other equipment” cause accounts for only 6 percent of

the fire causes, the remaining three leading causes of fire consisting of “incendiary,

suspicious”, “cooking” and “smoking” account for 56.4 percent of all the fires in

college dormitories. Obviously, for both the fraternities and sorority houses and

the college dormitories the principal causes of fire are the human behavior related

categories of “incendiary, suspicious,” “cooking” and “smoking” and these are the

causes of fire that should be alleviated by the fire prevention related efforts of both

education and enforcement. The final two sections of this report will contain

specific suggestions for the development of programs and efforts in these areas.
Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators

45

When one compares the NFPA data on fire causes reported in 1954 as

illustrated in Table 5 with the leading causes from the 1995 data presented in

Tables 6 and 7 there appear to be some definite differences. It must be

remembered of course that the 1954 data is a compilation of both college

dormitory fires and fraternity and sorority house fires so the compilation and

presentation of the data is basically different from the 1995 data. However, there

are some interesting similarities and differences in the fire causes as reported with

this forty-year difference.

The category of “incendiary or suspicious” in the 1954 data was the fifth

leading cause of fires accounting for only 9.6 percent of all the fires. While in the

1995 data for the fraternity and sorority houses and the college dormitories this

was the leading cause of all the fires accounting for 29.9 percent of the fires in the

college dormitories and 19.5 percent of all the fires in the fraternity and sorority

houses. This is an increase of at least 100 percent in the fraternity and sorority

houses and approximately 200 percent in the college dormitories during this fortyyear period. In the 1954 data the category of “misuse of electricity” was the

second leading cause of fires accounting for 22.7 percent of all the fires. While in

the 1995 data the category of “electrical distribution” was the third leading cause

of fires in the fraternity and sorority houses it only accounted for 9.7 percent of all

the fires in these occupancies. The 1995 data for college dormitories indicated the
Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators

46

category of “electrical distribution” was the sixth leading cause of fire accounting

for only 5.4 percent of all the fires in college dormitories. It appears the higher

ranking of electrical fires in the 1954 data may be a result of two variables. First,

as previously indicated the 1954 data included the fraternity and sorority house

data with the college dormitory data, and as the 1995 data confirms electrical

caused fires are still the third leading cause of fires in fraternity and sorority

houses. It may be there is still more utilization of unapproved electrical

modifications and extensions in the fraternity and sorority houses than in the

college dormitories which in general appear to have newer structures and more

supervision. Secondly, it should be recognized the determination of fire cause has

become more technical and sophisticated during the forty-year period from 1954 to

1995, and with the development of the NFIRS reporting system the overall validity

of the identification of the fire causes has probably improved.

The 1954 data indicated the categories of “defective chimney” and “heating

equipment, defective” as the third and fourth leading causes of fire, with the

“defective chimney” category accounting for 10 per cent of the fires and the

“heating equipment, defective” category accounting for 9.6 per cent of the fires.

Thus, the chimney and heating equipment categories together were identified as

the causes accounting for 19.6 per cent of all the fraternity, sorority and college

dormitory fires in the 1954 data. However, the 1995 data for fraternity and
Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators

47

sorority house fires indicated the category of “heating” was the eighth leading

cause of fires accounting for only 5.2 percent of all the fires. While, for the 1995

data concerning college dormitories the “heating” category was the ninth leading

cause of fire accounting for only 2.5 percent of all the fires. It would appear the

decline of the heating related causes of fire including the defective chimneys

between the 1954 and the 1995 data might be related to the decline in the use of

solid fuel heating devices and systems prevalent in the 1940’s and 1950’s to the

use of the fluid fired heating devices and systems that are prevalent in the 1990’s.

It should be noted that all of these comparisons relative to the 1954 NFPA

data and the 1995 data are limited by the different procedures used in the

collection, compilation and analysis of the data, including the different

identification of the fire cause categories. Thus, it might appear to be valid to

relate the “open fireplaces” category in the 1954 data to the “open flame, ember,

torch” category of the 1995 data. It would appear the 1995 category is broader and

could include other sources in addition to “open fireplaces.” However, it is

interesting to note the category of “open fireplaces” in the 1954 data was identified

as the eighth leading cause of the fires accounting for 5.3 per cent of all the fires.

