NBSIR 82-2600

A Cost-Conscious Guide to Fire

Safety in Health Care Facilities

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

National Engineering Laboratory

Center for Applied Mathematics

Washington, DC 20234

December 1982

Sponsored by:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

National Engineering Laboratory

Center for Fire Research

Washington, DC 20234

UC

100

. U56

o2-26l)0

mz

and

Department of Health and Human Services

Washington, DC 20201

NBSIR 82-2600

A COST-CONSCIOUS GUIDE TO FIRE

SAFETY IN HEALTH CARE FACILITIES

NATIONAL BUREAU

OF STANDARDS

LIBRARY DEC 1 1982

0\CrV Cl_CC.“

\©o

Robert E. Chapman

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

National Engineering Laboratory

Center for Applied Mathematics

Washington, DC 20234

December 1982

Sponsored by:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

National Engineering Laboratory

Center for Fire Research

Washington, DC 20234

and

Department of Health and Human Services

Washington, DC 20201

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Malcolm Baldrige, Secretary

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler, Director

PREFACE

This research was conducted under the sponsorship of the Center for Fire

Research and the Department of Health and Human Services by the Operations

Research Division , Center for Applied Mathematics, National Engineering

Laboratory, National Bureau of Standards.

This report is a product of the Fire and Life Safety Program. This program is

a joint Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and National Bureau of

Standards (NBS) effort directed at the development of rational, technically

sound solutions to fire safety problems in health care facilities. In

addition to the types of work described in this report, the joint HHS/NBS

program has produced products in the areas of decision analysis, fire and

smoke detection, smoke movement and control, automatic extinguishment, and

behavior of institutional and other populations in fire situations.

This report, intended for use by building managers and engineers, outlines a computer program which utilizes mathematical optimization techniques to

identify the least-cost means of upgrading health care facilities to

compliance with the Life Safety Code. The program uses the "optimal" solution

as a reference point from which 10 to 20 compliance strategies based on design

considerations are generated. The computer program is intended to be used as a management tool to facilitate the design selection process by providing both

information on relative costs and a chance to match common compliance

strategies across all parts of the building.

The author would like to acknowledge the significant contributions made to

this study by Mssrs. Harold E. Nelson and A. Jeffery Shibe of the Center for

Fire Research. Their review of the document and suggestions for improving the

treatment of certain topics in the paper were most useful. Appreciation is

also extended to Mr. Richard W. Bukowski of the Center for Fire Research, who

designed the worksheet for collecting the input data required to exercise the

computer program, and Mr. Phillip T. Chen, formerly with the Center for

Building Technology, who made the first attempts at integrating the relevant

engineering issues with the formal optimization techniques used by the

program. Special appreciation is extended to Mr. William G. Hall of the

Center for Applied Mathematics, whose stimulating discussions provided

guidance and encouragement throughout this effort.

iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report outlines a computer program which, using the Fire Safety

Evaluation System as its nucleus, employs mathematical optimization techniques

to identify the least-cost means of achieving a set of prescribed levels of

fire safety in health care facilities. The Fire Safety Evaluation System

developed by the Center for Fire Research at the National Bureau of Standards,

through support from the Department of Health and Human Services, helps

decision makers by determining flow combinations of several widely accepted

fire safety systems can be used to provide a level Of feafety equivalent to • that required by the Life Safety C6de. inanJiaqaQ Jniot a

\frife:5TmTb9.f “r>n< •rfsmqoisvsb sdi is bsi 09ilb iiolla (28M) abiabrifcia

The economic, consequences associate^ Skf^ft^ 30-^ 03 bnuoa

Evaluation 'watem are likeT^?^1 t* jjtd&t over fi'fcfe irirfdty

health care facilities has ifea to

5 tn& clfe ^.tr^i^lation 3Sf* rasTJioiq

certification for particlpifa^^

ability to coi^ty" with the^tl/k' to

savings attributable to the use of a performance-oriented system over that of

prescriptive compliance are simplified by noting that each of the building

safety features used in the Fite* $£f£fcy feV&ld&tfdd ^fet^fn1 ,n& -\ft&qu^ICVlf!Ri^f* T

which corresponds 1 £a imhipt1 i atildi'V^&^5¥I %

'39;Juqmoo

typicaL hospi'ta.1 indicates'" ihiat

1 Jt^,! bsyjjd^

Cost, ^riImiz^r\C!f^S(^I1)' crftf

E¥febu'i:t

> shVih^^of^-^y j^¥^hfemo° or more over the cost associated Witfi pi^difiptriV& ddtnpliancn frty 6 afl Safely J?o<fc v ^fnc^ ^j?ffifl^E^:i9 bl3noo

adopted lS?o 1^1 WftPidb W i5r^P ‘^oI\fti^6KW

FSESCM computer "progri^ atH^ ;’c^fift!^tf15h

the requirements of the code. The p(&¥r1r^idT cbtft P'aVltf^ ay#o<®fc&£?etf ^tSSBs5 ^ procedure are therefore of particular importance to those health care facilities which have a strong dependence on revenues from the Medicare and

Medicaid progra*#.3 "^1 3/100 3rf»olxirr8Jta srfi sgbalwon^oB oi s^il bluow lorfius sriT

10 i iD .rren 9ru io sdlriZ ynellsL .A bns noaleW .3 bloisH .a^aaM yd ybuia afrii

TTie

J F i28

9TMRo£er

a

f?P<lj2£ii?^d^f £

n$P&£€ £8i&¥0ifi*£^Tto 91 -t * makers afnce ft usdaxrf8^bf^°ffo °f<f#n

t

ffiffi #6kl £$ 66* '^^n^f^d^tintel Jnamissia

cora^idnce B^Mtl^re8« ° fey fjQ£i?rtg €Rd &

M optimlf^3I3f§tf8n bM ?$2f§£&Rc£ u$8{neii$r$& ldf^oi^&iiS 9 *> be systematicllff gln^riftfed md9

i5f£$iii£<?i^ TtFe ^li^^§iv5^b^fifnd ra fHS^dcI JoSuqrooo

solutions 9|s 9

fcg racfff?£l?§ tri# ^lef^dt^od'prd^^ffs pi£d?fdtfdg 9T gnibllufl

inf ormation o$ r refati^uM§c^9lnd°^nd^cib1{idtj f

l ur{f€y o^o ^diltffl^oiMWi^efif^Ff^11 ^”9

packages across all *psi?£s orWtHdM

bfiil<5

>f’n§? ,xlfh^ ^u§6* ;

fdf ^^flSftelf^^ifflid

compliance 9 strS28gf^s i iflddfd'

> tfi^^#<^f,i

, 4is5ff)ri ¥n « & £$b r iStf^ng 0 In f 3

in defining a comprehensive rdtifdlft? £t^£ fdf tMe fc*fl{?£fc£*WifI8i&g§ sonablug

A cost study of a typical hospital is used to indicate the tremendous

potential for reducing code compliance costs without compromising the safety

and well-being of persons housed in health care facilities. Although the

savings in retrofit costs which will accrue to the nation's stock of health

care facilities is substantial, it is expected that savings will vary

considerably as a function of the facility type, its condition, and its

operational characteristics. Since the design places certain constraints on

ill

iv
the retrofit process, the data required from the engineer in the field are organized in a manner which explicitly introduces relevant engineering issues

into the cost minimization problem. The cost estimates produced by the

procedure should permit the engineering staff to quickly identify several

compliance strategies which best reflect the specific attributes or peculiarities of the facility. Since the compliance strategies are built

around those items deemed most important from an engineering viewpoint, their

inclusion should simplify the problem of assessing the impacts of

non-construction costs on the retrofit decision.

The FSESCM computer program is written in FORTRAN, a widely used language for

scientific applications. The program has been thoroughly tested for ease of use and flexibility. For example, the program contains a series of user options which make it possible to alter the cost of any retrofit, preclude a retrofit, force a retrofit to be included, or demand a level of safety

different from that required by the Life Safety Code. The program conforms to

the major programming standards (FIPS 69 and ANSI X3. 9-1978) and is executable

on any standard system of adequate size. Two companion reports are available

which give step-by-step instructions for setting up and running the program on the user's computer system.

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

PREFACE Ill

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iv

LIST OF EXHIBITS vll

LIST OF FIGURES vill

LIST OF TABLES viii

1 . INTRODUCTION 1 1 . 1 Background 1 1.2 Purpose 2

2. FIRE ZONE SAFETY IN HEALTH CARE FACILITIES 3

2.1 The Life Safety Code 3

2.2 The Fire Safety Evaluation System.... 5

2.3 The Prescriptive Requirements of the Life Safety Code 12

3. THE FIRE SAFETY EVALUATION SYSTEM COST MINIMIZER

( FSESCM) COMPUTER PROGRAM 16

3.1 Criteria Used in Designing the FSESCM Computer Program... . 16

3.2 The Program Output and Its Interpretation 31

3.3 A Case Study 35

A. CONCLUDING REMARKS 55

REFERENCES 57
LIST OF EXHIBITS

Page

2.1 Sample Worksheet: Methodology for Calculating Occupancy

Risk Factor 8

2.2 Sample Worksheet: Values of Safety Parameters as a Function of the Level of Safety Provided 9

2.3 Sample Worksheet: Methodology for Evaluating the Level of

Containment Safety, Extinguishment Safety, People Movement

Safety, and General Safety Provided Within the Fire Zone 10

2.4 Sample Worksheet: Methodology for Determining if the

Level of Safety Provided Within the Fire Zone is

Equivalent to that Required by the Life Safety Code 11

3.1 FSESCM Cost Estimation Worksheet 22

3.2 Sample Output Summarizing the Data Input for a Typical

Fire Zone 38

3.3 Sample Output Summarizing the Estimated Cost for Each

Potential Retrofit for a Typical Fire Zone 40

3.4 Sample Output Showing the Solutions Generated for a Typical Fire Zone. ....... 42

3.5 Sample Output Showing the Best Combination of Design

Equivalent Solutions 44

3.6 Sample Output Showing Design Equivalent Solutions Based on Smoke Detection and Alarm in Corridors and Habitable

Spaces 46

3.7 Sample Output Showing Design Equivalent Solutions Based on Smoke Detection and Alarm in the Total Space. 48

3.8 Sample Output Showing Design Equivalent Solutions Based on No Dead Ends in Corridors 50

3.9 Sample Output Showing the Details of the Prescriptive

Compliance Solution 52

vii
Page

LIST OF FIGURES

3.1 Flowchart of the FSESCM Computer Program 18

3.2 Outputs of the FSESCM Computer Program 33

3.3 Layout of the Patient Room Floors for the Case Study

Building. 36

3.4 Alternative Retrofit Packages for the Case Study

Building 54

LIST OF TABLES

2.1 Values of Safety Parameters Corresponding to

Prescriptive Compliance to the Life Safety Code for

Hospitals 13

2.2 Values of Safety Parameters Corresponding to

Prescriptive Compliance to the Life Safety Code for

Nursing Homes 14

3.1 Input Data Requirements for the FSESCM Computer

Program... 20

3.2 User Options Available with the FSESCM Computer

Program............ 21

3.3 Retrofit Measures Considered by the FSESCM Computer

Program 27

3.4 Design Variable Qualifiers Used in Establishing the 40

Design Classifications. ... 34

viii
1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

The identification of cost-effective levels of fire safety in health care facilities is a major concern to hospital administrators, fire safety

engineers, and public policy makers. Rising construction and operating costs

coupled with more stringent building codes and continuing advances in medical

and building technology have complicated the issue, forcing health care facility administrators to assess carefully the alternative means through

which they can design, construct, or update their facilities. Although

multiple death fires in health care facilities are rare occurrences, the

potential for major losses of life and property does exist and should be

recognized in the selection of fire safety measures. This potential and its

implied need for a national commitment to fire safety in health care facilities has been emphasized in numerous congressional hearings.

The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) has long been recognized as a vehicle through which such a national commitment could be achieved. For over

60 years the NFPA has been a leader in the development of voluntary codes

which establish acceptable fire safety levels. The Life Safety Code is

currently a widely used guide for providing fire safety in buildings.

Although the code may be thought of as a prescriptive, since it defines only a limited number of options as admissible solutions for life safety in

designated occupancies, the performance concept can be explicitly introduced

through a provision which allows for equivalent solutions.

In light of this provision, the National Bureau of Standards' Center for Fire

Research through support from the Department of Health and Human Services has

developed a system for determining how combinations of several widely accepted

fire safety systems could be used to provide a level of safety equivalent to

that required by the Life Safety Code.^ The equivalency methodology which

emerged from this effort is particularly attractive since it lends itself to

mathematical optimization techniques. The precision gained through the use of

mathematical optimization techniques should result in improved fire safety in

health care facilities due to its potential for resolving many of the

differences of opinion surrounding the cost impacts of fire safety in health

care facilities in general and the Life Safety Code in particular.

*U.S. Congress, House, Select Committee on Aging, Subcommittee on Long-Term

Care, Tragedy of Multiple Death Nursing Home Fires: The Need for a National

Commitment to Safety , September 1976.

^National Fire Protection Association, Code for Safety to Life from Fire in

Buildings and Structures , NFPA 101-1981, Quincy, Mass., 1981.

^H. E. Nelson and A. J. Shibe, A System for Fire Safety Evaluation of Health

Care Facilities, National Bureau of Standards, NBSIR 78-1555, Washington,

D.C., 1980.

1
1.2 PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to review the most important factors which led

to the development of the Fire Safety Evaluation System Cost Minimizer

(FSESCM) computer program which identifies the least-cost means for bringing a health care facility into compliance to the Life Safety Code. The FSESCM

program is based on the Fire Safety Evaluation System developed by the Center

for Fire Research; this system has been adopted into the Life Safety Code,NFPA

101,1 ag an appendix^. Any solutions which the program produces can thus be

proven equivalent to the code. Since each of the parameters used in the

equivalency methodology has a unique value which corresponds to prescriptive

compliance, it is also possible to quantify the cost savings attributable to

the equivalency methodology over that of prescriptive compliance. Although

the FSESCM program is useful for both new and existing facilities, it is

anticipated that its primary use will be identifying alternative courses of

action open to decision makers faced with retrofitting existing facilities.

The computer program uses as its primary input information collected as an integral part of any thorough fire safety evaluation. This information

permits the current state of the health care facility to be unambiguously

identified. The least-cost combination of retrofits is based on:

1. the current condition of the health care facility;

2. the minimum passing "score" needed to achieve compliance, and

3. the anticipated costs of each retrofit measure.

The computer program then generates and analyzes a class of alternative

retrofits. The optimal combination of retrofits and any alternatives which

the program produces, usually between 10 and 20, are then summarized in

tabular form and ranked according to cost.

^Unless stated otherwise, whenever the NFPA 101 document is referenced it will

be assumed that the text refers to the 1981 edition of the code.

^Appendix C of NFPA 101 describes the Fire Safety Evaluation System for health

care occupancies. For those readers wishing an extended discussion of this

as well as other topics in NFPA 101, the Life Safety Code Handbook is highly

recommended (c.f., James K. Lathrop, editor. Life Safety Code Handbook , National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, Mass., 1981).

2
2 FIRE ZONE SAFETY IN HEALTH CARE FACILITIES

2.1 THE LIFE SAFETY CODE

The concept of fire safety has changed dramatically in recent years. This is

due not only to more advanced and complicated technology, but also to changes

in social structure. In the last 150 years, fire safety has taken on meaning

beyond merely preventing major conflagrations through the use of public fire

departments. Today the emphasis is on prevention through the development of

product standards which significantly reduce the probability of ignition for

objects such as upholstered furniture within the building. ^ Although the

efficiency of public fire departments and the consideration of product

standards are both of fundamental importance in any systematic treatment of

the fire safety problem, careful consideration must also be given to the goal

of limiting fires to the building of origin. Historically, this goal has been

addressed through the use of building codes. This report focuses on that

aspect of the fire safety problem. In particular, all analyses of the fire

safety problem are in terms of the Life Safety Code.^

Since its origin in 1913, the Life Safety Code has been constantly revised as more reliable technical and empirical evidence has become available. The

National Fire Protection Association's early work on the Life Safety Code was concerned primarily with the identification and analysis of the causes of

death in major fires. From these analyses came recommendations for fire

drills, standards for construction of stairways and fire escapes, as well as guidelines on the placement of the means of egress.

