Ainoo Tflbbfia PURI ATIONS ^

, - j —

NBSIR 79-1902

NAT'L INST. OF STANn tctu dt^

r „ JC2!!0MIC aspects of fire safety in health

CARE FACILITIES: GUIDELINES FOR COST-EFFECTIVE

RETROFITS

>QC“

100

,1156

79-1902

19/9

C.2

Center for Building Technology

National Engineering Laboratory

National Bureau of Standards Department of Commerce

Washington, D.C. 20234 November 1979
1 ;
Ea^leflaf Bureau of ‘Slander; FEB 5 1980

n6i KCC'CxCC

ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF FIRE

NBSIR 79-1902

SAFETY IN HEALTH CARE FACILITIES:

GUIDELINES FOR COST-EFFECTIVE

RETROFITS

Robert E. Chapman and Phillip T. Chen

Center for Building Technology

and

William G. Hall

Center for Applied Mathematics

National Engineering Laboratory

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

November 1979

Sponsored by the: Center for Fire Research

National Engineering Laboratory

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

Department of Health, Education and Welfare

Washington, D.C. 20201

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Luther H. Hodges, Jr., Under Secretary

Jordan J. Baruch, Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler, Director

and

PREFACE

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

Research and the Department of Health, Education and Welfare by the

Applied Economics Group, the Center for Building Technology, and 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, Education and Welfare (HEW) 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 HEW/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 study develops a computerized procedure which helps identify the

least-cost means of retrofitting a fire zone in a health care facility

to achieve compliance to the Life Safety Code. The procedure also

identifies from 10 to 20 retrofit alternatives, some of which are quite close in cost to the least-cost solution. The procedure 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 retrofit packages across fire zones.

Special appreciation is extended to Ms. Brenda Edison who provided

invaluable editorial services. Appreciation is extended to

Drs. Harold E. Marshall and John S. McConnaughey , Applied Economics

Group, who reviewed the economic aspects of this paper. Appreciation

is also extended to Ms. Patsy Saunders, Operations Research Division,

and Mssrs. James Pielert, Rehabilitation Technology Program, Harold E.

Nelson and A. J. Shibe, Center for Fire Research, who provided many

useful suggestions for improving the treatment of certain topics in

this paper. Special appreciation is extended to Dr. Alan J. Goldman,

Operations Research Division, whose stimulating discussions provided

guidance and encouragement throughout this effort.

iii
ABSTRACT

This study focuses upon one aspect of the fire safety problem in health care

facilities; 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. The Life Safety Code, a voluntary code

developed by the National Fire Protection Association, is currently the most

widely used guide for identifying the minimum level of fire safety in buildings. Using the Fire Safety Evaluation System as a basis, this study develops

a computerized procedure which permits the least-cost means of achieving

compliance to the Life Safety Code in health care facilities to be identified.

Since each of the parameters used in the Fire Safety Evaluation System has a unique value which corresponds to strict compliance, it is possible to quantify the cost savings attributable to the use of the Fire Safety Evaluation

System over strict compliance to the Life Safety Code. Preliminary studies

conducted by the National Bureau of Standards of a prototypical hospital have

concluded that the use of this computerized procedure can result in cost

savings of 50 percent or more over those associated with strict compliance

to the Life Safety Code.

Keywords: Applied economics; building codes; building economics; economic

analysis; fire safety; health care facilities; hospitals; life

safety; mathematical programming; nursing homes; renovation.

iv

L
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

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.

This study focuses on one aspect of the fire safety problem in health care facilities; 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. The Life Safety Code, a voluntary

code developed by the National Fire Protection Association, is currently

the most widely used guide for identifying the minimum level of fire safety

in buildings. Although the Life Safety Code may be thought of as prescriptive since it prescribes fixed 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 Standard's Center for Fire Research, through

support from the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, has developed

a system for determining how combinations of several widely accepted fire

safety systems can be used to provide a level of safety equivalent to that

required in the 1973 Life Safety Code.

Using the Fire Safety Evaluation System as a measurement tool, this study

develops a computerized procedure which helps identify the least-cost

means of achieving compliance to the Life Safety Code. Since each of the

parameters used in the Fire Safety Evaluation System has a unique value

which corresponds to strict compliance, it is possible to quantify

the cost savings attributable to the use of the Fire Safety Evaluation

System over that of strict compliance. Preliminary studies conducted by

the National Bureau of Standards have concluded that the use of a computerized version of the Fire Safety Evaluation System can result in savings

of 50 percent or more over the cost associated with strict compliance to

the Life Safety Code.

In addition to identifying the least-cost solution, the procedure also

identifies from 10 to 20 retrofit alternatives, some of which are quite

close in cost to the least-cost solution. These retrofit alternatives

are made available to facilitate the design selection process by providing

information on relative costs and the opportunity to match common retrofit

packages across fire zones. The use of such alternatives may result in a considerable saving of time in defining a comprehensive retrofit strategy

for the entire building. The provision of retrofit alternatives should

also simplify the problem of assessing the impacts of non-construction

costs on the retrofit decision. The computerized procedure 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 higher level of safety than required by the Life Safety Code.

v
A prototypical hospital design is developed in order to illustrate how

the computerized procedure would be used to solve actual fire safety

problems. The prototypical hospital is patterned after a 300 bed general

hospital built around 1960. It is constructed with structural steel

framing protected by a fire resistive concrete covering, reinforced

concrete floors, fixed windows, and masonry exterior walls.

Application of the Fire Safety Evaluation System to the prototypical

hospital indicates that all fire zones in areas of patient use, with

the exception of the fire zone containing the emergency room, require

some type of retrofitting. Information on the scope and complexity of

the retrofit alternatives is obtained from a series of floorplans for

the prototypical hospital. This information is used as input for the

computerized procedure.

Results from the case study indicate that the prototypical hospital could

be upgraded to achieve compliance to the Life Safety Code for approximately $115,000 if the Fire Safety Evaluation System is used. The cost

of achieving compliance through adherence to the prescriptive provisions

of the Life Safety Code would cost approximately $250,000. Although a significant portion of the cost of strict compliance to the Life Safety

Code was due to the installation of an exit stairwell (to remove a deadend corridor), it is shown that the use of the Fire Safety Evaluation

System could achieve compliance with the exit stairwell included in the

retrofit package for approximately $185,000. Furthermore, the entire

facility could be totally sprinklered for approximately $160,000 if the

Fire Safety Evaluation System is used. Thus, even though high-cost items are included, significant savings result due to the inherent flexibility

that the use of the Fire Safety Evaluation Systems offers to decision

makers.