While in the 1995 data for the fraternity and sorority houses the category of “open

flame, ember, torch” was the seventh leading cause of fires accounting for 5.4

percent of all the fires. The 1995 data for the college dormitories indicated the
Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators

48

category of “open flame, ember, torch” was also the seventh leading cause of fires,

accounting for 5.1 percent of all the fires.

The National fire Protection Association has also prepared a summary of all

the fraternity and sorority house fires reported to them involving occupant

fatalities from March 16, 1975 through May 12, 1996. (16) This summary also

includes the reported property loss involved in the fire when that information was

reported to the FIDO (Fire Information Data Organization) of the National fire

Protection Association. This twenty-one year summary includes fatal fires in

nineteen fraternity house fires and one sorority house fire. This data summary

would tend to provide credibility to the following statement by Isner relative to the

predominance of fatal fraternity house fires in his report on the Fraternity House

fire of May 12, 1996 in Chapel Hill, North Carolina: (10)

“Since the NFPA began compiling data on fire losses in the early 

1970s, all of the catastrophic life-loss fires (involving five or more 

deaths) in fraternity or sorority housing have occurred in fraternity 

houses.” p. 36.

This NFPA summary includes five of the fraternity house fires that were

included in the six fraternity house fires studied extensively in the first four

sections of the this report with their data presented in Tables 1 through 4.

(9)(10)(12)(14)(21) This National Fire Protection Association 1996 summary of

twenty-one years of fatal fires in fraternity and sorority houses is presented in

Table 8. (16)
Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators

49

 Table 8

 Date Facility & Location Fat. Inj. Dollar Loss

3/16/75 Frat., Burlington, VT. 1 1 100,000.00

1/08/76 Frat., Columbus, OH. 2 6 No report

8/29/76 Frat., Baldwin City, KS. 5 2 No report

1/14/78 Frat., University Park, TX. 1 2 525,000.00

4/05/80 Frat., Eugene, OR. 1 1 60,000.00

9/09/82 Frat., Philadelphia, PA. 1 8 No report

5/28/83 Frat., Bridgewater, MA. 1 1 75,000.00

12/11/83 Frat., Austin, TX. 1 1 335,000.00

1/06/84 Frat., Thibodaux, LA. 1 0 No report

4/11/84 Frat., Lexington, VA. 1 0 420,000.00

10/21/84 Frat., Bloomington, IN. 1 30 100,000.00

12/20/84 Frat., Geneseo, NY. 1 0 No report

3/03/85 Frat., San Jose, CA. 1 1 117,000.00

4/19/86 Frat., Danville, KY. 1 0 No report

9/08/90 Frat., Berkeley, CA. 3 2 2,100,000.00

12/08/90 Frat., Erie, PA. 1 4 No report

2/13/92 Frat., California, PA. 1 0 70,000.00

10/24/93 Sor., LaCrosse, WI 1 2 No report

10/21/94 Frat., Bloomsburg, PA. 5 0 70,000.00

5/12/96 Frat., Chapel Hill, NC. 5 3 475,000.00

 Total 35 64 4,447,000.00

As indicated in Table 8, there were a total of 35 occupant fatalities in these

nineteen fraternity house fires and one sorority house fire in this twenty-one year

period. Three of the fraternity house fires had the maximum of five fatalities in

each fire, [Baldwin City, KS. (14); Boomsburg, PA. (21) and Chapel Hill, NC.

(10)] one fraternity house fire had three fatalities, [Berkeley, Ca. (9)] and one had

two fatalities, [Columbus, Oh. (12)]. The remaining fourteen fraternity houses and

the one sorority house fire all resulted in a single occupant fatality.