Spectacular fires resulting in major losses of life and property and large

numbers of injuries, led to the increased use of the NFPA document for legal

regulatory purposes. Unfortunately, the numerous advisory provisions

contained in the document necessitated that a major revamping of the document

be performed in order to ensure that it was appropriate and adequate for legal

use. The present Life Safety Code is aimed at addressing this need. It is

revised periodically to reflect advances in fire and building technology.

Prior to an examination of the equivalency methodology, however, it may be

instructive to review several portions of the Life Safety Code. This review

provides a framework which facilitates the derivation of the equivalency

methodology from the code.

lj. W. Lyons, "Fire Research and Fire Safety: A Status Report on the

Situation in the United States," in A. F. Robertson, ed. Fire Standards and

Safety , American Society of Testing Materials, Special Technical Publication

614, Philadelphia, 1977.

^The Life Safety Code was developed by the National Fire Protection

Association. It is important to point out that the Life Safety Code is a voluntary code. Although the Life Safety Code is voluntary, it becomes

mandatory when adopted as part of a building regulation. Health care facilities are also affected by other codes which may significantly affect

the cost impacts of the Life Safety Code (c.f., Joseph G. Sprague, "Common

Sense Approach Needed in Dealing with Safety," Hospitals, Vol. 51, February

1977, pp. 67-75).

3
As mentioned in chapter 1, the Life Safety Code admits only a limited number

of solutions to life safety in designated occupancies. In this report,

particular emphasis will be placed on chapters 12 and 13 of NFPA 101 which are concerned with health care facilities. (New health care facilities are treated in chapter 12; existing health care facilities* are treated in chapter

13.) The technical foundations for the requirements outlined in chapters 12

and 13 of NFPA 101 are concerned with three broad classes of fire safety.

These classes are: (1) Means of Egress; (2) Features of Fire Protection; and

(3) Building Service Equipment. A brief discussion of each class, including

an enumeration of the individual fire safety measures, will be used as background material for introducing the equivalency methodology. The first

class, Means of Egress, is defined as follows:

"A continuous and unobstructed way of exit travel from any point in a building or structure to a public way. It consists of three separate and

distinct parts: (a) the way of exit access, (b) the exit, and (c) the

way of exit discharge".

Means of Egress therefore include such items as: doors, interior and exterior

stairs, horizontal exits, ^ ramps, exit passageways, escalators, fire escape

stairs and ladders. The illumination and marking of means of egress is an explicit requirement within the code. The second class, Features of Fire

Protection, includes the protection of vertical openings,^* interior finishes,

protective signaling systems, automatic sprinklers and other extinguishment

equipment, segregation and protection of hazards, smoke partitions and fire

doors. The third class, Building Service Equipment, includes air

conditioning, ventilation, heating, cooking, and incineration.

A careful examination of the preceding lists reveals that the level of

protection provided by some of the fire safety measures in one class may

affect the level of other fire safety measures. Consequently, the Life Safety

Code contains a redundancy clause to insure that the failure of a single

protection device or method will not result in a major failure of the entire

system.

*NFPA 101 defines an existing bulding as one already in existence when the

code went into effect.

^Provision 5-1. 2.1.

-^NFPA 101 defines a horizontal exit as a way of passage from one building to an area of refuge in another building on approximately the same level, or a way of passage through or around a wall or partition to an area of refuge on approximately the same level in the same building, which affords safety from

fire or smoke from the area of escape and areas communicating therewith.

^A vertical opening is an opening through a floor.

4
The redundancy clause is thus of primary importance in any application of (or

modification to) the Life Safety Code. Consequently, any alternative

solutions to the level of safety mandated by the Life Safety Code, such as those provided by the Center for Fire Research's equivalency methodology, also

must guarantee that the level of fire safety provided is not dependent upon

any single fire safety measure.

2.2 THE FIRE SAFETY EVALUATION SYSTEM

The core concept in the equivalency methodology is its treatment of fire

safety in an individual fire zone of a health care facility. The term fire zone is defined as a space separated from all other spaces by floors,

horizontal exists, or smoke barriers. (Where a floor is not subdivided by

horizontal exits or smoke barriers the entire floor is the zone.) Three basic

classifications of fire safety are used in assessing the level of safety

provided in a particular fire zone.^ These three classifications are:

(1) occupancy risk; (2) building safety features; and (3) safety redundancy.

The first two fire safety classifications contain a set of factors which are subdivided into a set of states . For each factor there is a descriptor which

defines the state and a score, state value , which reflects the relative degree

of risk or safety. Through a series of manipulations involving various

factor/state combinations, it is possible to determine the level of safety

provided within a particular fire zone. Each of the three basic fire safety

classifications will now be examined.

Occupancy Risk

Occupancy risk reflects the number of people affected by a given fire, the

level of fire they are likely to encounter, and their ability to protect

themselves. The occupancy risk for a particular fire zone is assessed by

evaluating the level of safety for each of the following five factors:

1. Patient Mobility;

2. Patient Density;

3. Fire Zone Location;

4. Ratio of Patients to Attendants; and

5. Patient Average Age.

A state value, is obtained from a worksheet and recorded. When multiplied

together, these values produce an occupancy risk factor. The occupancy risk

factor is then adjusted to reflect whether the building is new or existing.

*H.E. Nelson and A. J. Shibe, op clt .

5
Building Safety Features

Building saf ety features reflect the ability of the building and its fire

protection systems to provide measures of safety commensurate with the risk.

The building safety features for the fire zone are assessed by evaluating the

level of safety for each of the following 13 factors:

A state value corresponding to the level of safety associated with each

building safety feature is then taken from a worksheet and recorded.

Safety Redundancy

It is important to point out that there is not an explicit statement of what

constitutes the redundancy required by the Life Safety Code. Consequently, an important difference between the Fire Safety Evaluation System and the Life

Safety Code is the way in which redundancy is determined. Since the Fire

Safety Evaluation System is a quantitative system for evaluating fire safety,

the redundancy requirement must be explicit. The integration of information

on a set of factors which affect system performance with a set of safety

categories involved extensive interaction among code officials, fire

marshalls, fire scientists and representatives of the health care industry.

The term redundancy as used in the remainder of the report will therefore

refer to the explicit redundancy of the Fire Safety Evaluation System and not

that implied by the Life Safety Code. The redundancy clause plays a crucial

role in identifying acceptable levels of fire safety. This issue is addressed

in the equivalency methodology through the use of a four-way safety

redundancy. The four safety categories are:

Safety redundance is evaluated by entering the appropriate state value for

each of the 13 building safety features in the appropriate places on the

worksheet. These values are then summed to get a safety score. (The

worksheet is designed so that one score results for each of the four safety

redundancy categories.) Each of these scores are then entered on the fourth

and final page of the worksheet.

1 . 2 . 3.

4.

5.

6 . 7.

8 . 9.

10 . 11 . 12 . 13.

Construction Type;

Interior Finish: Corridors and Exits

Interior Finish: Rooms;

Corridor Partitions/Walls;

Doors to the Corridor;

Zone Dimensions;

Vertical Openings;

Hazardous Areas;

Smoke Control;

Emergency Movement Routes;

Manual Fire Alarms;

Smoke Detection and Alarm; and

Automatic Sprinklers.

1 . 2 . 3.

4.

Containment Safety;

Extinguishment Safety;

People Movement Safety; and

General Safety.

6
Equivalency to the Life Safety Code may then be tested by entering the scores associated with the mandatory safety requirements for containment safety,

extinguishment safety, people movement safety, and the occupancy risk factor

in the space provided on the worksheet. If the differences in the two sets of scores are non-negative in all four cases, then the fire zone is deemed to be

In compliance with the Life Safety Code. The safety redundancy clause of the

Life Safety Code has as an implication that the minimum level of safety be met

or exceeded for each of the four safety categories.

How the underlying concepts which went into the formulation of the equivalency

methodology comes together in the Fire Zone Safety Evaluation Worksheet, is

illustrated in exhibits 2.1 through 2.4. It is important to point out that

the tables shown in exhibits 2.1 through 2.4 may differ slightly from those

presented in the report by Nelson and Shibe. The source of the differences

relates to changes made by the NFPA committees charged with incorporating the

Fire Safety Evaluation System into the Life Safety Code. Since appendix C of

NFPA 101 is the official version of the Fire Safety Evaluation System for

measuring equivalence to the 1981 edition of the Life Safety Code, it was decided to include these tables rather than those published in the report by

Nelson and Shibe.

Exhibit 2.1 consists of Tables 1, 2 and 3 of the Fire Zone Safety Evaluation

Worksheet. These tables provide the means for calculating the occupancy risk

factor. Table 1 of the worksheet provides the values for each risk parameter.

Based on the guidelines given in appendix C of NFPA 101, the appropriate value

for each of the five risk parameters is then determined. The values

identified in Table 1 are then entered in the spaces coded M, D, L, T, and A

in Table 2. These values are multiplied together and entered in the space

coded as F (see exhibit 2.1). The score recorded in box F is the "unadjusted"

occupancy risk factor. The "unadjusted" occupancy risk factor calculated in

Table 2 is then entered in either Table 3A or 3B. In the event that the

building was constructed after the 1981 Life Safety Code went into effect.

Table 3A should be used. The occupancy risk factor is then defined as the

product of the "unadjusted" occupancy risk factor and the Table 3A weighting

factor of 1.0. If the building was constructed before the 1981 Life Safety

Code went into effect. Table 3B should be used. In this case, the occupancy

risk factor is defined as the product of the "unadjusted" occupancy risk

factor and the Table 3B weighting factor of 0.6.

Exhibit 2.2 consists of Table 4 of the Fire Zone Safety Evaluation Worksheet.

Table 4 lists each of the 13 building safety features, defines the states

within each one, and gives a state value for each level of fire safety. A

brief description of the state within the system is also given in a small box

immediately above each state value. For example, the states for interior

finishes in corridors and exits have a value of -5 for class C finishes, a value of 0 for class B finishes, and a value of 3 for class A finishes. In

this case the descriptors are class C, class B, and class A, respectively.

Specifications which enable the evaluator to determine the appropriate level

to check for each building safety feature are given in appendix C of NFPA 101.

In all cases, however, the state of the building safety feature is determined

by a "worst case" condition within the fire zone.

7
Exhibit 2.1 Sample Worksheet: Methodology for Calculating

Occupancy Risk Factor

Table 1. OCCUPANCY RISK PARAMETER FACTORS

RISK PARAMETERS RISK FACTOR VALUES

1. PATIENT

MOBILITY (M)

MOBILITY

STATUS

MOBILE

LIMITED MOBILITYNOT

MOBILE

NOT

MOVABLE

RISK FACTOR 1.0 1.6 3.2 4.5

2. PATIENT PATIENT 1-5 6-10 11-30 >30

DENSITY (D) RISK FACTOR 1.0 1.2 1.5 2.0

3. ZONE

LOCATION (L)

FLOOR 1ST 2ND OR 3RD

4TH TO 6TH

7TH AND ABOVEBASE- MENTS

RISK FACTOR 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.6

4. RATIO OF PATIENTS VI 3J (MO >]]

ONE OR*

MORE

PATIENTS TO ATTENDANT 1 1 1 1 NONE

ATTENDANTS (T) RISK FACTOR 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.5 4.0

5. PATIENT

AVERAGE

AGE (A)

AGE UNDER 65 YEARS

AND OVER 1 YEAR

65 YEARS & OVER

1 YEAR & YOUNGER

RISK FACTOR 1.0 1.2

* RISK FACTOR OF 4.0 IS CHARGED TO ANY ZONE THAT HOUSES

PATIENTS WITHOUT ANY STAFF IN IMMEDIATE ATTENDANCE

Table 2. OCCUPANCY RISK FACTOR CALCULATION

OCCUPANCY RISK

M 0 x

L X

T XA =F

Table 3A. (NEW BUILDINGS] Table 3B. (EXISTING BUILDINGS)

1.0*

F -R

0.6

x

F =R

8
Exhibit 2.2 Sample Worksheet: Values of Safety Parameters as a Function

of the Level of Safety Provided

Table 4 . SAFETY PARAMETERS VALUES

PARAMETERS PARAMETERS VALUES

1. CONSTRUCTION

COMBUSTIBLE

NON-COMBUSTIBLE

WOOO FUME ORDINARY

FLOOR OF ZONE UNPROTECTED PROTECTED UNPROTECTED PROTECTED UNPROTECTED PROTECTED FIRE RESIST.

FIRST -2 0 -2 0 0 2 2 SECOND -7 -2 -4 -2 -2 2 4

THIRD -9 -7 -9 -7 -7 2 4

4TH t ABOVE -13 -7 -13 -7 -9 -7 4

2. INTERIOR FINISH (Corn A Exit]

cuss c CLASS 1 CUSS A -5 0 3

3. INTERIOR FINISH (Rooms)

cuss c CUSS 0 CLASS A -3 1 3

4. CORRIDOR

PARTITIONS/WALLS

NONE OX INCOMPLETE

<1/3 HR »1/3«1.0 HR >1.0 HR. -10 (0)* 0 1 10] * 2(0)*

S. DOORS TO CORRIDOR

NO DOOR <20 MIN.FR >20 MIN. FR >20 MIN. FR A AUTO CLOS. -10 0 1 (0] +

2 (0) +

6. ZONE DIMENSIONS

DUO ENO MORE THAN 100’ DEAD ENO

50 -100' DEAD END30 -50’ NO DUO ENOS >30' A ZONE LENGTH IS: >150’ 100’- 150' <100'

-S (!)•• -4 (0) — -2(0)** -2 0 1

7. VERTICAL OPENINGS

OPEN 4 OR MORE

FLOORS OPEN 2 OR 3 FLOORS

ENCLOSED WITH INDICATED FOIE RESIST.

<1 HR. >1 HR. <2 HR. >2 HR. -14 -10 0 2 [0| ++

3 |0) ++

8. HAZARDOUS AREAS

DOUtlE DEFICIENCY SINGLE DEFICIENCY NO DEFICIENCIES

IN ZONE OUTSIOE ZONE IN ZONE IN ADJACENT ZONE

-11 -5 -8 -2 0

9. SMOKE CONTROL

NO CONTROL SMOKE PARTITION MECH. ASSISTED

-5(0)***

0

SYSTEMS BY ZONE

3

10. EMERGENCY MOVEMENT

ROUTES

<2 ROUTES MULTIPLE ROUTES

-8

DEFICIENT CAPACITY W/O HORIZONTAL EXITW

HORIZONTAL EXITIj! DIRECT EXITlJ] -2 0 3 5

11. MANUAL FIRE ALARM

NO MANUAL FIRE AURM MANUAL FIRE AURM

-4

W/0 F.D. CONN. W/F.O. CONN.

1 2

12. SMOKE DETECTION l ALARM

NONE CORRIDOR ONLY ROOMS ONLY CORRIDOR A

HABIT. SPACE 4

TOTAL SPACE

0 2 3 5

13. AUTOMATIC

SPRINKLERS

NONE CORRIDOR A

HABIT. SPACE

8

TOTAL SPACE

0 10

NOTE: * Usi (0) whin itm 5 is -10. + Usi (0) whin iten 4 is -10. ••Use |0) *bia its* 10 is -8. ++ Uss 10) whu itm 1 is haseO tn first fl««r zoic •••Uss (0) it zone with less than 31 Ritients ,r « mpraticted type of constriction,

in eiisting buildings.

9
Exhibit 2.3 Sample Worksheet: Methodology for Evaluating the Level of

Containment Safety, Extinguishment Safety, People Movement Safety, and

General Safety Provided Within the Fire Zone

10
Exhibit 2.4 Sample Worksheet: Methodology for Determining if the Level

of Safety Provided Within the Fire Zone is Equivalent to That

Required by the Life Safety Code

Table 6. MANDATORY SAFETY REQUIREMENTS

CONTAINMENT

Sa

EXTINGUISHMENT

Sb

PEOPLE MOVEMENT

Sc

ZONE LOCATION New Exist. New Exist. New Exist.