It is important to note that the procedure developed in this report has

three limitations which are now being studied. These limitations relate

to (1) the input requirements for the computerized procedure, (2) the

cost estimating relationships used with the procedure, and (3) the need

to use the NBS computer facility and staff to execute the computerized

procedure. All of these limitations may be resolved through research

and development activities proposed in this report. The major concern,

and the reason for continued research in this area, is that both the

input requirements and the cost estimating relationships are facility

dependent. (Modifying the procedure for execution on other computer

systems without the assistance of NBS staff is a rather straight-forward

process. ) More specifically, both the input requirements and the cost

estimating relationships have been tailored to the typical hospital

design analyzed in the case study. Additional research may conclude

that certain health care facility types will require slightly different

inputs. Perhaps more serious is that the cost estimating relationships

currently being used in the computerized procedure are location and time

dependent as well as being facility dependent. The development of cost

estimating relationships which permit local market conditions and the

condition of the health care facility to register their effects on the

vi
anticipated retrofit costs is a major goal of the current and planned

research efforts. Ideally these relationships could be tied to a nationally recognized building cost index which would allow labor and

material prices to be unambiguously altered to control for cost growth

and regional price differences.
CONTENTS

Page

PREFACE ill

ABSTRACT iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY v

LIST OF TABLES x

LIST OF FIGURES xii

LIST OF EXHIBITS xiii

SI CONVERSION UNITS xiv

1. INTRODUCTION . 1

1.1 Background 1 1.2 Purpose 3

1.3 Scope and Approach 4

2. FIRE ZONE SAFETY IN HEALTH CARE FACILITIES 6

2.1 The Life Safety Code 6

2.2 The Concept of Equivalency 9

2.3 The Fire Safety Evaluation System 12

2.4 The Costs of Strict Compliance Versus Equivalency. . . 32

2.5 Advantages of the Equivalency Approach 47

2.6 Computerized Procedure for Identifying Cost-Effective

Retrofits 47

3. COST CONSIDERATIONS: A CASE STUDY 51

3.1 Selection of a Prototypical Hospital 52

3.2 The Prototypical Hospital Design 53

3.2.1 Configuration of the Fire Zones 53

3.2.2 The Retrofit Scenario 61

3.3 Application of the Computerized Procedure to a Prototypical Hospital 75

3.3.1 Alternative Retrofit Strategies by Fire Zone. . . 75

3.3.2 Alternative Retrofit Strategies for the Entire

Hospital 91

viii
Page

4. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH 96

4.1 Summary 96

4.2 Recommendations for Further Research 98

APPENDIX A Unit Pricing Information 100

REFERENCES 103

lx
LIST OF TABLES

Page

2.1 Hypothetical Retrofit Strategy 29

2.2 Required Information on Key Safety Parameters 33

2.3 Abbreviations for Elements and Units to be Used in 34

Reporting Data on Potential Retrofits

2.4 Elements and Units to be Used in Reporting Data on

Potential Retrofits 35

2.5 Values of Safety Parameters Corresponding to Strict

Compliance to the Life Safety Code: Non-Sprinklered

Facilities 40

2.6 Values of Safety Parameters Corresponding to Strict

Compliance to the Life Safety Code: Totally Sprinklered

Facilities 41

3.1 Hospital Layouts Used to Generate Data for the Prototypical

Hospital 52

3.2 Summary of Occupancy Risk Factors in Each Fire Zone 62

3.3 Existing Condition of Each Building Safety Feature in Zone 1 of the First Floor 63

3.4 Existing Condition of Each Building Safety Feature in Zone 2 of the First Floor 64

3.5 Existing Condition of Each Building Safety Feature on the

Second Floor 65

3.6 Existing Condition of Each Building Safety Feature on the

Third Through Seventh Floors 66

3.7 Summary of Element Counts 67

3.8 Potential Retrofits for Zone 2 of the First Floor 68

3.9 Potential Retrofits for the Second Floor 69

3.10 Potential Retrofits for the Third Through Seventh Floors. . . 70

3.11 Summary of Critical Elements Counts 71

x
Page

3.12 Retrofit Prices for Zone 2 of the First Floor 72

3.13 Retrofit Prices for the Second Floor 73

3.14 Retrofit Prices for the Third Through Seventh Floors 74

3.15 Initial States Used in Case Study of the Prototypical

Hospital 77

3.16 Retrofit Packages for Zone 2 of the First Floor 79

3.17 Retrofit Packages for the Second Floor 82

3.18 Retrofit Packages for the Third Through Seventh Floors. ... 87

3.19 Retrofit Packages for the Prototypical Hospital: Floors

One Through Seven 93

xi
LIST OF FIGURES

Page

2.1 Equal-Cost Lines and Equal-Protection Curves 45

2.2 Costs as a Function of the Level of General Safety

Being Produced 45

2.3 User Flowchart 48

3.1 Isometric View of Prototypical Hospital 54

3.2 Floor Plan of the Prototypical Hospital: Basement Floor. . . 55

3.3 Floor Plan of the Prototypical Hospital: First Floor .... 57

3.4 Floor Plan of the Prototypical Hospital: Second Floor. ... 58

3.5 Floor Plan of the Prototypical Hospital: Third Through

Seventh Floor 60

3.6 Retrofit Packages and Their Associated Costs for Zone 2

of the First Floor 78

3.7 Retrofit Packages and Their Associated Costs for the

Second Floor 81

3.8 Retrofit Packages and Their Associated Costs for the

Third Through Seventh Floors 86

3.9 Retrofit Packages and Their Associated Costs for the

Entire Building ....... 92

xii
LIST OF EXHIBITS

Page

2.1 Sample Worksheet: Methodology for Calculating Occupancy

Risk Factor 13

2.2 Sample Evaluation: Fire Zone Identification and

Calculation of Occupancy Risk Factor 15

2.3 Sample Worksheet: Values of Safety Parameters as a Function of the Level of Safety Provided 17

2.4 Sample Evaluation: Values of Safety Parameters for the

Initial State of the Fire Zone 19

2.5 Sample Worksheet: Methodology for Evaluating the Level of

Containment Safety, Extinguishment Safety, People Movement

Safety, and General Safety Provided Within the Fire Zone. . . 21

2.6 Sample Evaluation: Current Level of Containment Safety,

Extinguishment Safety, People Movement Safety, and General

Safety Provided Within the Fire Zone 23

2.7 Sample Worksheet: Methodology for Determining if the Level

of Safety Provided Within the Fire Zone is Equivalent to that

Provided by the Life Safety Code 25

2.8 Sample Evaluation: Post Retrofit Level of Containment Safety,

Extinguishment Safety, People Movement Safety, and General

Safety Provided Within the Fire Zone 30

2.9 Sample Evaluation: Evaluation of Post Retrofit Level of

Safety Provided Within the Fire Zone to Determine if it is

Equivalent to that Required by the Life Safety Code 31

xiii
SI CONVERSION UNITS

The conversion factors and units contained in this report are in accordance with the International System of Units (abbreviated SI for Systeme

International d'Unites). The SI was defined and given official status

by the 11th General Conference on Weights and Measures which met in Paris,

France in October 1960. For assistance in converting U.S. customary

units to SI units, see ASTM E 380, ASTM Standard Metric Practice Guide,

available from the American Society for Testing and Materials, 1916 Race

Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. The conversion factors for the units

found in this Standard are as follows:

Length

1 in = 0.0254* meter

1 ft = 0.3048* meter

1 mil = 0.001* in

1 yd = 0.9144* meter

Area

1 in2 = 6.4516* x 10**\ieter2

1 ft 2 = 0.0929 meter2

1 yd 2 = 0.836 meter2

Volume

1 in^ = 1.639 x 10~^meter^

1 liter = 1.00* x 10”^meter^

1 gallon = 3.785 liters

Temperature

°C = 5/9 (Temperature °F -32)

*Exactly

xiv
Containing the costs of health care services is a major goal of health care

facility administrators. Innovation in the construction and remodeling of

their facilities is an important step.