There were a total of 64 reported occupant injuries in these nineteen

fraternity house fires and one sorority house fire. Almost fifty percent of the

injuries, involving thirty occupants occurred in the single fraternity house fire in
Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators

50

Bloomington, Indiana on October 21, 1984. The remaining four largest injuries

consisted of eight injuries in the fraternity house fire of September 9, 1982 in

Philadelphia, Pa., six injuries in the fraternity house fire of January 8, 1976 in

Columbus, Ohio and four injuries in the fraternity house fire of December 8, 1990

in Erie, Pa. The fraternity house fire of May 12, 1996 in Chapel, NC (10) in

addition to the five fatalities had three injuries. There were three fraternity house

fires with two injuries each, and five fraternity house fires with a single injury in

addition to the fatalities. There were five fraternity house fires with a single

fatality and no injuries and one fraternity house fire with five fatalities and no

injuries [Bloomsburg, PA. (21)]. It should be noted, the single sorority house fire

of October 24, 1993 in LaCrosse, WI. resulted in one occupant fatality and two

occupant injuries. It is apparent from a review of Table 8 that the fire caused life

loss problem in fraternity and sorority house fires is definitely a fraternity house

fire problem.

Twelve of the nineteen fraternity house fires had an identified and reported

dollar loss from the fire incident with the range of reported losses varying from

$60,000 in the Eugene, OR. fire of April 5, 1980 to $2,100,000 in the Berkeley,

CA. fire of September 8, 1990. The total dollar loss from these twelve fraternity

house fires as indicated in Table 8 was $4,447,000.00 and the mean dollar loss for

the twelve facilities was $370,583.00.
Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators

51

A review of the National Fire Protection Association Fire Journal and

NFPA Journal “Firewatch” sections as published by the Association in 1995

provided additional listings of college dormitory, fraternity house and sorority

house fires. (16) These listing were from the twenty-five year period from 1971

through 1995 and identified eighteen college dormitory fires, five fraternity house

fires and one sorority house fire. Two occupant fatalities were identified in these

twenty-four fires. One fatality occurred in a single student room fire which

occurred in a 13 story fire resistive dormitory. The other occupant fatality

occurred in a 3 story frame fraternity house fire reportedly caused by electrical

wiring in a second floor wall.

A7. FIRE PREVENTION STRATEGIES-PROGRAMS

It is apparent from a review of the fire cause data previously presented in

Tables 5, 6, and 7, indicated the leading causes of fires in both fraternity houses

and college dormitories to be the occupant related causes of “incendiary or

suspicious” “cooking” and “smoking”. Tables 3 and 8 appear to indicate relative

to the occurrence of occupant fatalities and injuries that fraternity houses pose the

most severe life safety problem for the past two decades. The college dormitory

fire problem relative to single fire multiple occupant fatalities and injuries

appeared to have peaked in the 1960’s and 1970’s.
Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators

52

David Breen, while at Harvard University surveyed nine private institutions

relative to their fire evacuation drill procedures and frequency in the student

residence dormitories. (2) In 1979 at the time of this survey three of the nine

universities, one-third of the population conducted no evacuation drills in their

college dormitories. One university conducted two drills per year, one at the

beginning of each semester. Three universities conducted four drills per year and

two universities conducted five drills per year. Of the six universities conducting

evacuation drills, three conducted them only in the evening hours and three

conducted their drills in both a.m. and p.m. hours. Four of the six institutions

conducting evacuation drills included unannounced drills in their procedures.

Breen also reported that in 1979 New York State Law required four evacuation

drills per year, and in Rhode Island the State Law required two evacuation drills

per year.

Nygren (18) has indicated the unique problems involved with a high-rise

college dormitory of 28 stories in two wings with 1,100 students in each wing.

The dormitory has a suite arrangement as is prevalent with high-rise college

dormitories with four suites each with 12 residents per floor for a total of 48

residents per floor in each wing. This style of high-rise housing involved two of

the college dormitories (11)(19) with three fatalities, in the analysis of the nine

college dormitory fires in Tables 1-4. The evacuation procedures followed in the
Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators

53

evacuation drills for this 28 story dormitory involved the residents moving upward

and downward within the section of five floors and not to totally evacuate the

building, unless directed by fire department personnel over the public address

system. Thus, the fire floor of one wing and two floors above and below the fire

floor would be evacuated with the activation of the fire alarm system. This is an

evacuation procedure followed in many high-rise buildings of residential,

commercial and mercantile occupancy.