FLOOR 1 9 5 6(4)* 4 6(4)* 1

ABOVE OR BELOW FLOOR 1 14 9 8(6)* 6 9(7)* 3

* Use values in parentheses ( ) for hospitals

Table 7. ZONE SAFETY EQUIVALENCY EVALUATION YES NO

CONTAINMENT MANDATORY

SAFETY IS^

Iess CONTAINMENT (Sa)

20

Si Sa c i

EXTINGUISHMENT

, MANDATORY >n

SAFETY |S2) EXTINGUISHMENT lS b |

S 2 Sb E

PEOPLE MANDATORY

MOVEMENT.. , less PEOPLE >o

SAFETY l s

3* MOVEMENT (S c )

h Sc P

GENERAL OCCUPANCY

SAFETY [S G ] "SS

RISK (R)

s0

1

Sg R G

n
Exhibit 2.3 consists of Table 5 of the Fire Zone Safety Evaluation Worksheet.

Table 5 provides the means for calculating the scores associated with

containment safety, extinguishment safety, people movement safety, and general

safety. These scores are then compared to the scores required by the Life

Safety Code. The calculation is accomplished by entering the appropriate

state value for each building safety feature in the light blocks of each row

of the table. No values are entered in the shaded blocks. Each of the four

columns is then summed to get the score for containment, extinguishment,

people movement, and general safety. These scores are labeled Sj, S

2 , S

3 , and

Sq respectively, in Table 5.

Exhibit 2.4 contains Tables 6 and 7 of the Fire Zone Safety Evaluation

Worksheet. These tables provide the means for determining if the fire zone possesses a level of fire safety equivalent to that of the 1981 Life Safety

Code. Basically, this is done by taking the four scores calculated in

containment safety, extinguishment safety, and people movement safety for the

appropriate building type and fire zone location. These values are entered in

the boxes labeled Sa , S^, and Sc in Table 7. The occupancy risk factor

calculated on the first worksheet is then entered in the box labeled R. Based

on these two sets of numbers it is possible to test if the fire zone possesses

a level of safety equivalent to the Life Safety Code. This test is performed

by determining if the differences between the first set of numbers S^, S 2 , S

3 , and Sq and the second set of numbers Sa , S^, Sc , and R, in Table 7 are greater

than or equal to zero.

2.3 THE PRESCRIPTIVE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LIFE SAFETY CODE

It was stated earlier that the Fire Safety Evaluation System contains a unique

value for each building safety feature which corresponds to prescriptive

compliance to the Life Safety Code. Tables 2.1 and 2.2 show the level of each

building safety feature which corresponds to prescriptive compliance for

hospitals and nursing homes, respectively. Each table is divided into a part

for new buildings and a part for existing buildings; four cases are presented

for each type of building.

For example, the first column of table 2.1 shows how to determine the value

(and level) of each building safety feature which corresponds to prescriptive

compliance for a new one-story hospital. In order to be in prescriptive

conformance with the Life Safety Code for such a hospital, all framing and

construction materials must be protected non-combustible type. Similarly,

flame spread ratings for interior finishes are class A for corridors and exits

and class B for rooms. Corridor partition walls should have a fire rating of

at least 1 hour and all doors to the corridor should have a fire rating of at

least 20 minutes. The corridors in the fire zone must not exceed 150 feet in

length and have no dead ends greater than 30 feet in length. (No fixed

solutions for vertical openings are applicable for single-story health care facilities.) Continuing down the first column shows that no deficiencies are permitted for hazardous areas; smoke partitions are required within the fire zone to insure an adequate level of smoke control; and the fire zone must have

multiple emergency movement routes. The last three rows of the first column

indicate that manual fire alarms with a fire department connection are required, and that no smoke detection and alarm devices or automatic

sprinklers are required.

12
Table 2.1 Values of Safety Parameters Corresponding to Prescriptive

Compliance to the Life Safety Code for Hospitals

Building Safety

Feature

Building Type

New 1-Story

(1)

New More

Than 1-Story

(2)

Existing 1-Story

(3)

Existing More

Than 1-Story

(4)

1. Construction

Prot. Non-Comb. Fire Resistive Prot. Non-Comb. Fire Resistive

2 4 2 4

2. Interior Finish

[Corr. & Exit]

Class A Class A Class B Class B

3 3 0 0

3. Interior Finish

[ Rooms

]

Class B Class B Class B Class B

1 1 1 1

4. Corridor

Parti tions/Walls

>1 hr >1 hr l/3-l hr " 1 /3-1

2 2 1 1

5. Doors to Corridor

>20 min >20 min >20 min >20 min

1 1 1 1

6 . Zone

Dimensions3

lOO’-lSO’ 100'-150’ lOO'-lSO’ 100'-150'

0 0 0 0

7. Vertical

Openings

Not Applicable 2 hr Not Applicable 1-2 hr

0 3 0 2

8. Hazardous

Areas

No Deficiencies No Deficiencies No Deficiencies No Deficiencies

0 0 0 0

9 . Smoke

Control

Smoke Part. Smoke Part. Smoke Part. Smoke Part.

0 0 0 0

10. Emergency

Movement Routes

Multiple Routes Multiple Routes Multiple Routes Multiple Routes

0 0 0 0

11. Manual Fire

Alarm

With FD Conn. With FD Conn. With FD Conn. With FD Conn.

2 2 2 2

1 2 . Smoke

Detection & Alarm

None None None None

0 0 0 0

13. Automatic

Sprinklers

None None None None

0 0 0 0

TOTAL VALUE 11 16 7 11

aNo dead ends greater than 30 feet and corridor length is as recorded.

13
Table 2.2 Values of Safety Parameters Corresponding to Prescriptive

Compliance to the Life Safety Code for Nurlng Homes

Building Safety

Feature

Building Type

New 1-Story

(1)

New More

Than 1-Story

(2)

Existing 1-Story

(3)

Existing More

Than 1-Story

(4)

1. Construction

Prot. Non-Comb. Fire Resistive Prot. Non-Comb. Fire Resistive

2 4 2 4

2. Interior Finish

[Corr. & Exit]

Class A Class A Class B Class B

3 3 0 0

3. Interior Finish

[ Rooms

]

Class B Class B Class B Class B

1 1 1 1

4. Corridor

Partitions/ Walls

>1 hr >1 hr 1/3-1 hr 1/3-1 hr

2 2 1 1

5. Doors to Corridor

>20 min >20 min >20 min >20 min

1 1 1 1

6 . Zone

Dimensions3

lOO'-lSO' 100'-150' 100'-150' 100'-150'

0 0 0 0

7. Vertical

Openings

Not Applicable 2 hr Not Applicable 1-2 hr

0 3 0 2

8. Hazardous

Areas

No Deficiencies No Deficiencies No Deficiencies No Deficiencies

0 0 0 0

9 . Smoke

Control

Smoke Part. Smoke Part. Smoke Part. Smoke Part.

0 0 0 0

10. Emergency

Movement Routes

Multiple Routes Multiple Routes Multiple Routes Multiple Routes

0 0 0 0

11. Manual Fire

Alarm

With FD Conn. With FD Conn. With FD Conn. With FD Conn.

2 2 2 2

12. Smoke

Detection & Alarm

Corridor Only Corridor Only None None

2 2 0 0

13. Automatic

Sprinklers

None None None None

0 0 0 0

TOTAL VALUE 13 18 7 11

aNo dead ends greater than 30 feet and corridor length is as recorded.

14
If the scores corresponding to the mandatory level of safety for each building

safety feature are summed, a total score of 11 points results. Note that the

column sum corresponds to the score for general safety (column 4 of Table 5 in

the Fire Zone Safety Evaluation Worksheet). If the appropriate values from

the first column in table 2.1 are now entered onto Table 5 of the Fire Zone

Safety Evaluation Worksheet (see exhibit 2.3) one would find that the

following score for each safety category results:

Containment Safety

Extinguishment Safety

People movement Safety

General Safety

9 points

4 points

4 points

11 points

Note that the scores for the first three categories correspond to the values

given as mandatory safety requirements for a fire zone located on the first

floor of a new hospital in Table 6 of the Fire Zone Safety Evaluation

Worksheet (see exhibit 2.4 in the previous section). Recall that the level of

safety associated with the general safety requirement was calculated

separately using Tables 1 through 3 on the first page of the Fire Zone Safety

Evaluation Worksheet. In some cases the score requirement would exceed that

resulting from prescriptive compliance to the Life Safety Code; thus, the

score calculated from Tables 1 through 3 of the worksheet should be used.

Referring now to the second column of table 2.1, new hospitals with more than

one-story, and performing the same set of calculations, one would find that

the following score for each safety category results:

Containment Safety

Extinguishment Safety

People movement Safety

General Safety

14 points

6 points

7 points

16 points

In this case the first three categories correspond to the values given in the

mandatory safety requirements (see Table 6 of the Fire Zone Safety Evaluation

Worksheet presented in exhibit 2.4 of the previous section) for fire zones located above the first floor in a new hosiptal. If this exercise were repeated for the third and fourth columns of table 2.1, it would be possible

to derive the mandatory safety requirement values for fire zones located on the first floor and above the first floor in existing hospitals. Table 2.2

contains the same type of information but for nursing homes. Note that all

new nursing homes must have smoke detection and alarm devices in all corridors

in order to be in prescriptive compliance to the Life Safety Code. This

accounts for the two point difference between hospitals and nursing homes

regarding the extinguishment and people movement safety requirements. Thus,

three of the four sets of mandatory safety requirement scores (containment

safety, extinguishment safety, and people movement safety) can be derived from

the four cases presented in tables 2.1 and 2.2. As mentioned earlier, the

general safety requirements calculated in Tables 1 through 3 (see exhibit 2.1) can exceed the column sum from either table 2.1 or 2.2. The occupancy risk

calculation should therefore be used as the mandatory safety requirement for

general safety.

15
3. THE FIRE SAFETY EVALUATION SYSTEM COST MINIMIZER (FSESCM) COMPUTER PROGRAM

3.1 CRITERIA USED IN DESIGNING THE FSESCM COMPUTER PROGRAM

Past empirical work on fire safety in health care facilities has shown that

the use of the equivalency methodology could reduce the costs of compliance to

the Life Safety Code by 30 to 50 percent.* Depending on the current condition

of the health care facility, as measured by the state values in Table 4 of the

Fire Zone Safety Evaluation Worksheet, the expected savings can exceed or fall

below this range. Experts in the area of fire engineering claim that through

the consideration of additional technical and engineering data these costs can

be reduced even further. (Previous studies in other areas have demonstrated

the cos t saving potential of design innovations. 2) Thus, the equivalency

methodology not only permits substantial reductions in the costs of compliance

to be achieved but also points to areas where additional engineering input

would be most cost effective. This was an important issue in the design of

the FSESCM program; it represents a significant improvement to the expected

results presented in earlier studies. Although most of the uses of the

equivalency methodology are geared toward existing buildings, several major

opportunities exist for its use in the design process. In particular, since

its application is simple and straightforward, it is possible to assess numerous design alternatives quickly and efficiently. By the same token,

questions concerning the fire zone's configuration, aesthetic qualities, level

of fire safety, and costs can also be addressed.

Although all of the preceding topics are major factors in addressing the fire

safety problem, perhaps the greatest advantage offered by the equivalency

methodology is its amenability to mathematical optimization techniques. Since

the formal mathematical optimization techniques can be easily programmed for use on computer systems, they provide a unique opportunity for systematically

generating optimal compliance strategies for meeting the requirements of the

Life Safety Code. In addition to the optimal or least-cost solution,

optimization techniques provide an efficient and reliable procedure for

generating alternative compliance strategies vis-a-vis the Life Safety Code.

*R. E. Chapman, Phillip T. Chen, and William G. Hall, Economic Aspects of Fire

Safety in Health Care Facilities: Guidelines for Cost Effective Retrofits , National Bureau of Standards, NBSIR 79-1902, Washington, D. C., 1979. These

studies were based on an earlier version of the Fire Safety Evalution System

which used the 1973 edition of the Life Safety Code as its point of reference

(National Fire Protection Assocition, Code for Safety to Life from Fire in

Buildings and Structures , NFPA 101-1973, Quincy, Mass., 1974).

^Louls J. Kruger and Richard M. Patton, "More Fire Safety Can Cost Less,"

Hospitals , Vol. 51, February 1977, pp. 127-132.

16
The FSESCM program addresses this issue directly by producing two groups of

alternative solutions. The first group is based on the input condition of

each fire zone. The objective here is to provide an opportunity to force each

initial condition to stay in a solution and for each potential retrofit to be

in a solution. (A potential retrofit is any state which has a higher score than the one input and which would be considered a viable candidate for

upgrading for the facility under consideration.) The second group of

solutions is based on a prespecified set of design variable qualifiers. The

objective here is to insure design compatibility across fire zones. Both

groups of solutions are generated for each fire zone input. The second group

of solutions is used to produce a series of compliance strategies for the

entire building within which the key design variable qualifiers are held

constant. These solutions are then printed out in an ascending order of cost.

The added information provided by the alternative solutions should assist

health care facility administrators and construction specialists to assess better the costs of code compliance and hence resolve many of the differences

of opinion surrounding the cost impacts of fire safety in general and the Life

Safety Code in particular. In addition, the information conveyed by the

alternative solutions provides an opportunity to introduce the impact that

non-construction costs could have on the selection of the "best" retrofit

strategy.

The FSESCM program discussed in this section is based on a mathematical

technique known as linear programming. In its usual context linear

programming deals with the problem of allocating limited resources among

competing activities in an optimal way. At the foundation of any linear

programming problem is a mathematical model which describes the problem of concern. In this case, the mathematical model is the Fire Safety Evaluation

System. The term "linear" refers to the requirement that all mathematical

functions in the model are linear. The term "program" is used in the general

sense, since it refers to a plan rather than a computer program per se . The

basic reason why all mathematical functions involved in the problem are linear

may be explained through reference to Table 4 and Table 5 of the Fire Zone

Safety Evaluation Worksheet. In Table 4, there is one and only one level of

each building safety feature possible at any one time. This is due to the

requirement that the most hazardous level associated with each building safety

feature determines its score. In Table 5, the score for each of the four

safety redundancy requirements (containment safety, extinguishment safety,

people movement safety, and general safety) is the sum of the values of the

appropriate parameter identified in Table 4 as either the existing state or a potential retrofit. The linear programming procedure makes use of the entire

Fire Safety Evaluation System; figure 3.1 displays the sequence of steps

linking the Fire Safety Evaluation System to the FSESCM program.

17
Figure 3. 1 Flowchart of the FSESCM Computer Program

CO

»—

Q_

P»J

OO

18
The information required to run the FSESCM program can be divided into two

types. The first type is designated as "background information" (see table

3.1). This information covers such items as the name and location of the

facility, who to contact if a question arises and the type of building being

analyzed. The second type is designated as "specific information" and refers

to data which must be input for each fire zone. These data are used to set up

the optimization problem. They are summarized in table 3.1. The user also

has available a set of options which affect the optimization problem in a variety of ways. Each option and its effect on the solution are described in

table 3.2. All data are designed so that they can be easily and reliably

collected at the same time as the fire zone is evaluated. As a first step the

Fire Zone Safety Evaluation Worksheet must be used to identify the existing

state of each of the 13 building safety features. Plugging this information

into Table 5 of the worksheet permits the overall safety performance of the

fire zone to be assessed. Using the information on the existing state for

each feature as a starting point, engineering judgment may then be used to

identify a set of potential retrofits. It is important to point out that

based on engineering judgment some "theoretically" possible retrofits may be

excluded. (A theoretically possible retrofit is any state which has a higher

score than the existing state.) Once a set of potential retrofits has been

identified, it is then necessary to count the number of elements which must be

treated in order to move to a higher state. The elements are designed to

capture all possible state transitions within Table 4 of the Fire Zone Safety

Evaluation Worksheet. Since some of the states within Table 4 are not

associated with a single element, a worksheet was developed which lists those

building components requiring treatment in order to move from one state within

a building safety feature to another. The information collected on the worksheet closely follows the design of Table 4 of the Fire Zone Safety Evauation

Worksheet. The location of the fire zone(s) is first recorded. (It is

important to point out that an allowance for grouping more than one fire zone has been made in the design of the worksheet.) Each of the 13 building safety

features are than listed individually. To the right of the building safety

feature name is a space for the current state number. The appropriate value

is obtained by referring to the row of Table 4 of the Fire Zone Safety

Evaluation Worksheet which corresponds to the building safety feature and

counting rightward from the lowest state. For example, class A flame spread

ratings on interior finishes in the corridors and exists is the third state

within that building safety feature. Each of the critical elements are listed

beneath the name of the building safety feature. In all cases the units

(e.g., linear feet, square feet, etc.) are explicitly spelled out. Every

effort was made to request only information which was readily available (e.g.,

by counting or taking off an existing set of floor plans) and could be easily

verified if questions arose. The worksheet is shown as exhibit 3.1. The

retrofit measures which the data from the worksheet permit the program to

consider are summarized in table 3.3. Associated with each potential retrofit

is a set of information on the one or more elements which must be treated to

move to a higher state. For example, the number of "No Door" charges within

the fire zone that would have to be removed in order to ensure that all doors

had a fire rating of 20 minutes. All of this information is then stored in an "element count matrix." The product of the element count matrix and the

element cost matrix, which is an integral part of the FSESCM program, yields

the total cost associated with each potential retrofit. In order to address a variety of "what if" questions, the user has the option to modify the costs of a particular retrofit, the score required to pass, or both.