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.

i
This potential and its implied need for a national commitment to fire

safety in health care facilities has been emphasized in numerous congressional hearings. 1

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 (NFPA 101-1973) is currently the most widely used guide for identifying the minimum level of fire safety in buildings. Although the code

may be thought of as prescriptive, since it prescribes fixed solutions

for life safety in designated occupancies, the performance concept can be

explicitly introduced through a provision which allows for equivalent

solutions. In particular, Provision 1-3118 states:

Nothing in this code is intended to prevent the use of new methods

or new devices, providing sufficient technical data is submitted

to the authority having jurisdiction to demonstrate that the new method or device is equivalent in quality, strength, fire resistance, effectiveness, durability, and safety to that prescribed

by this code.

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

Fire Research through support from the Department of Health, Education

and Welfare 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 in the 1973 Life Safety

Code. The equivalency methodology which emerged from this effort is

particularly attractive since it lends itself to computer optimization

techniques. Such an optimization technique should result in improved

fire safety in health care facilities because of 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. To see better why this is so, a brief

examination of the pros and cons of improved fire safety in health care facilities is useful.

Proponents of increased levels of fire safety cite incidents such as those which occurred in Chicago where 32 persons died and 50 were

injured in two nursing homes. Investigations of these and other nursing

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

Commitment to Safety , Select Committee on Aging, Subcommittee on LongTerm Care, September 1976.

2 Code for Safety to Life from Fire in Buildings and Structures , National

Fire Protection Association, foFPA 101-1973, p. 10 1-2

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

of Health Care Facilities , National Bureau of Standards,

NBSIR 78-1555, November 1978.

2
home fires resulted in the conclusion that the installation of sprinkler

systems probably would have averted the tragedies.^ The cost of such

systems was expected to be between $393 and $625 per bed.

Opponents argue that hospitals and nursing homes are already affected

by more regulations than any other building type. Modifications

required to meet the higher levels of safety identified in the Life

Safety Code will undoubtedly entail substantial outlays. In addition

to these capital expenditures, federal regulations stipulate that

certification of a health care facility for participation in Medicare

and Medicaide is dependent upon the facility's compliance with the

Life Safety Code. Published estimates for each potential year of

human life saved through strict compliance to the Life Safety Code

range as high as $12.7 to $63.5 million for hospitals and $1.1 to

$1.6 million for nursing homes.

1.2 PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to describe the economic, mathematical,

and engineering considerations that went into the development of a computerized procedure which permits the least-cost means of achieving

compliance to the Life Safety Code to be identified.

The computer program discussed in this report is particularly useful

because it is based on the equivalency methodology developed by the

Center for Fire Research. Since the NFPA is in the process of adopting

this equivalency methodology into the Life Safety Code, any solutions

from the computer program will satisfy Provision 1-3118 of NFPA 101-1973.

Furthermore, since each of the parameters used in the equivalency methodology has a unique value which corresponds to strict compliance, it is

possible to quantify the cost savings attributable to a performance based

approach or equivalency methodology over that of strict compliance.

Although the procedure is useful for both new and existing facilities,

it is anticipated that its primary use will be in identifying alternative

courses of action open to administrators faced with retrofitting existing

facilities.

Federal Fire Safety Requirements Do Not Insure Life Safety in Nursing

Home Fires: Report to Congress , Comptroller General of the United

States, Washington, D.C., June 1976.

2 lhid'

^ R. Freeley, D. C. Walsh, and J. E. Fielding, "Structural Codes and

Patient Safety; Does Strict Compliance Make Sense?" American Journal

of Law and Medicine, Volume 3, Number 4, Winter 1977-78, pp. 447-454.

3
The computer program uses as its primary input information collected

during the course of any thorough fire safety evaluation. This information permits the current state of the health care facility to be unambiguously identified. The least-cost or optimal combination of retrofits

is based on:

(1) the current state 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 analyzes other retrofit combinations to see

if alternatives might exist which are close to the one identified as optimal. The optimal combination of retrofits and any alternatives

which the program produces (usually between 10 and 20) are then sum- marized in tabular form so that they may be ranked from least costly

to most costly. This approach provides health care facility decision

makers with greater flexibility in choosing among retrofit combinations.

In particular, through the consideration of alternatives, the decision

maker is able to assess more effectively the impact that nonconstruction

costs would have on the choice of the optimal retrofit combination.

1.3 SCOPE AND APPROACH

The general plan of this report is to describe briefly the Life Safety

Code and the equivalency methodology; to discuss the computer program

based on the equivalency methodology; and to identify and discuss the

relevant engineering considerations which must be exercised in order

to use this approach in solving a particular problem. Specifically,

this report is organized as follows:

Chapter 2 describes the Life Safety Code and its effect upon

health care facilities. The concept of a fire zone in a health

care facility is then developed. The equivalency methodology is

derived from the Life Safety Code by focusing on a small set of

safety parameters in a single fire zone. A means for identifying

the current state of a fire zone in a health care facility is then

presented. An analysis of the costs of strict compliance versus

the performance based equivalency methodology is provided to

stress the inherent advantages of the computerized approach.

A brief description of the computer program and its method of

solution is then presented.

Chapter 3 is intended to establish a framework that will enable

health care facility administrators to use this approach in

solving their own fire safety problems. Crucial factors which

affect costs and which were used in the selection of prototypical

building designs are first discussed. A prototypical hospital

design is then presented. Using the results of a series of hypothetical safety evaluations, the computer program is exercised

to solve for the least-cost means of achieving compliance to the

4
Life Safety Code. This cost, as well as the costs of the alternative solutions, are then compared to the costs of strict compliance in order to demonstrate the flexibility available to the

decision makers who use the equivalency methodology.