Following the fraternity house fire in Chapel Hill, North Carolina on May

12, 1996 with five fatalities and three injuries the Chapel Hill Town Council on

November 11, 1996 enacted fire prevention ordinances requiring the installation of

automatic sprinkler systems. (8)(10) These ordinances require the complete

automatic sprinkler protection in all new fraternity or sorority houses, and the

retrofitting of complete sprinkler protection in all existing fraternity and sorority

houses within five years.

Sactor (20) has reviewed an inspection program for off campus fraternity

and sorority houses which was initiated in 1972 between the University of

Maryland, the City of College Park and the Prince George County Fire

Department. This program utilizes the University’s safety personnel in the annual

inspection and the first follow-up inspection of the facilities with the City

personnel. The University and City personnel issue the Fire Department correction
Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators

54

notices on the first inspection and if corrections are not made by the follow-up

inspection the enforcement of the notices is administered by the Fire Department

with fines and even withdrawal of the County Occupancy Permit, thus closing the

facility to student occupancy. For the twenty-two fraternity and sorority houses on

campus a similar inspection program is followed by the University personnel with

enforcement involving the University’s Judicial Programs Office and for students

may involve suspensions, fines or community service. For the organization

enforcement may also involve fines, restrictions on activities and even revoking of

the lease by the University.

Evacuation drills are conducted at both on and off campus fraternities and

sororities once a semester under University personnel supervision and failed drills

are repeated. Criteria of failure are less than 100 percent participation and lack of

notification of the fire department. Morris has emphasized this type of sharing of

the education and enforcement efforts in his 1965 article in the following manner:

(15)

“Firesafety in student housing is literally a matter of life and death, and a

responsibility that ought to be shared by the college, the local or state enforcement

agency, and the organization owning or operating a residence. Each should make

certain that its segment of responsibility has been properly carried out.” p. 27.

Isner in the conclusion of his report on the fraternity house fire in Chapel

Hill, North Carolina of May 12, 1996 resulting in 5 fatalities and 3 injuries

emphasizes the importance of fire prevention inspections of fraternity houses, due
Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators

55

to the older types of construction, lack of maintenance and occupant behavior that

is inherent in these facilities: (10)

“Fire prevention inspections are key in reducing the fire risk in fraternity

and sorority housing. Fire inspectors need to remain diligent with regard to typical

inspection items such as fire extinguishers, fire detection and alarm equipment,

general housekeeping, building maintenance, and storage of combustible materials.

Moreover, fire inspectors need to enforce all requirements of local codes such as

the Life Safety Code because these codes regulate interior finish, protection of

vertical openings, detection and alarm systems, egress system components, etc.

Given the difficulty of maintaining good housekeeping practices in some fraternity

and sorority houses combined with historical occupant behavior, the installation of

state-of-the-art fire detection equipment and fire alarm systems is essential, as a

minimum, and the installation of automatic sprinklers is strongly recommended.”

p. 37.

A8. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Table 1 indicated that of the fifteen college dormitory and fraternity house

fires, thirteen or 86 percent occurred in the early morning hours between 1:00 am

and 7:00 am. This table also indicated in confirmation with Tables 5, 6, and 7 that

the leading cause of fire ignition was incendiary fire setting. Table 1 also indicated

this occupant behavior was prevalent with five incidents and four of the incidents

or 80 percent of the incendiary behavior occurred in college dormitories,

(3)(4)(5)(19) with one incident in a fraternity house. (9) Four of these incendiary

fire incidents or 80 percent occurred between the hours of 1:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m.

(3)(4)(5)(9) The second leading cause of fires for the college dormitory and

fraternity house population in Table 1 was smoking and all four of the fires ignited
Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators

56

from smoking materials occurred in fraternity houses. (1)(10)(14)(21) Upholstered

furniture, predominately sofas were the fuel material immediately ignited in five of

the fraternity house fires (1)(9)(12)(14)(21) and two of the college dormitory fires

reviewed in Table 1. (7)(19)

Sactor has indicated the fire safety problems with fraternity and sorority

houses involve the construction of the facilities, the lack of maintenance and the

occupant behavior as follows: (20)

“The ordinary, wood frame, or even balloon construction of many of the

older buildings can contribute to fire and smoke spread. Open stairways can also

be found. Multiple additions, sometimes unauthorized, create concealed spaces for

fire to develop and may also change exit and egress patterns and may include

combustible interior finishes.”