19
Table

3.1

Input

Data

Requirements

for

the

FSESCM

Computer

Program

05

COoa

bOc

*H13

(0 32ko

1-)

CO X

13 • k >s 4-1 0) C k •H i-l • E CO H 05 P 0) o a; H CO u cr U-l u 4J u k (J 05 05 CO CO k i

*4

4J E

CO

k CO COc4-1 CO 0) CO k k k 0 • > X 0) 4 lj P iH 4J k • 4J o > a 0) o 4-> c a) 05 X c U-l UH a 6 X k y X «H T3 rH CO o • E bC P c

4J c o CO rH

k 05 •pH 4J • 3 CO CO k rH 4J 05 rH X CO

k • c o H 4J rH CO •pH X 05 0) O c o k CO c C CO U-l E CO U-l Uh p •pH bC •pH o o k k O p 4-1 u 4J 4J •pH a 0) O k C c o

CO 4J e 4-1 c U-l 4J 05 4J 4J 0

15 3 * CO 05 * u 05 05 0) 0) •pH 05 o

0) £ • 0 k • p

M be CO

k 4J

U 05 Uh pH

X o X

u 0) sO

k o 0) CO •H > CO

05 Uh U-l •u E 0)k 0) 4-1 Uh

O CO

k

•H c 0)

k 4-1 0) CO 05

X • OX CO 05 E O c •H rH o •H rH c 4-5 a 4J T3 bC

•H X) Uh

X o 05 pH CO

kO c O

U-l 05 CO CO

u

X U-l • CO 0) U-i 4J •H 13

k

H CO 05H 4J o CNI

u c XO 13

05

O 4J o U-lG •pH bCu rH

O

Xb UH CO •H Uh o U-l 05 4J 05 CO 2 k a; •H 4-1

4-5 o o k o • o p •pH

k

k 0) 4J

k

ua CO 05 rH

X

k 4J

X CO £ 4J

k

O CO :» 05k 0) CO •H P CO CO E 0)

—

CO o U-l c 05 pH O k 0) k > X O c P k X • X Uh E > CO k O 4-5 O X o X C 4-1 u co 3 O P •H c u 0) a 05 a 0) CJ 4-1 co rH 4J rH 4-1 o 05 CO E CO X B 4) 0) 4-1 B CNJ 05 o CO •H X C0 4J k5 3 £ 05 CO • X u tH bO 4-1 05 k 05 rH • B k 05 k fO

CO rH 05 0)

X CO

X CO CO C/5 CO •H 4J

O

X bC rH CO CO k k • CO 4J a 4J 05 05 05 05 k C 00 Uh CO O 05 4J 0) rH 05 c *H C 4J 05 1 i k pH

bo •H C/5

k CO «H 05 bC CO •H

X •pH P 4-1 13

k

a f£ c O Uh 4J O •H UH 4-1 c u 3 CO H X 05 05 P CO •H 4J •H CO Uh k •H o •pH u k H k •pH E CO £ k s CO 4J rH a p 0) U 05 c 05 05 05 k CO » y 05 rH

•H o 0) T-> •a 4J 05 Uh 05 UH 4J 05

U 4-»

k

O -H 4J 05 rH 05

CO

X

a T3 c CO a. uha 0) 05 4J CO c 05 05 05

X 5 CO < COB CO < o CO

O co aw

J

w COH CO

k

05 XI

13Cpok

bO Ua

CO

0)

COoX

COk

0) Xsi

05 4J c CO c o 4J o X CO •H a

4-1 05 05

CO rHk

O 05 P Q H 4-5 X CO 13 c CO 05 T3 C o 4-5 Ck C CO CO •pH e

CO

k 4J 05 CO > C 05 CO •H k 4J CO

05O 05

H

a 4J 05 05 4J s co an Q CO 4J Uh c

COk >>

a

X CU 0) COp

05

H VH i

CO 5

Ck 4J 05 UH CO o

>% bO rH c Ok bO

4J 4-5

C P o CO c 4J

•rH CJHt

N

k CL •rH

C

rH CO 13 05 13 05

•pH 45H 45 05X -X rH

B

a

C

H 00

k

B co •H 05

co

O P o •H P *H P pH

Ck

U S3U Ck z c* 03

U

ao u

0)a

CO

20

*Table 6

of

the

Fire

Zone

Safety

Evaluation

Worksheet

defines

the

mandatory

safety

requirements

for

containment,

extinguishment

and

people
Table 3.2 User Options Available with the FSESCM Computer Program

Option Purpose

SOLVE Causes an optimum solution for the fire zone input to be generated. A set of retrofit

strategies which satisfy all of the requirements

of the Life Safety Code as well as several

building design criteria is also generated.

CHANGE Adjusts the state transition cost to the value

specified by the user.

REQUIR Increases a safety requirement by a percentage

specified by the user.

NEXT Tells the program to look for data on the next

fire zone or the next building.

LAST Signals that all data for the building under

study have been analyzed and that the solutions

for the total building should be output.

TEST Checks all input data for consistency.

FINAL Tells the program to stop; all data for the run have been output.

21
Exhibit 3.1 FSESCM Cost Estimation Worksheet

For Zone(s) , Floor(s) .

1. CONSTRUCTION current state number

If current condition of the fire zone is due to the failure of certain

walls, beams, or columns to meet the minimum fire resistance ratings:

A. Estimate the area of bearing walls and partitions which could be

re-sheathed to meet the requirements:

square feet.

B. Estimate the length of columns and of beams needing

protection:

linear feet of columns.

linear feet of beams.

C. Estimate the area of decking needing protection:

square feet.

2. INTERIOR FINISH (CORRIDORS AND EXITS) current state number

Estimate the total area which would need to be refinished to meet a higher rating:

A. Ceilings:

1) Area of class C finish: square feet.

2) Area of class B finish: square feet.

B. Walls:

1) Area of class C finish: square feet.

2) Area of class B finish: square feet.

C. Carpeting:

Area of existing carpet: square feet.*

*Class I requirement applies only to new facilities and newly

installed carpet in existing facilities.

22
Exhibit 3.1 (continued)

3. INTERIOR FINISH (ROOMS) current state number.

Estimate the total area which would need to be refinished to meet a higher

rating:

A. Ceilings:

1) Area of class C finish: square feet.

2) Area of class B finish: square feet.

B. Walls:

1) Area of class C finish: square feet.

2) Area of class B finish: square feet.

4. CORRIDOR PARTITIONS/WALLS current state number.

A. Estimate length of partition needed where none now exists:

linear feet.

B. Estimate length of partition which is incomplete from ceiling to slab:

linear feet.

C. Estimate length of partitions currently rated:

Less than 1/3-HR: linear feet.

1/3-HR to 1-HR: linear feet.

D. Number and area of see-through panels with ordinary glass:

1) Use existing frame: Number , area in square inches . 2) Requires new frame: Number , area in square inches .

5. DOORS TO CORRIDOR current state number.

A. Number of doorways without doors:

single; double.

B. Number of doorways where both door and frame are deficient (e.g.,

hollow wood door in wood frame)

single; double.

23
Exhibit 3.1 (continued)

C. Number of doorways where door only is deficient (e.g., hollow wood

door in steel frame):

single; double.

D. Number of doors without closers which can normally stand closed (e.g.,

lounges, offices, utility spaces, etc.): .

E. Number of doors without closers which must normally stand open (e.g.,

patient rooms): .

F. Number of doors with broken or no latch:

G. Number of doors with ordinary glass view panel:

6. ZONE DIMENSIONS current state number.

A. If long dead ends, can a cross connection be made to a parallel

corridor?

If yes, linear feet of connection.

B. If no, number of stairways needed to reduce dead ends to:

Less than 30 feet: interior floors; exterior floors

Less than 50 feet: interior floors; exterior floors

Less than 100 feet: interior floors

exterior floors

If a new smoke partition was installed to reduce zone dimensions:

a. Can existing walls be used from outside walls to the new corridor

partition? •

b. If no, give linear feet of new partition required:

linear feet slab to slab; linear feet ceiling to slab.

c. Number of duct penetrations without smoke dampers: .

7. VERTICAL OPENINGS current state number.

A. Number of doors needed where existing enclosure is otherwise acceptable:

doors and frames; doors only.

B. Estimated area to be sheathed where existing framing is acceptable:

floors; square feet per floor; doors per floor.

C. Estimated area to be framed and sheathed:

floors; square feet per floor; doors per floor.

24
8. Exhibit 3.1 (continued)

HAZARDOUS AREAS current state number.

List floor area and current information for each:

Area Score Sprinklered? Enclosure? Doors? Special

Cl-HR >1-HR <B >B Notes

#1 square feet

#2 square feet

#3 square feet

#4 square feet

#5 square feet

9. SMOKE CONTROL current state number.

A. Number of floors without smoke partitions: .

NOTE: Mechancially assisted systems require individual design and cost

estimation.

10. EMERGENCY MOVEMENT ROUTES current state number.

A. If a new horizontal exit was installed:

a. Can existing partitions be used from outside walls to the partition?

Yes; No.

NOTE: Horizontal exits must be continuous to the ground.

b. If no, give linear feet of new 2-HR partition required:

slab to slab; ceiling to slab.

c. Number of duct penetrations without fire dampers .

B. Number of deficient exits:

Reason for deficiency: insufficient enclosure fire resistance;

inadequate dimensions.

C. Number of emergency lights needed: .

11. MANUAL FIRE ALARM current state number.

Is there currently a fire alarm system which could be expanded?

yes; no.

A. Number of pull stations needed to have one at every exit and nursing station:

B. Fire department connection currently provided?

yes; no.

25
Exhibit 3.1 (continued)

12. SMOKE DETECTION AND ALARM current state number.

A. Length of corridors not now protected:

linear feet.

B. Number of patient rooms not now protected:

C. Total floor area of all spaces over 600 square feet not now protected:

square feet.

D. Number of non-patient rooms not now protected:

E. Number of bathrooms and closets:

13. AUTOMATIC SPRINKLERS current state number.

A. Type of system desired:

(1) (wet, exposed); (2) (wet, concealed);

(3) (dry, exposed); (4) (dry, concealed).

B. Eas the existing water supply been determined to be adequate for

sprinkler systems?

(1) adequate; (2) not adequate;

(3) not determined.

C. Length of corridors not now protected:

linear feet.

D. Number of rooms not now protected:

<200 square feet ; 200-400 square feet ; 400-600 square feet .

E. Total floor area of all spaces (including any wards) over 600 square

feet not now protected:

square feet.

F. Total floor area of building (zone):

square feet.

0. Number of bathrooms and closets:

2<S
Table 3.3 Retrofit Measures Considered by the FSESCM Computer Program

Building Safety Feature Retrofit

1. Construction Re sheath walls and partitions

Protect columns

Protect beams

Protect decking

2. Interior Finish

(Corridors and Exits)

Coat walls with retardant

Coat ceilings with retardant

Install carpet

3. Interior Finish (Rooms) Coat walls with retardant

Coat ceilings with retardant

4. Corridor Partitions/Walls Install partition slab to slab

Extend existing partitions to slab

Replace see-through panels and frames

Replace see-through panels only

Install dryvall

5. Doors to Corridor Replace doors and frames

Replace doors only

Replace latch

Replace view panel

Install closers

6 . Zone Dimensions Install cross connection

Install stairway

Install smoke partition

7. Vertical Openings Frame and sheath

Sheath only

Install doors and frames

Install doors only

8. Hazardous Areas Install sprinklers

Install Class B door

Install dryvall

9. Smoke Control Install smoke partition

10. Emergency Movement Routes Install emergency lighting

Install horizontal exit

11. Manual Fire Alarm Install pull station

Connect to fire department

12. Smoke Detection and Alarm Install ionization detectors

13. Automatic Sprinklers Install wet system

Install drv svstem
The information identified in the sequence of steps outlined above is all that

is required to exercise the FSESCM program. The FSESCM program is written in

FORTRAN, a widely-used language for scientific and technical applications, and

complies with the specifications for the full FORTRAN 77 language defined in

the X3.9 ANSI standard. (It is not necessary for the user to understand

FORTRAN in order to exercise the program.) The model is designed to be run on any system which: (1) complies with the X3.9 ANSI standard; and (2) can accomodate intermediate sized programs. Compliance with the subset standard can also be achieved with a modest amount of reprogramming. This section has

not focused on the mechanics through which the computerized procedure operates

and generates solutions. The intent of this section was to provide a general

overview rather than stress programming details. For those readers interested

in the steps which must be taken in order to use the procedure, two companion

reports have been prepared. ^ The companion reports consist of step-by-step

instructions for using the program (User’s Manual) as well as program

documentation, flow charts, format statements, sample computer runs, and a complete listing of the FSESCM program (Programmer's Manual).

The program does have several limitations which may be important in certain

instances. First, the costing procedure used in the model is limited to the

costs of installing (including any demolition and removal costs) all possible

combinations of the fire safety measures defined in Table 4 of the Fire Zone

Safety Evaluation Worksheet. Consequently, any costs which are not

construction related (e.g., lost revenues, future operations and maintenance

costs and insurance differentials) are not included in the procedure. If

these costs are deemed sufficiently important, a life-cycle cost analysis of

the alternatives which result from this procedure should be performed. The

accuracy of the costs presented by the model should be sufficient to

discriminate among alternative solutions; however, these costs should not be

used as a firm figure for actually carrying out the work.

Second, FSESCM does not contain a procedure for estimating the costs of

mechanically assisted smoke control systems. Thus, if a transition to the

mechanically assisted by zone state is desired, the user must input a cost

estimate via the CHANGE option (see table 3.2). A similar limitation exists

for the direct exit state for emergency movement routes. The user can,

however, input a cost estimate by using the CHANGE option. There are two

states listed in Table 4 of the Fire Safety Evaluation Worksheet which FSESCM

^American National Standards Institute, American National Standard Programming

Lanugage FORTRAN , ANSI X3. 9-1978, New York, 1978.

^The federal standard for FORTRAN is: U.S. Department of Commerce, National

Bureau of Standards, Federal Information Processing Standards Publication 69 , September 1980. It is identical to the ANSI standard.

3 R.E. Chapman and W. G. Hall, User’s Manual for The Fire Safety Evaluation

System Cost Mlnimizer Computer Program , National Bureau of Standards, NBSIR

(in preparation).

^R.E. Chapman and W. G. Hall, Programmer's Manual for the Fire Safety

Evaluation System Cost Minimizer Computer Program , National Bureau of

Standards, NBSIR (in preparation).

28
treats as impossible; they are cases where a hazardous area has either a double or single deficiency outside the fire zone. These states are precluded

because the entire cost of upgrading the deficiency is allocated to the fire zone where the deficiency occurs. If a building enters with such a set of

deficiencies which can not be removed, then the user must preclude all states

but the one input for each hazardous area. Since this will affect the set of

solutions based on the prespecified set of design variable qualifiers, its use

is not recommended.