It is important to note that the procedure developed in this report has

three limitations which are now being studied. These limitations relate

to (1) the input requirements for the computerized procedure, (2) the

cost estimating relationships used with the procedure, and (3) the need

to use the NBS computer facility and staff to execute the computerized

procedure. All of these limitations may be resolved through research

and development activities proposed in this report. The major concern,

and the reason for continued research in this area, is that both the

input requirements and the cost estimating relationships are facility

dependent. (Modifying the procedure for execution on other computer

systems without the assistance of NBS staff is a rather straight-forward

process. ) More specifically, both the input requirements and the cost

estimating relationships have been tailored to the typical hospital

design analyzed in the case study. Additional research may conclude

that certain health care facility types will require slightly different

inputs. Perhaps more serious is that the cost estimating relationships

currently being used in the computerized procedure are location and time

dependent as well as being facility dependent. The development of cost

estimating relationships which permit local market conditions and the

condition of the health care facility to register their effects on the

anticipated retrofit costs is a major goal of the current and planned

research efforts. Ideally these relationship could be tied to a nationally recognized building cost index which would allow labor and

material prices to be unambiguously altered to control for cost growth

and regional price differences.

4 "ii h

5
Computer systems are an integral part of many health care faciities . Consequently , experience gained in these areas could enhance the ease

with which the Fire Safety Evaluation System could be applied.

2. FIRE ZONE SAFETY IN HEALTH CARE FACILITIES

2.1 THE LIFE SAFETY CODE

In recent years, the concept of fire safety has changed dramatically.

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

6
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. Particularly, all analyses of the fire safety

problem are dealt with exclusively in terms of the Life Safety Code,

since it is currently the most widely used means for identifying

"acceptable" levels of fire safety. J

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. National attention was drawn to the importance

of adequate exits and related fire safety features in the tragic fire

at the Coconut Grove Night Club in Boston in 1942 where 492 persons

were killed. Other major fires in subsequent years further underscored

the requirement that careful attention be given to the question of

adequate means of egress.

Spectacular fires, such as the one at the Coconut Grove Night Club,

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

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

Situation in the United States," Fire Standards and Safety , American

Society of Testing and Materials, Special Technical Publication 614,

A. F. Robertson, ed. , 1977.

2 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 a voluntary

code 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.

For a brief discussion of this topic see Joseph G. Sprague, "Common

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

February 1, 1977, pp. 67-75.

3 The term acceptable is placed in parentheses since recent studies have

claimed that the costs of strict compliance to the Life Safety Code

are greater than those which society is willing to bear.

7
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 every three years to reflect

advances in fire and building technology (such as the methodology for

identifying equivalent levels of fire safety^). Prior to any examining

of the equivalency methodology, it may be instructive first to review

several portions of the Life Safety Code. This will provide a framework

which will facilitate the derivation of the equivalency methodology from

the code.

As mentioned in Chapter 1, the Life Safety Code provides fixed solutions

to life safety in designated occupancies. In this report particular

emphasis will be placed on Chapter 10 of NFPA 101-1973 which is concerned

with health care facilities. (New health care facilities are treated

in Section 10-1; existing health care facilities^ are treated in

Section 10-2.) The technical foundations for the requirements outlined

in Chapter 10 of NFPA 101 are concerned with three broad classes of

fire safety, namely:

(1) Means of Egress;

(2) Features of Fire Protection; and

(3) Building Service Equipment.

A brief examination of the key fire safety measures covered in these

three broad classes is now in order. (In this section individual fire

safety measures are enumerated. This enumeration provides both transition and background information which will be needed to introduce the

equivalency methodology.) The Life Safety Code defines Means of Egress

as follows:

A means of egress is a continuous and unobstructed way of exit

travel from any point in a building or structure to a public way

and consists of 3 separate and distinct parts: (a) the way of

exit access, (b) the exit, and (c) the way of exit discharge.

1 The equivalency methodology is the subject of the next two sections.

The equivalency methodology discussed this report is based on the 1973

edition of the Life Safety Code. It is important to point out that

activities are currently underway to incorporate the equivalency

methodology into the 1980 edition of the Life Safety Code as a technology appendix.

2 NFPA 101 defines an existing building as one already in existence when

the code went into effect.

3 Code for Safety to Life from Fire in Buildings and Structures , National

Fire Protection Association, NFPA 101-1973, p. 101-16.

8
The general fire safety class "Means of Egress" includes: doors, interior

and exterior stairs, horizontal exits, ramps, exit passageways, escalators,

fire escape stairs and ladders, and the illumination and marking of means

of egress. The general fire safety class "Features of Fire Protection"

includes: 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 general fire safety class "Building Service Equipment includes: air

conditioning, ventilation, heating, cooking, and incineration.

In examining the preceding list it becomes apparent that the level of

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

of fire safety may affect and/or be affected by the level of other fire

safety measures. In order to make this interdependence explicit, NFPA

101-1973 contains the following redundancy clause:

The design of exits and other safeguards shall be such that

reliance for safety to life in case of fire or other emergency

will not depend solely on any single safeguard; additional

safeguards shall be provided for life safety in case any single

safeguard is ineffective due to some human or mechanical failure.

The redundancy clause quoted above 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 one fire safety measure.

2.2 THE CONCEPT OF EQUIVALENCY

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

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

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.

2 . A vertical opening is an opening through a floor or roof.

3 Code for Safety to Life from Fire m Buildings and Structures , National Fire Protection Association, NFPA 101-1973, p. 101-4.

9
basic classifications of fire safety are used in assessing the level of

safety provided in a particular fire zone. These three classifications

are:

1

2 (1) Occupancy risk;

(2) Building safety features;^ and

(3) Safety redundancy. 4

Associated with each of the first two fire safety classifications is

a set of features subdivided into a set of parameters. For each parameter there is a descriptor which defines a state and a score which

reflects the relative degree of risk or safety associated with that

parameter. Through a series of manipulations involving these factors,

it is possible to determine uniquely the level of safety provided within

a particular fire zone. Each of the three basic fire safety classifications will now be examined in turn.

Occupancy Risk

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 value, corresponding to the level of safety associated with each

parameter, is obtained from a worksheet"5 and recorded. These values

Definitions for each safety classifications are taken from the report

by Nelson and Shibe. H. E. Nelson and A. J. Shibe, A System for Fire

Safety Evaluation of Health Care Facilities , National Bureau of Standards, NBSIR 78-1555, November 1978.

o 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.

3 Building safety features reflect the ability of the building and its

fire protection systems to provide measures of safety commensurate

with the risk.

^ Safety redundancy is a measure of the depth of protection. Its

purpose is to insure that the failure of a single protection device

or method will not result in a major failure of the entire system.

^ A detailed example is worked out in the next section (see Table 1 of

the worksheet presented as Exhibit 2.2 in Section 2.3).

10
when multiplied together^ produce an occupancy risk factor. The occu- pancy risk factor is then adjusted to reflect whether the building is new or existing.

Building Safety Features

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

the level of safety for each of the following 13 factors:

(1) Construction Type;

(2) Interior Finish: Corridors and Exits;

(3) Interior Finish: Rooms;

(4) Corridor Partition Walls;

(5) Doors to the Corridor;

(6) Zone Dimensions

(7) Vertical Openings;

(8) Hazardous Areas;

(9) Smoke Control;

(10) Emergency Movement Routes;

(11) Manual Fire Alarms;

(12) Automatic Detection and Alarm; and

(13) Sprinklers.