“General poor upkeep results in unrepaired holes in walls and broken

stairwell and bedroom doors which contribute to smoke and heat spread. Fire

protection systems, emergency lighting, and exit signs when in place can be in

disrepair or out of service.”

“Large social events and rough treatment of the facilities causes damage or

excessive wear and tear. Poor fire safety awareness of occupants may result in

blocked exits, flammable decorations, unsafe use of combustibles and smoking

materials, and tampering with fire protection equipment.” p. 18.

Table 2 involving the construction variables in the nine college dormitories

and the six fraternity houses emphasizes the difference in the ages of the structures

between the college dormitories and the fraternity houses. Seven college

dormitories were involved with reporting the age of the structure with a range of

39 years to 9 months at the time of the fire with a mean age of 15.5 years. While
Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators

57

the four reporting fraternity houses had an age range from 33 years to 70 years

with a mean age of 54.7 years. Thus, when comparing the means ages of the

fraternity houses and the college dormitories, the fraternity houses appear to be

more than three times as old as the college dormitories. As indicated by Sactor

(20) there is also a difference in construction as well as age for the fraternity

houses. Table 2 indicated that eight of the nine college dormitories were of fire

resistive construction and one was of protected noncombustible construction. (6)

While one of the fraternity houses was of protected noncombustible construction,

(1) three were of ordinary construction (10)(12)(14) and two were of frame

construction. (9)(21) Table 2 also indicated that four of the six fraternity houses

had open stairs and the two with enclosed stairs had open doors.

Sactor has identified occupant behavior and organizational differences

which may explain the lack of a sorority house in the Tables 1-4 study population

and the inclusion of only one sorority house fire compared to nineteen fraternity

house fires in Table 8, as follows: (20)

“There are differences between fraternities and sororities which effect the

condition of the facilities. Based on experience at UMCP, sororities often have

stronger ties to their nationals and closer involvement of house corporations than

fraternities. Sororities always have house directors and cleaning services and do

not have parties which include alcohol in their facilities.” p. 20

From a review of the relevant published literature and the fire record for

fraternity, sorority houses and college dormitories from the years of 1944 through
Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators

58

1954, (17) and 1990 through 1996 (16) the following conclusions appear

reasonable:

1. The primary causes of fraternity House and college dormitory fires

appear to be the occupant behavior activities of incendiary fire setting, cooking

and smoking.

1. A. It would appear occupant educational and enforcement procedures

should be focused on the alleviation of these primary fire causes.

1. B. The current educational activities in these occupancies appear to be

generally limited to practice evacuation drills. The educational activities should be

extended to orientation sessions with appropriate visual aids relative to fire ignition

and fire/smoke propagation variables affecting life safety for the residents and

resident assistants in the dormitories and the house directors and the members in

the fraternities and sororities.

2. The Greek organizations fire life loss problem currently appears to be a

fraternity fire problem, often preceded by social events.

3. Fire prevention inspections of college dormitories, fraternity

and sorority houses should be thorough with the adoption and enforcement of

current codes and standards. The enforcement procedures should impact on the

residents and the organizations for continued uncorrected facility features or unsafe

occupant behavior. Such behavior should include false alarms, tampering with fire
Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators

59

protection equipment (including detectors and extinguishers), and open flame

ignition behavior.

3. Procedures should be initiated to regulate the inclusion of new highly

combustible upholstered furniture into both dormitories and fraternity, sorority

houses.

4. Procedures should be initiated to provide for the installation of smoke

detectors in students rooms and automatic sprinkler systems throughout new

fraternity, sorority houses and college dormitories.

When existing facilities are renovated these fire protection systems should be

installed.

4. A. The national fraternal organizations should be more involved in

providing for the financing of fire protection systems during the renovation of

fraternity or sorority houses.