Third, given the current procedure for insuring the compatibility of a set of

designs for the entire facility, a limitation of 10 fire zones for any one building is imposed. The maximum of 10 can be increased however, by merely

increasing one set of storage capacity statements. For some specific uses,

the way in which alternative solutions are generated .may not provide enough

flexibility. In such a case, a modification to the program code will be

required. Persons wishing to modify the way in which the alternative

solutions are generated should carefully follow the directions given in the

Programmer’s Manual.

Although the procedure described in this report focuses on the 1981 edition of

the Life Safety Code, it is natural to expect that some changes will occur as the code is periodically revised. Any changes which would occur in future

editions of the Life Safety Code will thus entail changes to the FSESCM

computer program. The nature of the change will determine the ease with which

program modifications can be made. At this time three types of changes are envisioned. In an increasing order of complexity these changes are:

(1) increasing or decreasing one or more of the state values; (2) adding a new

state to a given building safety feature; (3) adding a new building safety

feature. (Although shortcuts may be possible, decisions to delete a state or

a building safety feature would be of a similar level of complexity as those

changes denoted as (2) and (3), respectively.) The way in which each change can be incorporated into the FSESCM computer program is discussed in detail in

the Programmer's Manual. The discussion which follows is intended to

illustrate the nature of the change without stressing programming details.

Modifying the program to handle a change in one or more of the state values is a straight-forward operation. Since the state values may affect one or more

of the safety requirements, however, it may be necessary to revise both the

counterparts of Table 4 of the Fire Zone Safety Evaluation Worksheet and Table

6. (Both are stored within the program.) It is also necessary to check if

any interdependencies among building safety features are affected and if so adjust them to reflect the new value(s).

29
If a new state is added to the system, then Table 4 and Table 6 must be

revised as before. It will also be necessary to add the new state name to the

list used for table headings and solution labels. It will also be necessary

to check if either a new interdependency comes into play or the relationship

specified in an existing one requires modification. The addition of a new state will also affect the logic of the program; in particular, the way in

which the first class of alternative solutions is generated. The nature of

the change relates to an iterative scheme known as looping. Depending on the

building safety feature, it may also be necessary to change the dimensions of

certain arrays. If a new interdependency comes into play then additional

logic must be provided to insure that all penalties or bonuses are properly

recorded.

The addition of a new building safety feature affects not only Tables 4 and 6

but also Table 5 since the means for computing the safety score provided

within the fire zone must be specified. The generation of the first class of

alternative solutions will be affected significantly. The generation of the

second class, design equivalent solutions, may also be affected since it may

be desirable to add two or more states for this feature to the ones listed in

table 3.4 in the next section. Arrays will definitely have to be

redimensioned and logic to check for interdependencies or pecularities of the

new building safety feature will have to be added.

The previous discussion has focused on the equivalency methodology for health

care facilities. There are, however, other equivalency methodologies

currently under development. These methodologies treat occupancies which

differ from those specified in chapters 12 and 13 of the Life Safety Code. At

the present time, the methodology which is nearest to completion deals with

board and care homes.* This system represents only a slight variation from

the one considered in this report. Therefore it is reasonable to expect that

the FSESCM computer program could be modified to handle the new system once it

has been formally adopted into the Life Safety Code. A preliminary analysis

of the program indicates that it would be preferable to design a new procedure

which, if desired, could handle this occupancy as a special case. The reasons for not recommending the board and care home methodology for incorporation

into the FSESCM program are twofold. First, the methodology for board and care homes is in reality three evaluation systems. There are separate

worksheets for small dwelling units, large residential facilities and

apartment buildings. Each worksheet stresses different building safety

features and hence would have different data collection needs. Second, the

concept of design equivalent solutions would have to be redefined. The two

issues just mentioned would require the design of a procedure which was highly

modular so that components for each facility type would plug into a main

*H. E. Nelson, et al .. Fire Safety Evaluation System for Board and Care Homes , National Bureau of Standards, NBSIR (in preparation).

30
program which controls the flow of information in solving the problem.

Although the FSESCM computer program is modular in its structure, which

facilitates incorporating those modifications needed to handle the three types

of changes mentioned earlier, there is not a good match betwewen the types of

modules which make up the FSESCM and those needed to handle board and care homes. If a decision is made to build a model which handles board and care homes, it would be possible to include as options the opportunity for handling

hospitals and nursing homes. Much of the current procedure could then be

"plugged in" to handle these options. Although the programming effort to

build such a procedure would be significant, the basic method of approach

would be identical to that of the FSESCM.

3.2 THE PROGRAM OUTPUT AND ITS INTERPRETATION

The information printed out by the FSESCM program fits into three major

classes, which are summarized schematically in figure 3.2.

The first class consists of background information and includes a title page

and Tables 1, 6 and 4 of the Fire Zone Safety Evaluation Worksheet. The title

page also serves as a mailing label and identifies the appropriate staff

member to contact in the event that a problem is encountered in analyzing the

facility. The three tables from the worksheet are included in order to show

how the occupancy risk factors are used to calculate the general safety

requirement, what values for containment, extinguishment and people movement

safety are required for equivalance, and the full range of state values which

contribute toward fire zone safety.

The second class consists of reference data and solutions. This class is

output for each fire zone. These outputs consist of a summary of all data

input for the fire zone, the estimated costs of moving from the input state to

each potential retrofit, and all distinct solutions generated for the fire zone. The input summary provides the user with a concise statement of the

data used in setting up the problem for solution. It provides the user an opportunity to check the correctness of any values input as well as a means of

differentiating among several runs for the same fire zone. This summary shows

the location of the fire zone, the number of patients and the appropriate set

of occupancy risk factors for the fire zone under study. Data on each of the

13 building safety features are then printed out. These data show the input

and prescriptive state and the number of elements which must be upgraded in

order to move to a higher state. The costs of moving from the input state to

all potential retrofits are then presented. This output includes the location

of the fire zone and three types of construction cost modifiers. The

modifiers are needed because all costs stored within the FSESCM program

reflect the cost of installing a particular element (e.g., installing a class

B door in a hazardous area) in the greater Washington, D. C. metropolitan area during the summer of 1981. Consequently, it is not only necessary to adjust

31
for regional price differences in the markets for labor services and building

materials, but also to adjust for cost growth over time. All three of these

cost factors are readily available from construction industry publications.

Each of the 13 building safety features is then printed out. The data show

the input and prescriptive states and the estimated cost of going to each

potential retrofit. The cost of prescriptive compliance for the fire zone is

also shown as a basic reference point. The fire zone summary report is then

output. This report shows each distinct solution generated as a line of

output. Each of the first 13 columns corresponds to a building safety

feature. The fourteenth through seventeenth give the surplus over each of the

four safety requirements. The eighteenth column is the estimated cost to

comply. In order to easily identify a particular solution, and for ease in

differentiating among solutions, the state name is printed beneath each of the

13 building safety feature column headings. The state names closely resemble

(and hence can be easily matched to) the labels in Table 4 of the Fire Zone

Safety Evaluation Worksheet. The order in which the solutions are output is

based on the 40 design classifications. The design variable qualifiers used

in establishing the 40 design classifications and the order in which they are generated is shown in table 3.4. All solutions are printed out in ascending

order of cost within a design classification. The program then outputs the

solution(s) for the next design classification for which at least one solution

was generated until the list is exhausted. The prescriptive solution is then

output. Three other groups of solutions are also output. They are: (1)

solutions which have no deficiencies in hazardous areas but do not belong to one of the design classifications; (2) solutions which have a single

deficiency in a hazardous area; and (3) solutions which have a double

deficiency in a hazardous area.

The third class of outputs consists of the best solutions by design

classification for the entire building. The design classification solutions

are generated and stored for each fire zone. Once all data on the fire zones have been input and analyzed, all solutions are screened. The ones which

match the prespecified set of design variable qualifiers are identified. If

every fire zone input has at least one solution which was identified as a member of the design classification under consideration, then a solution for

the entire building is generated. This printout gives the design variable

qualifiers, the total cost of retrofitting the building for this design

classification and the total cost of prescriptive compliance for the building

under study. The prescriptive solution serves as a bench mark for comparison.

The design classification solutions are printed out in ascending order to

estimated retrofit cost for the entire building to facilitate comparison among

competing design alternatives. With two exceptions, a separate heading for

the floor and fire zone number, the column headings for the output are the same as those for the fire zone summary report. In order to facilitate the

identification of each solution, the state names for each of the 13 building

safety features are printed out as are the surpluses and retrofit cost for

each fire zone. Each fire zone takes up one line in the printout. If one or more fire zones did not contain this design class, no printout for the entire

bulding is generated. Should the user wish such a retrofit, it would be

necessary to synthesize it from the individual fire zone printouts.

32
Figure 3. 2 Outputs of the FSESCM Computer Program

C/3 o ae C0 o

H- Z 0l —1 3 «

O 3 >-

C/3 oq aec z i *

CD £ z

00

UJ O =3

1— CO a

I— 00 COHco

aeoa. o UJ p 09 ae ZD 1— >- H=<

_Jo

00 >

u.oae

ae«

Z

UJ o

as<C

1—

UJ O z z ae CO z o UJ 23 UJ 00UJ

Ll_

CO

1— I—

«Cz

oINI UJ

00

3Ok. h-CO

Ul

OS “ UJ u.

o OC

CD

sco<

00

C9<a.

co

</) UJCO

33
Table 3.4 Design Variable Qualifiers Used in Establishing the 40

Design Classifications

Emergency Smoke

Hazardous Zone Movement Detection Automatic

Areas Construction Dimensions Routes and Alarm Sprinklers

NO DEF RESIST NO DED HOR*EX INPUT INPUT

NO DEF PROTECT NO DED HOR*EX INPUT INPUT

NO DEF RESIST DED*30 HOR*EX INPUT INPUT

NO DEF PROTECT DED*30 HOR*EX INPUT INPUT

NO DEF RESIST NO DED NO H*E INPUT INPUT

NO DEF PROTECT NO DED NO H*E INPUT INPUT

NO DEF RESIST DED*30 NO H*E INPUT INPUT

NO DEF PROTECT DED*30 NO H*E INPUT INPUT

NO DEF RESIST NO DED HOR*EX CORHAB INPUT

NO DEF PROTECT NO DED HOR*EX CORHAB INPUT

NO DEF RESIST DED*30 HOR*EX CORHAB INPUT

NO DEF PROTECT DED*30 HOR*EX CORHAB INPUT

NO DEF RESIST NO DED NO H*E CORHAB INPUT

NO DEF PROTECT NO DED NO H*E CORHAB INPUT

NO DEF RESIST DED*30 NO H*E CORHAB INPUT

NO DEF PROTECT DED*30 NO H*E CORHAB INPUT

NO DEF RESIST NO DED HOR*EX INPUT CORHAB

NO DEF PROTECT NO DED HOR*EX INPUT CORHAB

NO DEF RESIST DED*30 HOR*EX INPUT CORHAB

NO DEF PROTECT DED*30 HOR*EX INPUT CORHAB

NO DEF RESIST NO DED NO H*E INPUT CORHAB

NO DEF PROTECT NO DED NO H*E INPUT CORHAB

NO DEF RESIST DED*30 NO H*E INPUT CORHAB

NO DEF PROTECT DED*30 NO H*E INPUT CORHAB

NO DEF RESIST NO DED HOR*EX TTLZON INPUT

NO DEF PROTECT NO DED HOR*EX TTI.ZON INPUT

NO DEF RESIST DED*30 HOR*EX TTLZON INPUT

NO DEF PROTECT DED*30 HOR*EX TTLZON INPUT

NO DEF RESIST NO DED NO H*E TTLZON INPUT

NO DEF PROTECT NO DED NO H*E TTLZON INPUT

NO DEF RESIST DED*30 NO H*E TTLZON INPUT

NO DEF PROTECT DED*30 NO H*E TTLZON INPUT

NO DEF RESIST NO DED HOR*EX INPUT TTLBLD

NO DEF PROTECT NO DED HOR*EX INPUT TTLBLD

NO DEF RESIST DED*30 HOR*EX INPUT TTLBLD

NO DEF PROTECT DED*30 HOR*EX INPUT TTLBLD

NO DEF RESIST NO DED NO H*E INPUT TTLBLD

NO DEF PROTEC NO DED NO H*E INPUT TTLBLD

NO DEF RESIST DED*30 NO H*E INPUT TTLBLD

NO DEF PROTEC DED*30 NO H*E INPUT TTLBLD
3.3 A CASE STUDY

The purpose of this section is to demonstrate how one would apply the FSESCM

program to a typical hospital. The hospital analyzed in the case study is

thought to be typical of many facilities since it consists of the original

(1917) building and a post World War II addition (1959). The layout of the

patient room floors is shown in figure 3.3; it is treated as a single fire

zone. The overall length of the fire zone is approximately 180 feet. The

exterior bearing walls of the original structure do, however, provide an excellent opportunity for installing a horizontal exit to reduce the overall

dimensions of the fire zone. Each floor of the facility contains 22 patient

rooms and covers a total floor area of 11,000 square feet.

As mentioned earlier, the data from the FSESCM Cost Estimation Worksheet

(exhibit 3.1) are reviewed and pieced together until they roughly resemble the

retrofits specified in table 3.3. The data are then used to set up the

problem for solution by the FSESCM program. Four types of output information

are shown as exhibits 3.2 through 3.9. Each exhibit is divided into two

parts. Part A is a sample output and Part B is an interpretation of the

information printed out. The outputs for which samples are provided are: (1)

the input summary (exhibit 3.2); (2) the summary of estimated retrofit costs

(exhibit 3.3); (3) the fire zone summary report (exhibit 3.4); and (4) the

total building summary report (exhibits 3.5 through 3.9). No samples are shown for the outputs described earlier as background information (the title

page and Tables 1, 6 and 4 from the Fire Zone Safety Evaluation Worksheet)

because it was felt the information contained on them was self explanatory.

It is important to point out that exhibits 3.2 through 3.9 are samples

selected to illustrate specific points and as such do not constitute the

complete output for the building being analyzed. For example, exhibits 3.2

through 3.4 are the outputs associated with the patient room floors (floors 3

through 9) and hence do not contain laboratories, heavy equipment areas, or other areas which may call for special treatment. Those readers wishing to see the full set of inputs and outputs for the building analyzed are referred

to the User's Manual.

For purposes of illustration, the total building summary reports presented as exhibits 3.5 through 3.9 will be analyzed in some detail. The relative costs,

as a percentage of the prescriptive compliance costs, are shown in figure 3.4.

This figure shows that the range of cost savings is quite dramatic, with the

best solution from among the 40 design classifications costing only 10 percent

of the prescriptive compliance solution. The solutions shown in figure 3.4

were selected to illustrate another point, namely that the requirement for the

inclusion of a high cost option (e.g., the installation of an exit stairwell

to remove a dead end corridor charge) can be accomplished at a significant

savings in overall compliance costs. This result is due to the way in which

the procedure upgrades the building safety features not constrained by the

design variable qualifiers. There are circumstances under which the

additional cost of compliance can be traced to a particular option, however.

For example, the best solution for the building, presented as exhibit 3.5 (bar

A on figure 3.4), costs slightly over $30,000. If we now require smoke

detection and alarm in all corridors and habitable spaces, hold all other

35
Figure 3.3 Layout of the Patient Room Floors for the Case Study Building

36

Graphic

Scale
design variable qualifiers constant, and let the remaining building safety

features be upgraded In the most cost-effective manner, the total cost for the

building rises to around $110,000 (bar B on figure 3.4), In this case, the

additional cost of compliance Is due almost entirely to the installation of

smoke detection and alarm equipment. Requiring smoke detection and alarm in

the total space (bar C on figure 3.4) has a similar effect. This imples that some care should be exercised in deciding on whether to cover corridors and

habitable spaces only or to go for covering the total space. A similar

conclusion results if automatic sprinkler systems are considered. In

exhibit 3.8 (bar D on figure 3.4), the dead end corridor charge on floors 3

through 9 is removed through the installation of an exit stairwell. In this case the cost of compliance of $215,000, is approximately 30 percent less

expensive than the prescriptive compliance solution. Another important factor

concerns the surpluses over the 4 safety requirements. In almost all cases the fire zones within a design classification exceed the requirements by

several points. The surpluses therefore serve both as a buffer against future

changes in safety requirements and provide information which may be useful in

choosing among retrofit packages which are close in cost to each other.