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

parameter, is then taken from the second page of the worksheet"^ and

and recorded.

Safety Redundancy

In the discussion of the Life Safety Code in Chapter 1, it was stated

that the redundancy clause played 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:

(1) Containment safety;

(2) Extinguishment safety;

(3) People movement safety; and

(4) General safety.

1 See Table 2 in Exhibit 2.2 in the next section.

^ See Tables 3A and 3B of the worksheet presented as Exhibit 2.2 of

Section 2.3.

3 A detailed example is worked out in the next section (see Table 4

of the worksheet presented as Exhibit 2.4 in Section 2.3).

11
Safety redundance is evaluated by entering the value which corresponds

to the level of safety associated with each of the 13 Building Safety

Features in the appropriate places on page three of the worksheet. 1 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.

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 nonnegative in all four cases, then the

fire zone is deemed to be in compliance with the Life Safety Code. Note

that the safety redundancy clause of the Life Safety Code requires that

the minimum level of safety be met or exceeded for each of the four

safety categories.

2.3 THE FIRE SAFETY EVALUATION SYSTEM

The purpose of this section is to show how the underlying concepts which

went into the formulation of the equivalency methodology come together

in the fire zone safety evaluation worksheet. The basic framework of

the equivalency methodology is illustrated in Exhibits 2.1 through 2.9.

Four of these exhibits, 2.1, 2.3, 2.5, and 2.7, form the Fire Zone Safety

Evaluation Worksheet. The other five exhibits are examples of completed

worksheets. Each of the first seven exhibits, Exhibit 2.1 through ?. 7,

contain two parts. Part A of each exhibit is a sample worksheet. Part B

consists of a brief description of the worksheet.

1 A detailed example is worked out in the next section (see Table 5

of the worksheet presented as Exhibit 2.6 in Section 2.3).

O A detailed example is worked out in the next section (see Table 7 of the worksheet presented as Exhibit 2.9 in Section 2.3).

O These values are given in Table 6 of the worksheet presented as Exhibit 2.9 in Section 2.3).

12
EXHIBIT 2.1 SAMPLE WOKSHEET: METHODOLOGY FOR CALCULATING

OCCUPANCY RISK FACTOR

PART A: WORKSHEET

Table 1. OCCUPANCY RISK PARAMETER FACTORS

RISK PARAMETERS RISK FACTOR VALUES

1. PATIENT

MOBILITY (M)

MOBILITY

STATUS

MOBILE

LIMITED MOBILITY

NOT

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 FLOOR 1ST 2ND OR 3RD

4TH TO 6TH

7TH AND ABOVEBASE- MENTS

LOCATION (L) RISK FACTOR 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.6

4. RATIO OF PATIENTS TO

PATIENTS

ATTENDANT

11

1 3J

1

6J0

1

>]]

1

ONE OR*

MORE

NONE

ATTENDANTS (T) RISK FACTOR 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.5 4.0

5. PATIENT AVERAGE

AGE UNDER 65 YEARS

AND OVER 1 YEAR

65 YEARS & OVER

1 YEAR & YOUNGER

AGE (A) 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 -

D X

L X

T XA -F

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

1.0 X

F -R

0.5

X

F -R

13
EXHIBIT 2.1 SAMPLE WORKSHEET: METHODOLOGY FOR CALCULATING

OCCUPANCY RISK FACTOR

PART B: DESCRIPTION

Table 1

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

Based on the guidelines given in the NBS report by Nelson and Shibe*

the appropriate value for each of the five risk parameters is then

determined.

Table 2

The values identified in Table 1 are then entered in the spaces coded

M, D, L, T and A. These values are multiplied together and

entered in the space coded as F. The score recorded in box F is the

"unadjusted" occupancy risk factor.

Table 3

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 1973 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

1973 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 0.5.

1 Harold E. Nelson and A. J. Shibe, A System for Fire Safety Evaluation

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

November 1978.

14
EXHIBIT 2.2 SAMPLE EVALUATION: FIRE ZONE IDENTIFICATION AND CALCULATION OF OCCUPANCY RISK FACTOR

PART A: WORKSHEET

Table 1. OCCUPANCY RISK PARAMETER FACTORS

RISK PARAMETERS RISK FACTOR VALUES

1. PATIENT

MOBILITY (M)

MOBILITY

STATUS

MOBILE

LIMITED MOBILITY

NOT

MOBILE

NOT

MOVABLE

RISK FACTOR 1.0 1.6 3jl 4.5

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

DENSITY (D) RISK FACTOR 1.0 1.2 1.5 TT

3. ZONE

LOCATION (L)

FLOOR 1ST 2ND OR 4TH TO 6TH

7TH AND ABOVEBASE- MENTS

RISK FACTOR 1.1 inr 1.4 1.6 1.6

4. RATIO OF PATIENTS 11 3J> 6-10 >v\

ONE OR*

MORE

PATIENTS TO ATTENDANT 1 1 1 1 NONE

ATTENDANTS (T) RISK FACTOR 1.0 1.1 J2L 1.5 4.0

5. PATIENT

AVERAGE

AGE (Aj

AGE UNDER 65 YEARS

AND 0VEJL1 YEAR

65 YEARS & OVER

1 YEAR & YOUNGER

RISK FACTOR Toi 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

M D L T A F OCCUPANCY RISK 3.2 X

2jj| « [l2] x [L2 X 1.0 = [To]

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

1.0 X

F R

0.5

X

F R 10 = 5

15
EXHIBIT 2.2 SAMPLE EVALUATION: FIRE ZONE IDENTIFICATION AND

CALCULATION OF OCCUPANCY RISK FACTOR

PART B: DESCRIPTION

Exhibit 2.2, Part A, provides an example of how the occupancy risk factor

calculations are performed.

Table 1

The third floor fire zone, contains a staff of 5 attendants and 32 patients.

Most of the patients in the zone are capable of removing themselves from

danger by their own efforts, their rate of travel, however, is significantly

less than that of a normal person. In addition, several patients are not

mobile. The appropriate parameter for this factor is thus Not Mobile;

it carries a charge of 3.2. (In calculating occupancy risk higher charges

indicate higher risks. ) The risk parameters associated with each of the

other four factors in Table 1 are: Patient Density, 2.0, since there are

more than 30 patients; Fire Zone Location, 1.2, since the fire zone is on the third floor; Ratio of Patients to Attendants, 1.2, since there are

6.4 patients per attendant; Patient Average Age, 1.0, since the average

age is between 1 and 65.

Table 2

The "unadjusted" occupancy risk factor is calculated in Table 2 of

Exhibit 2.2. If the answer is not an integer, as in this case, it is

rounded up. The "unadjusted" occupancy risk factor in this case is 10.