4. B. The national fraternal organizations should be more involved in

providing for education and enforcement activites to reduce the occupant behavior

involving excessive use of alcohol at the social events which apparently preceded

the fire incidents in numerous cases.
Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators

60

A9. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Best, Richard, “Fire in a Fraternity House Amherst, Massachusetts,”

Fire Journal, 69, 6, (November 1975), 30-33, 105.

2. Breen, David E., Fire Evacuation Drills at Other universities. Cambridge, MA:

University Health Services, Harvard University, March 21, 1979.

3. Bryan, J. L., J. A. Milke and P. J. DiNenno, An Examination and Analysis of the

Dynamics of the Human Behavior in the Fire Incident at Thurston Hall on

April 19, 1979. College Park, MD: Department of Fire Protection

Engineering, University of Maryland, July 31, 1979.

4. Bryan, John L. and James A. Milke, An Examination and Analysis of the

Dynamics of the Human Behavior in the Fire Incident at Chesapeake Hall

on February 3, 1980. College Park, MD: Department of Fire Protection

Engineering, University of Maryland, June 30, 1980.

5. Carpenter, Daniel J., Jr., College Dormitory Fires in Dover, Delaware and

Farmville, Virginia. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Fire Administration, Federal

Emergency Management Agency, 1987.

6. Demers, David P. “Ten Students Die in Providence College Dormitory Fire,”

Fire Journal, 72, 4, (July 1978), 59-62, 103.

7. Gaudet, Robert E., “Dormitory Fire Kills Nine, “Fire Journal, 61, 4, 

(July 1967), 5-9.

8. Graham, D’Arcy L., “Getting the Message Out and Getting Things Done,”

Sprinkler Age, 16, 8, (August 1997), 10-13.

9. Isner, Michael S., Fraternity House Fire, Berkeley, California, September 8,

1990. Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection Association, Fire Investigation

Report, 1990.

10. Isner, Michael S., Fraternity House Fire, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, May

12, 1996. Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection Association, Fire

Investigation Report, 1996.
Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators

61

11. Lathrop, James K., “Nineteenth-Floor Dormitory Fire Kills One Student,”

Fire Journal, 70,3, (March 1976), 77-79.

12. Lathrop, James K., “Two Die in Fraternity House Fire,” Fire Journal,

70, 5, (September 1976), 5-7, 66.

13. Lathrop, James K., “Dormitory Fire Leaves One Dead Twenty-three

Hospitalized, Saratoga Springs, New York,” Fire Journal, 70, 6, (November

1976), 5-7, 13.

14. Lathrop, James K., “Five Die in Fraternity House Fire Baldwin City, Kansas,”

Fire Journal, 71, 3, (May 1977), 21-22, 109-110.

15. Morris, John, “Off-Campus Housing-A college Fire Problem,” Fire

Journal, 59, 6, (November 1965), 26-27.

16. National Fire Protection Association, Special Data Information Package

Dormitories and Fraternity and Sorority Houses. Quincy, MA: Fire

Analysis and Research Division, 1995.

17. National Fire Protection Association, Occupancy Fire Record College

Dormitories, Fraternities and Sororities. Quincy, MA: FR 54-8, 1954.

18. Nygren, Ronald G., “Alarm Signaling and Evacuation in a High-Rise

University Residence Hall, “ Fire Journal, 66, 2, (March 1972), 5-6, 11.

19. Peterson, Carl E., “Ohio State University Fires, Morrill Tower and Lincoln

Tower,” Fire Journal, 62, 6, (November 1968), 19-23.

20. Sactor, Alan, Fire Inspection Program for Greek Facilities at the University of

Maryland at College Park, A Model of University and Community

Cooperation. Monograph No. 58, paper presented at 42nd. Annual

International Conference on Campus Safety, University of Hawaii at Manoa,

June 9-14, 1995.

21. Trembly, Kenneth J., “Catastrophic Fires of 1994,” NFPA Journal,

89, 5, (September/October 1995), 60.

22. Wolf, Alisa, “Fraternity Fire Kills Five,” NFPA Journal, 90, 5,

(September/October 1996), 61-64.