37
Exhibit 3.2 Sample Output Summarizing the Data Input for a Typical Fire Zone

Part A: Printout

CL * oooor*ooo « * o

£ » o * • o * o

z z

3 * oooooooo X o r* o o o

• * o CN £ • O * + o O * o z

z z UJ

a. * a O OCDOOOCDOOO oooooooo x o r- o o o * X < O- CN <T to CN

CC • O

— o » CN o

ft * u UJ o z

o o o z UJ

CN 3 * o o o X * 20)0000 0)00 oooooooo X o o o o o

n * < < o *- ft O <T CM O —

CC * < < r* • ft CN ft 1 o ft < < co * o o

* * < < S ft UJ UJ z o o o UJ

a. * ft o o X ft soooooooo o** ***

D • * • • ft to * * CD ft CD O <0 * o cn ID******* • ft ft ft ft ft LLi U. ft CD ft CD ft- N * CM • ftftftftftftft CM ft ft ft * * O 2 ft CD * CD *

* * CO ft CD ft- - UJftftftftftft* a. * ft ft ft ft o O -J _j Q o

z•—1 • 3 * * o o z * CC oooooooo Oftftftftftftft TJ- ft ft ft ft ft — * • U ft u ft ft o Oftftftftftft* UJ ft ft *

U_ ft u * o \ ft o — ftftftftftftft O * ft ft ft ft Ui 3 * a ft u Z ft o

-J * * o * o O ft o UJftftftftftft* a. * * ft ft •

CD

' CJ z z a o

>- <

cc< CC X £ o X u ft CD CO — o o CM

to s CD CD 1 CN 3 UJ o CD CD CO o

CO CC u CO CD N UJ o z

o Q. z o z UJ

»- CD 3 CN

CL CC CC CC o X

z (O ft- ft < o I o CO —

ft- 3 s < u o ft • z CL o <1 o a o o

Hi z u <* u UJ o UJ z *—

H z o z o UJ

ft- <

Q- - to

-J X — UJ <2

o

UJ z a

CC < z

UJ 3 to < z ft- a s o < CC o (O

Nj UJ o o z

u. o CC o CC to o o

>• I X ft- o to z

to ft- to CO M H z H

UJ M H H CC o z

u. z z z CC CC UJ y < o M M < o to a. CC to u. u. a o z o

Q »- UJ 5 O u a oc cr o £ -J

-I Z 3 o o O ft- M «* U- a H •-ft o o u

o - CK CC ft to ft

_J to UJ UJ CC CC UJ ft- z b- *— CC o z CC 3 o z z O o o UJ

CO o *"* o a NJ >

_ CM CO O' to (0

38
Exhibit 3.2 Sample Output Summarizing the Data Input for a Typical Fire Zone

Part B: Description

The purpose of this printout is to summarize the data used in setting up the

problem for solution. It is also useful in distinguishing among runs when a sensitivity analysis is performed. The first descriptive line shows the

location of the fire zone, the number of patients and the state numbers for

Table 1 of the Fire Zone Safety Evaluation Worksheet. In this case the zone aggregates data on floors 3 through 9 of the facility. Each of the 13

building safety features is then listed. The two columns to the right of the

building safety feature name show the input and prescriptive states. Up to 7 columns are then used to show the number of elements which must be upgraded in

order to move to a higher state. The actual element counts consist of from 1 to 8 rows depending on the building safety feature and its condition. If the

building safety feature was input in the highest state, then only one row is

used regardless of the number of elements which can be treated. If the

building safety feature was not in the highest state, then each row corresponds to a particular element. For example, the two rows associated

with interior finish in rooms correspond to the square feet of walls and

ceilings which would have to be coated with retardant in order to move to

Class B or Class A flame spread ratings. In interpreting the values, it is

necessary to note that the symbol ****** indicates that the state whose name appears above it not a permissible retrofit. This may result because the

state is below the input and hence would result in a regression in score

(e.g., construction is already in the highest state) or it is precluded on engineering grounds. The states which are permissible have either a value of zero or some positive integer recorded. For example, 0 square feet of walls

and 700 square feet of ceilings must be coated with retardant in order to move

to either the Class B or Class A flame spread rating for interior finishes in rooms. The second page of the printout consists of data on building safety

features 8 through 13. These data are not reproduced since their

interpretation is the same as given above.

39
Exhibit 3.3 Sample Output Showing the Estimated Cost for Each Potential

Retrofit for a Typical Fire Zone

Part A: Printout

o

o

CO

-J<

cl O

*3

o

o • z *

o o

O <0

• GO o cm Z Cl

OLUI 3 • o o z o u. O >- • z in

b~ • » O (0 CM *T UJ «- a • O

< X * w *— V O 10 UJ * m in X o * CO U (0 a * -1 CM o * O Cl z o »4 * H- CM o

z z ci UJ z a * »- o

a. * CL O u n o o z in H * H- (0 as m

• * z < V in o cm <o 3 * — O < —

CL « o o - n • 10 O * K *“ X 10

CL o • Cl O) + ID u m -J k UJ 0) CL <T o « • UI uj n O 01 z o * * ^ O 10

03 CJ ft O o z - UJ CO ft z U

< 3 * O * Z * X co o o Z O z o z • UJ o z o

in * * < < V * o 5 CO o • ft o in o

b~ • • CL ft < < 10 • ft CM O ft i rsi « z CJ X in to in o * < < co O Q CJ _j O • o o CM o <r ft * < < N * UJ CO UJ z o UJ * \ o o o UJ o v- ft O o UJ m X ft X IL CL

H- U.

*-4 H CL * # z * X CO O ft CO * * z o a o Z ft CL GO

u. Q ft * CD • GO O CO ft O CO in * • ft 3 - < O ft o (0 o O u_ » CO * CD (0 N * CM CM « « CM « o * >- o CJ * o

a x Jf * CD ft GO ft in Q ft « -J ft CL u. o * OL *

»- ft ft CD ft 03 - • h- UJ ft a. * 00 ft < UJ s * o

UJ z u * ft J • -J O ft O * O ft a O X ft o

CL O

O h- 3 * ft o Z ft a o o * <r z * -J ft to ft a « o

UJ < ft » CJ • o 4 ft o o * UJ * *-« • - ft »- ft -j * UJ

h- u li. * a * u \ ft o % O > * U ft OL « < z

< o X ft u * CJ Z ft a O ft * • -j » CM * « o

X mJ * CJ ft CJ O ft o UJ ft a. • 00 ft O ft 1- ft o * z

ft cj * * z • z a * O * O ft Z ft -J ft z *

1/3 in UJ

• a a z X o z li. z UJ z

u. m * GO CO o o CM UJ 1- * o UJ o UJ X CD CO • CM o H- z u z

cr DC o GO 03 CO + CJ cr o o

V O Q. o CD GO \ UJ o z o < N o z

OL *- z O z UJ z a. X u. < CJ 2 < X IL 1- cr cr a o z z z a. z 3 3 « < O z o CO «— M H- < o UJ

in z a. X < CJ T— o ft 1 k- CJ CJ z

I- z o < CJ Q o u -J cr u. o

X H CJ < o UJ O UJ z o < UJ Q z

o z O z o UJ in a o u.

CL(9 k in o UJ <

CJ X in X

o UJ cr UJ »- z »- »- a »- H- h- H- h- h-y H- h- b- < hCL in < in in z in in in in tn to 3 in in -j in

T- 3 o o to o < o o o o o o o o o < o

CJ OL CJ X CJ u CJ u u u CJ a cj CJ CJ < 0L o in Q

UJ UJ 1- O H- O H- Z 1- — b- i- i- h~ »- h- b~ Z »- z u_ O — cr o - cr -4 tO -« Z X • < *-« o Ik. U. u. — u. O u. U. O U. u. U. UJ u. cr a. U. Nl >• o X o z O I- O Q O in o z o in o o X O < o z o

K cr in cr in cr QC *-• cr z cr -4 0L < cr cr ui a -i cr O cr UJ »- *-4 — h h h- cr h- o »- Z H- UJ h- -i *- > - < H- b- u. Z UJ Z UJ Z UJ 0L UJ cr uj —« UJ UJ UJ 0L UI O uj O uj 10 1— 10 co < o cr •-« cr «-• cr < cr O o: in cr CL 0L < cr cr cr X 0L uj cr a cr m ik u a. CJ z o b- cr UJ

I- Q o a a Q uj O a in a z o >- Q ~ o b- a

cr o CJ UJ 0L UI cr uj cr uj O UJ X ui -J UJ 3 UJ O uj CJ UJ Ik. 10 10 10 o z 3 — O f- o *- O f- 1- f- •-4 k- < H- o »- CJ f- Z H- — a b- o M cr < < *-• < a < < Q < CJ < o < < UJ < -j < <

-j a »- X 0L X cr X - X in x X - X cr x UI X O X < s uj X

u. —1 in — UJ —

UJ —cr -• cr — UJ H- >-4 < -• r -4 cr — 3 -4 3T -4 M Z H h- ¥— f- h- cr h- o »- z - o: »- Nl h- o »- UJ b- Z »- o »- 3 o in z in z in o in o in o m uj in < in X to X in < in x m

GO CJ UJ t-i UJ t-» UJ CJ UJ Q UJ NJ UJ > UJ X UJ in uj UJ UJ X uj to uj

CM CO in in GO O) o CM

Cl

ino

inn

CM

uiz

40

AUTOMATIC

SPRINKLERS

NONE

NONE

NONE

CORHAB

TTL8LD

ESTIMATED

RETROFIT

COST

0

137823

222348
Exhibit 3.3 Sample Output Showing the Estimated Cost for Each Potential

Retrofit for a Typical Fire Zone

Part B: Description

This printout shows the estimated costs for all potential retrofits. The

first descriptive line shows the zone location and the values of each of the

three construction cost modifiers. For this case, costs have increased 15

percent over those experienced during the summer of 1981 in the Washington,

D.C. area. Each of the 13 building safety features is then listed. The two

columns to the right of the building safety feature name show the input and

prescriptive states. Up to 7 columns are then used as labels for each

possible state within a building safety feature. The line immediately beneath

the building safety feature name bears the title "Estimated Retrofit Cost"; it

lists the estimated cost for each potential retrofit. In interpreting the

values, it is necessary to note that the symbol ****** indicates that the

state whose name appears above is not a permissible retrofit; it is assigned

an arbitrarily high cost to prevent its occurence. This may result because

the state is below the input and hence would result in a regression in score

(e.g., construction is already in the highest state) or it is precluded on engineering grounds (e.g., mechanically assisted smoke control by zone).

Those states which are permissible have either a value of zero or some positive integer recorded. In each case, the cost of remaining in the input

state is recorded as zero. If desired, this assumption can be modified through

use of the CHANGE option. It may also be possible to move to a higher state

for zero cost if the change is not construction related. The remainder of the

costs are based on the expected cost of upgrading all critical elements

recorded in the previous exhibit. The bottom line of the printout is the

estimated cost of prescriptive compliance. Since some states may already

exceed their prescriptive level, no cost is incurred for that building safety

feature. For all other cases, the cost is the sum of the costs of the

prescriptive compliance state listed under the heading "PRESC".

41
FIRE

20NE

SUMMARY

REPORT

Exhibit 3.4 Sanple Output Showing the Solutions Generated for a Typical

Fire Zone

Part A: Printout

> •|^9fflO9Cn(7iCJlV5)(7» ,T9nn0DCD0>9>^nCDfflf,)nC»<DfflVCD*’O

*- -j nc o>r» — r‘r^^scjia>7JC^vDiOirj^iru'3j^inxcox®in'r*5, cB(Nino

is. o a. D^^^iro«-PiTorC':-noo>ai^ ,;'-r/ oinr(^-oiOOai(vflCD O >- 2 cxffiffij5J)ffiffiffiffi- ® r* — irtonOTifiOMOO^DOincir, — ®a>or>^

o c xrmaffiffi - — — — <<ocxmf^ffiffiffi<ffir^ — ffior'* — rxr'*cxcx<i0 <m

u m — cm ex o — cm n«-n-r)-n**vrt7MM cx — — z O

UJ <> O

co > r> O G Si

-» s a

a: *- 'x 3 x co

co ujz — o CO o

o®Nr'CDNaiMCDNB(flM--vfiO)0>Mnp<fi(OM---a>®onNn-oo-oo--o-r^inM(>iMf>Mfi®ifinnffl(or)nno--C(pin

ooooooooooo977?cocoocDiniAj)inooooonc(r)C(C(M

--n--ninOMnvnnnnmifiintflnnnnNNhNvn7nc<nin

fiOOO O O O O ® ffl ®

U!uJuJUJUJUJUJUJUJUJUJUJUJUJUJ<<<<UJUJUJUJ-J-J-J-JUJUJUJUJ<<< ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZXXXXZZZZSffiffiffiZZZZXXX OOOOOCOOOCOOOOOaffiffiffiOOOO-J-J-J-JOOOOaffia ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZOOOCZZZZ»->-*-*-ZZZZOOO o o o o uuu

2 ffi ® a ffi z z z z ® a ffi ®

UJ _* UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ < < < < UJ UJ UJ UJ o o o o UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ o o CO < UJ o

X < z z z z z z z z z z z z X X X z z Z z NJ fsj NJ N z z z z z o o 2 X z Q

o c c o o o o o c c o o ® ® ® ® 0 o o o -J -J — -J c c o 0 0 ® ® o ® o ®

2 *— z z z z z z z z z z z o o o o z z z z — fr— - - z z z z z o o o o z o

if) UJO

o o u u - — u u ® u u

-J z z 2 z z z z z z z z z z z z z 2 z z z z z z z z z z z z z 2 z z z

< 2 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 6 o o a c o o o o o c o o o o o o o

3 ® u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u

< -j G a o O o o a g a o o a a Q o o O a a o Q o a o Q a c o o a Q a a a

2 < U_U.U_U.U.U-U.U.U_U.U_U.U_U.U_U.U.U-U.U.U.U_U.U.U.U_U_U.U_U_U_CL.U.U_

O Z

cr 2

uj >

2 O

uj 2

HKUJUJUJUjUJUJUJUJUJHKUJUJKh-UJUJKHUJUHHUJUJUJUJaUJV-UJU — — * * * ***—— *******.-.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxuxxxx ujujOOOOOOOOOujujOOujujOOujujOOujujOOOOu.OujOO S\WWN.W* * W* * W* * WWW's* NN ZZ2 322 223 32ZZ33ZZ32ZZ23ZZ323202Z23t

ui O

X CL o -

2 Z

t/i o

uj O

2

< Q

z o: co < <

uj rw uj

rr < cc 3 X <

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ UHUUUUUKUUUUUUUUUHH UUHUUKUUHUUKUUh*

a®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®® <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Q.®a®Q.®Q.aQ.Q.a®a®aaaaa®aaaa®a.aQ.aaa®o.®

U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.ZZ

ii i i < i 1 1 1 n < iii ii

UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ IU UJ UJ UJ + OOOOQOOOOOOGOOQOOOOOOOOQOOOOOOOO -J -I -J ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZCOCOCO

UJ O O

u. — Z

z

> a -*j - uj a.