Table 3

The "unadjusted" occupancy risk factor, 10, is next entered in Table 3B

(Existing Buildings). The adjusted Occupancy Risk Factor which will be

used in the evaluation is 5. Thus in order to satisfy the safety redundancy requirement for general safety, fire safety measures within the zone must produce at least 5 points under the general safety category.

16
EXHIBIT 2.3 SAMPLE WORKSHEET: VALUES OF SAFETY PARAMETERS AS A FUNCTION OF THE LEVEL OF SAFETY PROVIDED

PART A: WORKSHEET

Table 4. SAFETY PARAMETERS VALUES

PARAMETERS PARAMETERS VALUES

1. CONSTRUCTION

COMBUSTIBLE

WOOD FRAME NONCOMBUSTIBLE

FLOOR OF ZONE UNPROTECTED PROTECTED

FIRST -2

SECOND -7

THIRD -9

4TH & ABOVE

UNPROTECTED PROTECTED -2

-2 -4 -7 -9

-7 -13

UNPROTECTED PROTECTED FIRE RESIST.

-2 -2 -7 -7

-7 -9 -7

2. INTERIOR FINISH

(Corr. & Exit)

CLASS C CLASS B CLASS A -5 0 3

3. INTERIOR FINISH (Rooms]

CLASS C CLASS B CLASS A -3 i 3

4. CORRIDOR

PARTITIONS/WALLS

NONE OR INCOMPLETE

-=1/3 HR >1/3 <1.0 HR 21.0 HR.

-10 |0]* 0 1 [0]* 2(0]*

5. DOORS TO

NO DOOR <20 MIN.FR >20 MIN. FR >20 MIN. FR & AUTO CLOS. CORRIDOR -10 0 1 (0]”* 2 |0]”’

R 7flNF MMFNRinN^

DEAD END MORE THAN 100' DEAD END

30 -100’ NO DEAD ENDS >30' & ZONE LENGTH IS: >150’ 100 -150’ <100' -6 (O)** -4 [0]” -2 0 1

7. VERTICAL OPENINGS

OPEN 4 OR MORE

FLOORS OPEN 2 OR 3 FLOORS

ENCLOSED WITH INDICATED FIRE RESIST. | <1 HR. >1 HR. <2 HR. 22 HR. -14 -10 0 2 (0)* 3 [or

8. HAZARDOUS AREAS

DOUBLE DEFICIENCY SINGLE DEFICIENCY NO DEFICIENCIES

IN ZONE OUTSIDE ZONE IN ZONE IN ADJACENT ZONE

-ii -5 -6 -2 0

9. SMOKE CONTROL

NO CONTROL SMOKE PARTITION MECH. ASSISTED SYSTEMS

-2 |0]‘" 0

BY ZONE BY CORRIDOR

3 4

=2 ROUTES MULTIPLE ROUTES

10. EMERGENCY MOVEMENT

ROUTES -8

DEFICIENT CAPACITY W/O HORIZONTAL

EXIT(s) HORIZONTAL EXIT(s) DIRECT EXITfs]

-2 0 3 5

11. MANUAL FIRE ALARM

NO MANUAL FIRE ALARM MANUAL FIRE ALARM

-4

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

1 2

12. SMOKE DETECTION

& ALARM

NONE CORRIDOR ONLY ROOMS ONLY CORRIDOR &

HABIT. SPACE

4

TOTAL SPACE

0 2 3 5

13. AUTOMATIC

SPRINKLERS

NONE CORRIDOR CORRIDOR &

HABIT. SPACE

8

TOTAL SPACE

0 2 (0)** 10

NOTE: *Use (0) when item is -10 Use |0] when item 1 is based on first floor zone or on an "Use (0] when item to is -8. •"Use |0] in zone with less than 31 patients

in existing buildings.

unprotected type of construction. ’Use |0] when item 1 is based on an unprotected type of construction. ’Use 10) when item 4 is -10.

17
EXHIBIT 2.3 SAMPLE WORKSHEET: VALUES OF SAFETY

PARAMETERS AS A FUNCTION OF THE LEVEL

OF SAFETY PROVIDED

PART B: DESCRIPTION

Table 4

Table 4 of the Fire Zone Safety Evaluation Worksheet is presented in

Part A of Exhibit 2.3. Each of the 13 Building Safety Features are listed in this exhibit. In addition to the listing, a value is given

for each level of fire safety (parameter). A brief description of the

level associated with each safety parameter is also given in a small

box immediately above each parameter value. For example, the safety

parameters 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.

Specifications which enable the evaluator to determine the appropriate

level to check for each building safety parameter are given by Nelson

and Shibe.^

^ In this case the descriptors are Class C, Class B and Class A,

respectively.

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

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

November 1978.

18
EXHIBIT 2.4 SAMPLE EVALUATION: VALUES OF SAFETY PARAMETERS FOR

THE INITIAL STATE OF THE FIRE ZONE

PART A: WORKSHEET

Table 4. SAFETY PARAMETERS VALUES

PARAMETERS PARAMETERS VALUES

1. CONSTRUCTION

COMBUSTIBLE

NON-COMBUSTIBLE

WOOD FRAME OROINARY

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 0)

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

2. INTERIOR FINISH

(Corr. 1 Exit)

CLASS C CLASS B CLASS A 6) 0 3

3. INTERIOR FINISH [Rooms)

CLASS C CLASS B CLASS A 0 1 3

4. CORRIDOR

PARTITIONS/WALLS

NONE OR

INCOMPLETE

<1/3 HR >1/3 <1.0 MR *1.0 HR. -10 |0|* 1 (0)* 2 [0)‘

5. 000R

CORR

S TO

NO DOOR <20 MIN.FR >20 MIN FR >20 MIN. FR l AUTO CLOS. DOR © 0 i ior* 2 (0)*"

6. ZONE DIMENSIONS

DEAD END MORE THAN 100' DEAD END

30 -100' NO DEAD ENDS >30' A ZONE LENGTH IS: >150' 100 -150' <100'

-6 (0) ,# G mi 5) -2 0 1

7. VERTICAL OPENINGS

OPEN 4 OR MORE

FLOORS OPEN 2 OR 3 FLOORS

ENCLOSED WITH INDICATED FIRE RESIST

<1 HR. Si HR. <2 HR. S2 HR. -14 -10 2 [0]* 3 (0)*

8. HAZARDOUS AREAS

DOUBLE DEFICIENCY SINGLE DEFICIENCY NO DEFICIENCIES

IN ZONE OUTSIDE ZONE IN ZONE IN ADJACENT ZONE © -5 -6 -2 0

9. SMOKE CONTROL

NO CONTROL SMOKE PARTITION MECH. ASSISTED SYSTEMS 5 0

BY ZONE BY CORRIDOR Qjor 3 4

10. EMER MOVE

<2 ROUTES MULTIPLE ROUTES GENCY MENT

-8

DEFICIENT CAPACITY W/O HORIZONTAL

EXITHI HORIZONTAL EXITts] OIRECT EXITIs) ROUTES -2 3 5

11. MANUAL FIRE ALARM

NO MANUAL FIRE ALARM MANUAL FIRE ALARM

-4

W/O F.D. CONN. W/F.D. CONN. © 2

12. SMOKE DETECTION 1 ALARM

NONE CORRIDOR ONLY ROOMS ONLY CORRIDOR A

HABIT. SPACE 4

TOTAL SPACE

(ID 2 3 5 1

13. AUTOMATIC

SPRINKLERS

NONE CORRIDOR CORRIDOR (

HABIT. SPACE

8

TOTAL SPACE © 2 [0)” 10

NOTE: *Use (0) when item 5 is -10. ‘Use (0) when item 1 is based on first floor zone or on an ••Use [0] when item 10 is -8. unprotected type of construction. •••Use |0) in zone with less than 31 patients