UJ > O

OOOUOOUOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOUOOOOOOOO zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

U Jj yj y yj yj yj yj yj yj yj yj yj yj yj yj yj yj yj yj y^ yj yj yj yj yj yj yj yj yj yj yj yj yj yj

CO CO O o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

UJ z O ffi ffi G o ffi ffi ffi ffi ffi ffi o ffi in ffi o ffi in ffi o ffi Si ffi o ffi m ffi o ffi ffi ffi ffi ffi ffi ffi o Z CJ z o 2 Q 4 + ( c o o G G Q 4- o *f G 4- o o 4* o 4- Q + o 4- o 4- O Q o G G o G

KJ •— o UJ Q O o UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ o UJ o UJ o UJ o UJ o UJ o UJ o UJ o UJ o UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ a

-j O z O Z z z Q o Q G G G z G z G z G z a z G z O z G z Q z O O Q G G G G

3 CO ® 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 U 2 2 2 2 2 5 5 2 2 X 2 2 X s 5 2 2 2 2 2 ffi 2 2 2

ffi ® o O C O O o O o O O < O o O o O o O O O o O o 6 o o o O O O O O O U O O o u rx rx cx cx Cl Cl cx cx rx o rx rx rx rx ex cx rx rx cx rx cx CJ rx cx rx rx CX CX CX cx cx O rx cx rx O cx G o — *- — y— >- UJ UJ — »— y— k— *— — »— - — *— — - UJ H- H- y- O — H- - -j -* -j -j -J —i -J -j _j O O .j -j —

-j _j —t -j -j -j -J -j —J O -J -J —i z _j _J -J a CO ® ® ® ® ® cr ffi ® ® ffi ffi ffi ® ® ffi ffi ® cr ffi ffi o: ffi ffi o: cr ffi ffi a a a ffi ffi ffi ffi o X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 1

X X X X X

o 32 a os o

<J G. U) C/ Ui UJ UJ Ui ItJ UJ Ii/ UJ UMiJ UJ UJ UJ m W UJ UJ W UJ UI Ui UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ M/ UJ MJ w w ^ w ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

z o

- o

u. ®

< < CD < CD < < ® < CD < < n < m < m < < <2 < CD

z x

1/) UJ — *5 z ® — o

u. O

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

® ®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®

CO 22222222222222222222222222222252222 z ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo O OUUOU<JUUOUU<JUUUUUOUCJUUUCJUUUUO<JOUOUO

u zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

42

IN

PARTTN

W/OH*E

FD

CON

NONE

TTLBLO

5439

338176
I

Exhibit 3. A Sample Output Showing the Solutions Generated for a Typical Fire Zone

Part B: Description

This printout shows all of the distinct solutions generated for the fire zone under study. The first descriptive line shows the fire zone location. Each

of the 13 building safety features are then listed followed by the 4 safety

requirements. The estimated cost to comply is presented in the last column.

The name of the post retrofit state for each of the 13 building safety

features are listed beneath the appropriate column heading. Each solution

takes up one line of the output. The surpluses over the required score for

containment, extinguishment, people movement and general safety are then

recorded. The order in which the solutions are output is based on the 40

design classifications. The following building safety features are used to

define the design classifications: (1) construction; (2) zone dimensions;

(3) hazardous areas; (4) emergency movement routes; (5) smoke detection and

alarm; and (6) automatic sprinklers. All solutions are ranked and printed

out in ascending order of cost. The program then outputs the solution(s) for

the next design classification for which at least one solution was generated

until the list is exhausted. The prescriptive solution is then output. Note

that in this case, the prescriptive solution shows surplus scores on all 4

safety requirments; the estimated cost of prescriptive compliance is $275,052.

The score surpluses are due to some of the input states already exceeding

their prescriptive values. Solutions which do not fit a design classification

are then ranked and printed out according to whether they have no deficiencies, a single deficiency, or a double deficiency in hazardous areas.

43
TOTAL

BUILDING

SUMMARY

REPORT

Exhibit 3.5 Sample Output Showing the Best Combination of Design

Equivalent Solutions

Part A: Printout

cm *

- -J (D id n s

tO O CL co a> o OhS l/> C» CO u oo

z o o 0) c* r** O to

to3 > CO CM O O O -J 2 t/> CLa KCN CO o o o

3 UJ tO to z p- — in <n n

<J V)

<3> CO cr CD GO -j < UJ UJ UJ O 3C X z z z

CO • Z cr o o o

OB o z z z

a o

to N

CO z V UJ -J UJ UJ UJ UJ

.. 01 X < z z z z

to CM o + o o o o — O') z »- z z z z

to UJ z a

o

-i z z z z

H* < z o o o o

< .. 3 a <J u u o

to O to z < M *—< *-4 • i -j O Q O O O U. Z < LL U. u. u.

mJ -« o -i a to z O -i »- to -» UJ K UJ UJ UJ UJ

u. * 3 < a o z ft ft ft ft z a -j -j a z X X X X

in cr z a pm UJ > o o o o

< a. pm 3 z o

4/1 Z CO UJ 2 3 3 3 3

UJ o

a 5 PM to < UJ Jh to PM -j z z z z

< 3 UJ X UJ O - K h- H*

to o + a. a h- x a: to z »- z O h- cr cr a cr < L/) Q —* to a z z < < < <

-J p-» o to O CL Q. a. CL u x u. o

UJ h- UJ >-

in u z * UJ Q u. u. u. u. -« a z i a a cr to UJ UJ UJ UJ I UJ > o z < < o o o o >-200 u. < N UJ

UJ 2 Z H < a O O O O

cr O -1 I < z z z z O z a. UJ

u. to O •M Z Z

UJ Z CO Q O < o o X X X X

to Z UJ * -j (j z »-« z p- *- CM CM

cr o Z O h- z

UJ N —• UJ 3 UJ uj tr uj <J U <J U

-• a a CO > a uj a. z z z z

u_ M 3 > O UJ UJ UJ Ul

UJ h- h-

-j cr »- X CL <

< H- to - p* UJ to o o o o

3 to a li. Uj Z in in in co o z to o a Z UJ T— V *- ft o UJ z <o >* O Z + + + Q

UJ (J OL •-« UJ K N *m 0 0 0411

-J i- cr UJ O z z z o

03 j— a U. <01/111. H < m q: < uj u. u. to to CC 2 2 2 2

a < uj o O O cr o o o o o

< n a cr oou CM CM CM CM > < < o »— »- z o

x z uj to ~ a o h~ h- h- H* z cr O a - -J -J -1 -J o a -j

li. to o —J 3 cr to cr cr cr cr UJ < ai o-i X X X X a h- - Q 3: to o cr +

UJ o H- O h- UJ UJ UJ UJ X u u a O O O O - UJ

-J X

< h~ ±

h- to to < < Q3 03 o PM 2 < < CD CD

h- z o < < CO 03 PM o < < CD CD UJ u. cr X»- X X

to UJ < < < <

PM + < < < <

z cr < < < < — o < < < <

u. <J

cr cr cr cr cr »- * * * ft to 2 2 2 2 z o o o o o uuuu (J z z z z

KJ Z V- p- V- -

-J cr V- p- CM CO

U. O «

44
Exhibit 3.5 Sample Output Showing the Best Combination of Design

Equivalent Solutions

Part B: Description

This printout shows the best solution for the entire building from among the

AO design classifications. The first descriptive heading shows the design

variable qualifiers for this design classification. The total cost of

retrofitting the entire building to this design classification is then given

followed by the cost of prescriptive compliance. In this case the total cost

is aproximately 10 percent of that associated with prescriptive compliance.

Information on the location of the fire zone, the post retrofit state for each

of the 13 building safety features, the surplus over each of the 4 safety

requirements, and the estimated cost to comply are then printed out. Each

fire zone takes up one line of output. The solutions for the fire zones are based on the least cost solution from within the design classification under

consideration. If, as in this case, one of the design variable qualifiers

entered in a state above that which appears in the heading, an artificial

solution is created. Thus although the qualifier for zone dimensions is a dead end greater than 30 feet, since the first three fire zones entered with

no dead ends, they are included as an artificial solution within this design

classification. This approach is taken because the objective of the design

classifications is to have a compatible set of retrofits. Since the existing

condition within the building was acceptable (i.e., a mixture of dead ends on floors 3 through 9 and no dead ends in the basement, first and second floors),

not changing one of the building safety features across all zones should not

affect the acceptability of the design. The classifications are, however,

based on a worst case scenario. Thus if a dead end resulted in any fire zone, no artificial solution would be generated indicating a "no dead end"

situation.

45
Exhibit 3.6 Sample Output Showing Design Equivalent Solutions Based

on Smoke Detection and Alarm in Corridors and Habitable Spaces

Part A: Printout

co o a. OHZ u oo

CD <JI t*> ^

9 0 0 0) a> n o

nif)« — t**

z o

O co

(/) 3 > to

-J 2 CO a

a x cm 3 uj co CO

n ro *- CM — — —

CD ^ CM CM

cm ^ — lO CO CO

03< UJ UJ UJ I z z z

cr O O O o z z z o

ro*

co S

— CO

CO CD 03 CD < < < < X I I I

oc cr cr cn O O O O uuuu

~ o

CO z

CO —

< 2

3 ir Z <1

z z z z o o o o uuuu

UJ LU UJ LLl U. * 3 < Q o z * * « • z a. -J -J cr 2 X X X X

co a z O M UJ > o o o o

< a.co

»-i Z 033

UJ2 O

2 NWS X X X X

UJ O

cr 2 03 •-» CO < UJ -J < CO -J z z z z

X < X UJ x uj O

co o + cr o *- * cr - co 2 - O o »- cr cr cr cr

cr < co o u co cr 2 Z < < < < O _J o CO o Q. Q.Q.O. a u X U. u

Ui UJ t- UJ hcr CO o z * UJ o U.U.U.U. HC2I cr u cr co UJ UJ UJ UJ > X UJ > o z < < O O O O

cr H* 2 o o u. < rsj uj < uj 2 Z M < cr O O O O

2 cr O -1 X < z z z z

2 o z a UJ

13 U. co O - 2 2

co UJ Z co o o < U O X X X X

cO Z Uj » -1 u z ~ z r- T- r* f- o 0020 H- Z 1 • 1 • z UJ M UJ 3 UJ uj cr uj uuuu r-* «-« Q O 03 > cr uj a z z z z o u. 3 > O UJ UJ UJ UJ

1-4 -i cr *- x a <

3 < »- CO - —

UJ lO o o o o

CD 3 co -• cr u.ujz in in in co O Z CO o a Z UJ v- T— »

—J o uj Z CO V O 2 + + 4-0 < uj u cr 1-4 UJ - N — o O O UJ - _j h- cr UJ O z z z o

o CD »- CL u. - < a co u. < M cr < uj u_ u. co co cr 2 2 2 2

cr < uj o O O cr o O o o o

< rsj cr cr O o u CM CM CM CM > < < O »— - z o

X Z UJ CO — a o *- z cr o Q t- -J -J -J -J

CO O -J 3 cr co cr cr cr cr UJ < mo j XXXI O H- h- a x

CO O cr +

UJ O H- o — UJ UJ UJ UJ X u <J CL o o o o

K UJ

-J X

< h- X

- CO CO < < < < o *-4 S < < < < - z Q < < < < ~ o < < < <

UJ u. cr X»- X X

CO UJ < < < <

M 4 < < < < z cr < < < < — o

u. O

< < < <

cr cr cr cr cr

H- * « * *

co 2 2 2 2 z o o o o o uuuu u z z z z

rsi z

-j cr

u. o

— CM CO

46
Exhibit 3.6 Sample Output Showing Design Equivalent Solutions Based on Smoke Detection and Alarm in Corridors and Habitable Spaces

Part B: Description

This printout shows the best solutions for each fire zone when smoke detection

and alarm are required in all corridors and habitable spaces. The total cost

of retrofitting the entire building to this design classification is

approximately one third that of prescriptive compliance. As in the

previous case, an artificial solution has been created for the fire zones in

the basement, first and second floors which were input without any dead ends.

In addition, the basement floor was input with sprinklers in all corridors and

habitable spaces.
TOTAL

BUILDING

SUMMARY

REPORT

Exhibit 3.7 Sample Output Showing Design Equivalent Solutions Based

on Smoke Detection and Alarm In the Total Space

Part A: Printout

> o r- CO

fr- -J o w- in

to o Q. io co <7 o

o fr- 2 CM in 0> o o O CO o •“ z o <T CM CM o to CM v- V- to3 > co f** to CO co

-J 2 to

CLoc X CM n to to in 3 UJ to

to z *- to CO co o to r*

cr 00 oo -j < Ul UJ UJ

r* X i z z z z cr o o o

cr o z z z

a a

to r*n 2 z z z z v UJ -J o o o o

•• o> X < rsi fsl N N

to Ol o f -j -J -J -J

-• n 2 fr- »- fr- fr- fr- to UJ »- fr- fr- fr- z Q oM z z z z

fr- < 2 o o o o

< • 3 cr u o o u

to U to Z < 2 *-* *—

«

<1 o o Q o O u. 2 <4 u u LL LL

—i — o -J cr to z o -j >- to M UJ »- Ul UJ UJ UJ

u. X. 3 < o O Z * • * * Z Q. -J -J cr 2 X X X X

CO CC z O UJ > o o o o

< CL *-4 D 2 O sNN to Z CO UJ 2 2 2 2 2

UJ o

cr 2 Z •-* to < UJ -J O to *-• -J z z Z z

5C < M UJ X UJ O fr- fr- fr- fr- to o + -j O fr- X cr fr- fr- i- ito 2 fr- - o - ee cr er er < iooh to cr 2 z < < < <

-J o to o CL a. a Ol o X CL o

UJ fr— Ul fr- to o z * UJ a U. u. u. u. H cr 2 x cr u cr to UJ UJ UJ UJ X UJ > o z < < O o o O

fr- 2 0 0 u. < rsi UJ

UJ 2 Z < cr O o o o

ee o -* X < z z z z o z a UJ

u. to o -• 2 2

uj z n O O < o o X X X X

to Z UJ » -J o z z r- V- V— cr 0 2 0 p*m fr- z l 1 1 • UJ M <-4 UJ 3 UJ UJ cr UJ O o u o

O O CD > cr UJ Ql z z z z

U. -4 3 > o UJ Ul UJ UJ UJ fr- >—

-J cr »- x O. <

< fr- to - *-« UJ to o o o o

3 to -• cr u. UJ z tn to tn CO O z to O o z UJ *- T- * O uj z to > o 2 + •fr fr a

UJ o cr -< UJ fr- rsi 1—4 o o o UJ

-J fr- cr UJ o z z z o

CD »- a u. < o to u. < M cr < uj U. U. to to cr 2 2 2 2

cc < Ul o o o cr o O o o O

< rsi cr cr o O o CM CM CM CM > < < O fr- - Z o

X z uj to o o fr- fr- fr- fr- z cc o o fr- -1 -I -J 3

O o -J

u. to o —

J

3 cr to CC cr cr cr UJ < CO o —

J

X X X X o fr- fr- o 2

to o cr •fr UJ o fr- o fr- UJ UJ UJ Ul X o a CL o O O O

fr- UJ

-J I

< fr- X

fr- to to cr < < < o 1-4 2 < < < <

fr- z O < < < < o < < < <

UJ LL cr X

fr- X X

to UJ < < < < »—

4

fr < < < <

z cr < < < < O < < < <

u. o

cr cr cc cr cr

»— * « * to 2 2 2 2

z O O O O

o o o U a

u z z z z

Kl z - V- - V- -J cr CM co

u. O •

48
Exhibit 3.7 Sample Output Showing Design Equivalent Solutions Based on Smoke Detection and Alarm In the Total Space

Part B: Description

This printout shows the best solution for each fire zone when smoke detection

and alarm are required throughout the total space. The total cost of

retrofitting the entire building to this design classification is somewhat

more than one half that of prescriptive compliance. Through reference to

Table 4 of the Fire Zone Safety Evaluation Worksheet, it can be seen that this

movement increases the state value from 4 points to 5 points over the previous

case (smoke detection and alarm in all corridors and habitable spaces). An

examination of the surplus scores over each safety requirement reveals an average increase of one point. In this case, the additional cost of

compliance is due almost entirely to the installation of smoke detection and

alarm equipment. If one were to examine the two design classifications where

automatic sprinklers were interchanged with smoke detection and alarm, a similar result would occur. Thus careful consideration should be given to any

decision which would require detectors or sprinklers in the total space rather

than in all corridors and habitable spaces.