*’ Use 1°) *. hen i,em 1 is based •» Jn unprotected type of

ffinetrnr (inn

19
EXHIBIT 2.4 SAMPLE EVALUATION: VALUES OF SAFETY

PARAMETERS FOR THE INITIAL STATE OF

THE FIRE ZONE

PART B: DESCRIPTION

Table 4

Part A of Exhibit 2.4 is an example of what a worksheet which has been

filled out would be like. This worksheet is a continuation of the same evaluation of the fire zone being examined earlier. By referring to the

third row of entries associated with the first factor, Construction, it can be seen that the appropriate construction type is noncombustible and

that the level of the factor is fire resistive. The score associated

with the parameter Non-combustible — Fire Resistive — Third Floor is 4.

Both categories of Interior Finish (Corridor and Exit, and Rooms) are

Class C. The values of the safety parameters are thus -5 and -3 respectively. The time-rated fire resistance classification of partitions

between patient use areas and the corridors is revealed to be less than

20 minutes resulting in a score of 0. Inasmuch as all patient room doors

have ordinary glass lights and insufficient latching, a no door charge

is levied.* The score associated with this charge is -10. Since the fire zone contains a dead end greater than 30 feet but less than 100 feet,

the score associated with the corridor length safety factor is -4. The

fire zone contains three exit stairwells which have fire doors with a time-rated fire resistance classification of less than 1 hour. The score associated with this parameter is 0. Since the fire zone contains a high hazard area (e.g. , soiled linen room) which is neither sprinklered

nor protected by a fire resistive enclosure, the maximum charge, “11,

is levied against the eighth safety factor. For the next safety factor,

Smoke Control, the level of fire safety provided within the fire zone

is minimal, resulting in a charge of -2. The fire zone contains multiple

exit routes, three exit stairwells, and no horizontal exits. The score associated with the Emergency Movement Route factor is thus 0. The fire zone contains a manual fire alarm which is not connected to the fire

department resulting in a score of 1 for the eleventh factor. The last

two safety factors Automatic Detection and Alarm devices and Sprinklers

are not provided within the fire zone resulting in a score of 0 in both

cases.

It is important to point out that the safety parameters circled in

Exhibit 2.4 reflect the current or initial state of the fire zone. That

is, every level of safety accorded should actually be in place if the

fire zone is in an existing building.

A room shall be considered as not having a door if there is (1) no

door in the opening, (2) some mechanism which prevents closing of

the door (3) insufficient latching to keep the door tightly closed,

(4) a significant opening between the patient room and the corridor,

or (5) within the door louvers or ordinary glass lights.

20
EXHIBIT 2.5 SAMPLE WORKSHEET: METHODOLOGY FOR EVALUATING THE LEVEL OF CONTAINMENT SAFETY,

EXTINGUISHMENT SAFETY, PEOPLE MOVEMENT SAFETY, AND GENERAL

SAFETY PROVIDED WITHIN THE FIRE ZONE

PART A: WORKSHEET

21
EXHIBIT 2.5 SAMPLE WORKSHEET: METHODOLOGY FOR EVALUATING

THE LEVEL OF CONTAINMENT SAFETY, EXTINGUISHMENT

SAFETY, PEOPLE MOVEMENT SAFETY, AND GENERAL

SAFETY PROVIDED WITHIN THE FIRE ZONE

PART B: DESCRIPTION

Table 5

Table 5 provides a means for calculating the scores associated with con- tainment safety, extinguishment safety, people movement safety and general

safety. These scores are then compared to the scores required by the 1973

Life Safety Code. The calculation is accomplished by entering the score associated with the appropriate parameter (state) 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 S^, S

2

, S 3 and Sq respectively

in Table 5.

22
EXHIBIT 2.6 SAMPLE EVALUATION: CURRENT LEVEL OF CONTAINMENT SAFETY,

EXTINGUISHMENT SAFETY, PEOPLE MOVEMENT SAFETY, AND GENERAL SAFETY PROVIDED

WITHIN THE FIRE ZONE

PART A: WORKSHEET

23
EXHIBIT 2.6 SAMPLE EVALUATION: CURRENT LEVEL OF CONTAINMENT

SAFETY, EXTINGUISHMENT SAFETY, PEOPLE MOVEMENT

SAFETY, AND GENERAL SAFETY PROVIDED WITHIN THE

FIRE ZONE

PART B: DESCRIPTION

Table 5

Part A of Exhibit 2.6 shows what a completed Table 5 would look like.

Notice that the first row, corresponding to the first Building Safety

Feature (Construction) does not have an entry in the third column

(people movement safety). This is because the type of construction

in the fire zone does not affect the way people move through the fire

zone, whereas it does affect the ability to contain or extinguish a potential fire within the fire zone as well as the overall occupancy

risk. Similar observations can be made for other Building Safety

Features (rows of Table 5) and for other safety requirements (columns

of Table 5). In fact, only one safety requirement, general safety,

is a function of all 13 Building Safety Features. Note also that the

full score associated with sprinklers may not be claimed under people

movement safety. This is because sprinklers when activated may limit

the ability of the fire zone's occupants to seek refuge.

From Part A of Exhibit 2.6 it can be seen that the levels of safety

being provided by the fire zone in its current state are: Sj, -25

points; S

2

» - 6 points; 83 * -21 points; and Sq, -30 points.

> *

24
EXHIBIT 2.7 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

PART A: WORKSHEET

Table 6. MANDATORY SAFETY REQUIREMENTS

CONTAINMENT

Sa

EXTINGUISHMENT

Sb

PEOPLE MOVEMENT

Sc

ZONE LOCATION New Exist. New Exist. New Exist.