49
TOTAL

BUILOING

SUMMARY

REPORT

Exhibit 3 8 Sample Output Showing Design Equivalent Solutions Based

on No Dead Ends in Corridors

Part A: Printout

> Cl &

h -J 10 ID CO C- moo. co o> n OH2 m <r a> u o a> o

z o o> 9 7 7 o to v- toD > m oi 0 0 0 -J 2 00

Q.

cr x cm CO 0 0 0

3UJV)

1/3 z *-mnn O tO -

atn cr 00

-j < UJ UJ UJ

r* * z z z z

V- Z cr o o o

CM cr O z z z a o m

CO s

UJ -J UJ Ul UJ UJ

•• <7> r < z z z z

tO CM O o o o o

— n 2 H* z z z z m uj z o

oH mJ z z z z »- < 2 o o o o

< •• 3 a o u o o

m U 10 z < 3 M M < -J o o a o

o u 2 < u_ u. u. Ul

-J »“• O -i a: in z O -* ft- in m UJ ft- UJ UJ UJ UJ

U. * 3 < o o z * ft • • z a. -j cr 2 z z X z

to a: z o *-• UJ > o o o o

< a. 3 2 o wN in z 00 UJ 2 3 3 3 3

UJ o

a 2 »-• m

< UJ Jh in _j z z Z z

* < 3 uj z UJ O H* ft- ft- ft- 10 O -f Q- O ft- 3T cr ft— ft- ft- ft- WZHZ o “ cr cr cr cr <WQh io cr 2 z < < < <

-J *-• o in o a. a. a. a o Z U. u

UJ ft- UJ ft- to o z * uj o U.U.U.U.

*—

<

cr 2 X cr u cr in UJ UJ UJ UJ X UJ > o z < < a o Q o »- 2 o o u. < N UJ

uj 2 z M < cr o o O o

cr O -j X < z z z z o z a. UJ

u_ in a — 2 2

uj z UJ O O < O a X X X X

in z UJ o -J u Z M z *— v- CM CM

cr o z M ft- z 1 1 « i UJ M *-• o 3 UJ uj cr UJ o o o u

o z 00 > cr uj a z z z z

u_ M 3 > O UJ UJ UJ UJ

UJ ft- —

-J cr ft— X o. <

< - in ft- ~ UJ in o o o o

3 10 H <r u. UJ z in in in in o z m o o Z UJ v- T- v— o IU z to > O 2 + f + +

UJ o cr M UJ ft- fsl o o o o

-J »- cr UJ O z z z z

CO ft- CL u. < a to u. M <

cr < UJ u. u. in to cr 2 2 2 2

cr < UJ o O O cr o O o O O

< isj cr cr o o o CM CM CM CM > < o - »- z o

z z uj in *-• Q o - ft- ft- ft- z cr O Q ft- -J _J -J o o -J u.

to O -1 3 cr 10 a a a cr UJ < CD o -J X X X X

o ft- - a 3 w— T- w

in o cr +

UJ o »- O ft- UJ UJ UJ UJ X u o a o o O O

ft- UJ

-J X

< ft- z - in in < < CD CD o H 2 < < CO CO

ft- z O < < CD CO M o < < CO CO UJ IL cr z

ft- z X

to UJ < < <

p— + < < < <

z cr < < < < M o < < < <

u. o

cr cr CT cr cr

>- * * •

in 2 2 2 2

z C O O O o o (J L) u

<J z z Z z M z «- - V- «-

-J cr — V- CM CO

u. o

50
Exhibit 3.8 Sample Output Showing Design Equivalent Solutions Based on No Dead Ends in Corridors

Part B: Description

This printout shows the best solution for each fire zone when no dead ends are permitted. (Recall that a dead end greater than 30 feet existed on floors 3

through 9.) Although the installation of an exit stairwell is quite

expensive, the solution produced by the FSESCM program costs about 30 percent

less than that associated with prescriptive compliance. This is because the

procedure upgrades all building safety features which are not constrained by

the design variable qualifiers in the most cost effective manner.

51
TOTAL

BUILDING

SUMMARY

REPORT

Exhibit 3.9 Sample Output Showing the Details of the Prescriptive

Compliance Solution

Part A: Printout

> CO CD <y CM

4- -4 o co cm 40

co o a moNO 0 4-2 cm - o in

CJ o — CM CM 4^

CJ CM z o 40 CO *- O 40 CM

CO3 > CO f* CO CO CO

-J 2 40

a.

cr x cm CD O O O

3 UJ 40

40 z — <r co

cj co —

co a 03

<r -j < UJ UJ UJ 04 x X z z z 4- cr CM z cr o o o z o

co cr o z z z UJ a CJ Z 2 Ul 40 M z z z

r* M o • n 2 40 < UJ UJ -J uj UJ UJ Ul 3 4- UJ 4- >

.. o> x < z z z z -J z 40 < <

CO CM O o o o o Q- O 3 4-3

•- CO 2 4- z z z z cr cj < CO cO Uj 3 (J UJ z a 40 UJ U UJ X o I CO > 4- M -j z z z z < 4- ¥-* 4- < 2 o o o o 40 4- o

< •• 3 cr uuuu 3 u. •— CL 4- <J vO z < o c M M < -i o o o o X >- cr uj

u. 2 < U- u. u_ u. CO cc •^03

-I O Ul 40 O

co z > X . UJ 40 -• UJ 4- UJ UJ UJ UJ < 4- co cr 40 < o O Z * * * * 2 - nan -J -4 cr 2 XXIX UJ 3

u -• UJ > o o o o 4- O 40 4- 3 2 O N\NN M Z CJ 4- Z 03 UJ 2 2 3 3 2 *-» o -

O • CO Z CO 40 O 40 CO •-« —J z z z z O 3 4- uj cr

uj X UJ O h- - 4- >— -# —

J

Z Q 3 O 4- x cr 4— 4— »— 4— 4- a. UJ UJ U

O 4- cr cr cr cr 3 cr 2 UJ CJ

co cr 2 Z < < < < -4 3 UJ U o -« o 40 o a. CL CL CL O 40 cr x X u» CJ 10 *-• UJ 4- h» < 3 Z

UJ o u. u. u. u. UJ O > 414 a: cj cr co UJ UJ UJ UJ CJ Ul UJ O 2 o z < < o o o o Z cr < uj

u. < rsj uj < uj cr M < cr o o o o > cr -* O -j X < z z z z -J • 4- -1 3

Z a UJ a co UJ < O

-- 2 2 2 »- U_ Ul o o < CJ O X X X X o z < co cr

-j a Z — 2 CM CM CM CM (J Ul 40 UJ

4- Z 1 1 1 1 2 cr >

3 UJ uj a uj uuuu UJ Ul 4-3 4- CO > cr uj o. z z z z > cr Z 4- UJ 3 > O UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ < u. UJ 4- 4- 4- 3 2 Ul < X a

4- •-« cr O O

Z co — UJ h- cr

4- a

UJ cO

cr o

cj

ILO -j<

4- pCO O o »- u

UJ CO

u- uJ 2

2 UJ >02 - r\i —

UJ O

u_

<3co co cr

cr O O O cj 2 O — a o

o —

3 cr co

CD o -J Q 3

cr + O 4- (J a.

2 O

—

u_ cr

o o o o

o o o o

+ + o o o o

2 Z Z 2

2 2 2 2

o o o o

CM CM CM CM

< < CD CO < < CD CO < < CO CO < <3 CO CO

CL O UJ U. tO —

J

—« UJ > CO a a o > -i < 0 S h < h

co > uj cr

111 k UJ U. UJ Z

cr uj j < z h

o. u. a. co uj < o o a

uj co uj o uj X Q. ZUJ h

4- uj — X <

I aoi

CO — o -J 3 — — Z CJ

U_ 4— 3 —

4

CO o z co <

— UJ CO CJ 1 UJ s uj 3

4- cr X X -4 CO O lO h Q. M

X 2 - a

O 3 u- ZD cr 3 cr o O co O O z I

X *-« UJ < CJ

4- UJ cr •-» -J z X o u. X

< O UJ 5 H 3

I X

CO UJ — + 7 cc — o

u. cj

«t < < <

< <3 < <

< < < <

< < < <

cr a: cr cr * * * 2 2 2 2

o o o o

CJ (J CJ CJ Z Z 2 2

-j cr

u. O

52
Exhibit 3.9 Sample Output Showing the Details of the Prescriptive

Compliance Solution

Part B: Description

This printout shows the prescriptive compliance solution for each fire zone. It is included as a baseline against which all solutions generated by the

FSESCM program can be compared objectively. Note that surplus scores are shown for all of the safety requirements. This is because each fire zone as input exceeded one or more of the prescriptive requirements. Although no credit was given for exceeding a requirement prior to the incorporation of the

Fire Safety Evaluation System into the Life Safety Code, score surpluses are possible if the evaluation procedure of the Fire Safety Evaluation System is

used. The values of the surpluses are presented because it is felt that they

will promote a more meaningful comparison against those solutions based solely

on the Fire Safety Evaluation System.

53
A B C D E

RETROFIT PACKAGE

54
4. CONCLUDING REMARKS

The identification of cost-effective levels of fire safety in health care facilities is a major concern to hospital administrators, fire safety

engineers, and public policy makers. Rising construction and operating costs

coupled with more stringent building codes and continuing advances in medical

and building technology have complicated the issue, forcing health care facility administrators to assess carefully the alternative means through

which they can design, construct, or update their facilities. The Fire Safety

Evaluation System developed by the Center for Fire Research at the National

Bureau of Standards, through support from the Department of Health and Human

Services, helps decision makers by determining how combinations of several

widely accepted fire safety systems can be used to provide a level of safety

equivalent to that required by the Life Safety Code.

This study has outlined a computer program which using the Fire Safety

Evaluation System as its nucleus, employs mathematical optimization techniques

to identify the least-cost means of achieving compliance to the Life Safety

Code. Since each of the 13 building safety features used in the Fire Safety

Evaluation System has a unique value which corresponds to prescriptive

compliance, it is possible to quantify the cost savings attributable to the use of a performance-oriented system over that of prescriptive compliance. An

indepth analysis of a typical hospital indicated that the use of the Fire

Safety Evaluation System Cost Minimizer (FESECM) computer program can result

in savings of 50 percent or more over the cost associated with prescriptive

compliance to the Life Safety Code.

The procedure used by the FSESCM computer program identifies from 10 to 20

near-optimal compliance strategies. These compliance strategies are generated

by using the "optimal" solution as a reference point from which near-optimal

solutions can be systematically examined. They are made available to

facilitate the design selection process by providing information on relative

costs and the opportunity to match common retrofit packages across all fire zones in the building. The use of a predetermined set of compliance

strategies results in a considerable saving of time in defining a comprehensive retrofit strategy for the entire building. The compliance

strategies should also simplify the problem of assessing the impacts of non- construction costs on the retrofit decision. The FSESCM computer program also

contains a series of user options which make it possible to alter the cost of

any retrofit, preclude a retrofit, force a retrofit to be included, or demand

a level of safety different from that required by the Life Safety Code.

55
The results of a case study where a typical hospital was analyzed are an indication of the tremendous potential for reducing costs without compromising

the safety and well-being of persons housed in health care facilities.

Although the savings in retrofit costs which will accrue to the nation's stock

of health care facilities Is substantial, it Is expected that savings will

vary considerably as a function of the facility type, its condition, and its

operational characteristics. Since the design places certain constraints on the retrofit process, the data required from the engineer in the field are organized in a manner which explicitly introduced relevant engineering issues

into the cost minimization problem. The cost estimates produced by the

procedure should permit the engineering staff to quickly identify several

candidate retrofit packages which best reflect the specific attributes or peculiarities of the facility. These candidates should then be assessed via a detailed cost analysis to refine the cost estimates as well as introduce any

cost impacts which affect the facility but are not addressed in the

optimization procedure.

The User's Manual contains a more detailed analysis of the typical hospital

discussed in chapter 3. This design was chosen to illustrate how the FSESCM

computer program would be used to solve actual fire safety problems.

Information on the scope and complexity of the retrofit alternatives is

obtained from a series of floor plans for the hospital. This information is

used as input for the computer program.

56
REFERENCES

1. American National Standards Institute, American National Standard

Programming Language FORTRAN , ANSI X3. 9-1978, New York, 1978.

2. Chapman, R.E., P. T. Chen, and W. G. Hall, Economic Aspects of Fire Safety

in Health Care Facilities: Guidelines for Cost-Effective Retrofits , National Bureau of Standards, NBSIR 79-1902, Washington, D. C., 1979.

3. Chapman, R.E. and W. G. Hall, User’s Manual for The Fire Safety Evaluation

System Cost Minimizer Computer Program , National Bureau of Standards,

NBSIR (in preparation)

.

4. Chapman, R.E. and W. G. Hall, Programmer’s Manual for the Fire Safety

Evaluation System Cost Minimizer Computer Program , National Bureau of

Standards, NBSIR (in preparation).

5. Kruger, L.J. and R. M. Patton, "More Fire Safety Can Cost Less,"

Hospitals , Vol. 51, February 1977, pp 127-132.

6. Lathrop, J.K. , editor. Life Safety Code Handbook , National Fire Protection

Association, Quincy, Mass., 1981.

7. Lyons, J.W., "Fire Research and Fire Safety: A Status Report on the

Situation in the United States," in A. F. Robertson, ed. Fire Standards

and Safety , American Society of Testing Materials, Special Technical

Publication 614, Philadelphia, 1977.

8. National Fire Protection Association, Code for Safety to Life from Fire in

Buildings and Structures , NFPA 101-1973, Boston, 1974.

9. National Fire Protection Association, Code for Safety to Life from Fire in

Buildings and Structures , NFPA 101-1980, Boston, 1981.

10. Nelson, H.E. and A. J. Shibe, A System for Fire Safety Evaluation of

Health Care Facilities , National Bureau of Standards, NBSIR 78-1555,

Washington, D. C., 1980.

11. Nelson, H.E. , et al .. Fire Safety Evaluation System for Board and Care

Homes , National Bureau of Standards, NBSIR (in preparation).

12. Sprague, J.G., "A Common Sense Approach Needed in Dealing With Safety,"

Hospitals , Vol. 51, February 1977, pp. 67-75.

13. U.S. Congress, House, Select Committee on Aging, Subcommittee on Long-Term

Care, Tragedy of Multiple Death Nursing Home Fires: The Need for a National Commitment to Safety , September 1976.

14. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards, Federal

Information Processing Standards Publication 69 , September 1980.

57
NBS«1 14A 'Rev. 2 -sci U.S. DEPT. OF COMM. 1. PUBLICATION OR 2. Performing Organ. Report NoJ 3. Publication Date BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

REPORT NO.

SHEET (See Instructions) NBSIR 82-2600 November 1982

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

A Cost-Conscious Guide to Fire Safety in Health Care Facilities

5. AUTHOR(S)

Robert E. Chapman

6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION (If joint or other than NBS, see Instructions

)

national bureau of standards

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

7. Contract/Grant No.

S. Type of Report & Period Covered

9.

SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (Street. City, State, ZIP)

Center for Fire Research Department of Health and Human Services

National Engineering Laboratory Washington, D. C. 20201

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D. C. 20234

10.

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

J Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FIPS Software Summary, Is attached.

11.

ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most significant Information. If document Includes a significant

bi bllography or literature survey, mention It here) This study focuses upon the use of the Fire Safety Evaluation System developed

by the Center for Fire Research at the National Bureau of Standards for

determining equivalence to the Life Safety Code for health care facilities.

The Life Safety Code, a voluntary code developed by the National Fire

Protection Association, is a widely used guide for providing fire safety in

buildings. This study outlines the Fire Safety Evaluation System Cost

Minimizer (FSESCM) computer program. The FSESCM program is intended for use

as a management tool to identify a series of optimal compliance strategies

which are equivalent to the prescriptive provisions of the Life Safety Code in

health care facilities. The mathematical optimization techniques which form

the basis of the FSESCM program make it possible to quantify the cost savings

attributable to the use of the Fire Safety Evaluation System over prescriptive

compliance to the Life Safety Code. An in-depth analysis of a typical health

care facility is used as a case study to demonstrate that cost savings of 50

percent or more over those associated with prescriptive compliance to the Life

Safety Code are possible.

12.

KEY WORDS (Six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only proper names; and separate key words by semicolons)

Building codes; building economics; economic analysis; fire safety; health

care facilities; hospitals; life safety; mathematical programming; nursing

homes; renovation.

13. AVAILABILITY

fx~l Unlimited

| | For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

| | Order From Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.

[JQ Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS). Springfield, VA. 22161

14.. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

65

15. Price

$9.00

USCOMM-DC 8043-P80