FIRST FLOOR 9.0 4.0 6.0 3.0 6.0 1.0

ABOVE FIRST FLOOR 14.0 8.0 8.0 5.0 9.0 3.0

Table 7. ZONE SAFETY EQUIVALENCY EVALUATION YES NO

CONTAINMENT

SAFETY (St)

less MANDATORY

CONTAINMENT |S a )

Si Sa C

EXTINGUISHMENT

SAFETY |S2l

less MANDATORY >0

EXTINGUISHMENT [Sbl

S 2 Sb E

PEOPLE

MOVEMENT (e , SAFETY i s

3 i

less MANDATORY

PEOPLE >0

MOVEMENT (S c )

S3 S C P

GENERAL

SAFETY (S G ) less

OCCUPANCY

RISK (R)

S G R 6

25
EXHIBIT 2.7 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

PART B: DESCRIPTION

Part A of Exhibit 2.7 provides the means for determining if the fire zone possesses a level of fire safety equivalent to that of the 1973 Life

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

in Table 5 and entering them in the boxes labeled Si, S

2

, S

3

, and Sq in

Table 7. The user then selects the values from Table 6 for 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 S a

, S^, and S

c in Table 7. The Occupancy Risk

Factor calculated on the first worksheet 1 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^, So, and Sq, and the second

set of numbers S , SK , S , and R, in Table 7 are greater than or equal

to zero.

1 See Part A of Exhibit 2.2 for an example.

26
Putting Together a Retrofit Package

Given that the fire zone under examination fails all four of the basic

safety categories, it is necessary to determine how compliance to the

Life Safety Code may be achieved through renovation or retrofitting of

the fire zone. However, in order to identify a potential retrofit

strategy, all possible retrofits associated with each Building Safety

Feature must be identified. This may be done by referring once again

to Exhibit 2.4 where the initial state of the fire zone is presented.

An examination of Exhibit 2.4 reveals that only the first Building

Safety Feature (Construction), is already at the highest possible level

(or state). (The highest possible level (or state) of fire safety for

each feature is defined as the parameter with the highest score. ) In

the discussion which follows, the term state will be used to denote a given level of fire safety for each Building Safety Feature. For example,

"No Door" is the lowest state for the Building Safety Feature Doors to

Corridor, doors with less than a 20 minute fire rating is the second

state, doors with more than a 20 minute fire rating is the third state,

and doors with more than a 20 minute fire rating and automatic closers

is the fourth and highest state.

Twelve Building Safety Features are left after ruling out the first

feature which has been identified as already existing in the highest

possible state. In each of these cases it is possible to move from the

existing state to a higher state. These possibilities shall be denoted

as potential retrofits. For example, potential retrofits for corridor

partition walls are corridor partition walls with: (1) fire ratings of

from 20 to 60 minutes; and (2) fire ratings of more than 60 minutes.

Since the costs of each potential retrofit are ignored in the present

discussion, the focus will be only on the changes in score associated

with a potential retrofit; that is, the change in score in going from

a lower state to a higher one.

One possible retrofit strategy would be to go to the highest possible

state for each Building Safety Feature. Even if costs are ignored, such

a strategy would not be efficient since the resulting score for each of

the four safety redundancy requirements would far exceed the score needed

to achieve compliance. For the fire zone evaluated in Exhibits 2.1

through 2.7, in order to meet the requirements of the Life Safety Code,

the score would have to improve by 33 points for containment safety,

12 points for extinguishment safety, 24 points for people movement safety,

and 35 points for general safety. Although more efficient means exist for

selecting potential retrofits based on score improvements,^ a simplistic

approach which refers only to the information contained in Table 4 of

the Fire Zone Safety Evaluation Worksheet presented in Part A of

Exhibit 2.4 will be presented in this discussion.

See the report by Nelson and Shibe, A System for Fire Safety Evaluation

of Health Care Facilities . It is important to point out that the com- puter program discussed in the report by Nelson and Shibe does not assess the cost of the alternative retrofits.

27
The greatest potential for score improvement exists in those Building

Safety Features having the largest negative charges. These are:

2, Interior Finish: Corridor and Exits, -5; 3, Interior Finish:

Rooms, -3; 5, Doors to the Corridor, -10; 6, Zone Dimensions, -4;

and 8, Hazardous Areas, -11.

Net improvements of 8 points for Interior Finishes in Corridors and Exits

and 6 points for Interior Finishes in Rooms can be achieved by reducing

flame spread ratings from Class C to Class A. This retrofit can usually

be accomplished by painting the surface with fire retardant paint, or in

the case of paneling, treating it with a fire retardant finish. The -10

point charge for Doors to the Corridor is a strong indication that this

factor should be upgraded. Note that in the presence of a "No Door"

charge, no score improvement is possible for Corridor Partition Wall

retrofits. This is due to an interdependency between the two features.^

In this case, replacing the ordinary glass lights in the patient room

doors with wire glass lights and repairing the defective latches will

upgrade all doors to a less than 20 minute fire rating. This will result

in a net improvement of 10 points for the fifth feature (Doors to the

Corridor) without changing the score for the fourth factor (Corridor

Partition Walls). The removal of the dead end corridor is not a very

attractive retrofit since it would require the installation of an exit

stairwell. An attractive retrofit not mentioned earlier is the upgrading

of the fire rating on the three exit fire doors from less than 1 hour to more than 2 hours. This retrofit accounts for a 3 point net improvement

in the seventh feature, Verical Openings. The next candidate for retrofitting is the eighth feature. Hazardous Areas. The removal of all

deficiencies may be accomplished by installing sprinklers in all hazardou; areas and upgrading the enclosure of high hazard areas to fire resistive.'

The last retrofit considered is the installation of a horizontal exit.

This retrofit is attractive because it results in a score improvement

of 3 points in the tenth feature, Emergency Movement Routes, and a score

^ The interdependency is most serious when both features are in the

lowest state. In such a case, if the doors to the corridor are upgraded,

the score for the corridor partition walls will change from 0 to -10

points. By the same token no score improvement would be possible for

upgrading corridor partition walls as long as the "No Door" charge

remains in effect. Consequently this interdependency must be addressed

in the development of a retrofit strategy when both features are in the

lowest state. In this worst case scenario, the score interdependence

is removed as long as the retrofit strategy includes improvements for

both doors and corridor partition walls.

O It is assumed that any hazardous areas on other floors are separated

from the hazardous area(s) under consideration by 1-hour fire resistive rated construction.

28
improvement of 2 points in the. ninth feature, Smoke Control, since a horizontal exit can also be counted as a smoke partition.

It is now necessary to determine if the retrofit strategy outlined above

will provide a level of safety equivalent to that required by the Life

Safety Code. The retrofit strategy is summarized in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1 Hypothetical Retrofit Strategy

Building Safety, Feature Retrofit

Interior Finish

Corridor and Exits

Rooms

Reduce flame spread rating from

Class C to Class A.

Doors to the Corridor Upgrade fire rating to less than

20 minutes

Vertical Openings Upgrade fire rating on fire doors

to more than 2 hours.

Hazardous Areas

Emergency Movement Routes

Smoke Control

Install sprinklers in all hazardous

areas. Ensure a fire resistive

enclosure for all high hazard areas.

Install a horizontal exit

Smoke partition is automatically

credited due to the installation

of a horizontal exit.

The scores associated with the (new) state of each safety parameter for

the hypothetical retrofit strategy are now entered in the appropriate

blocks in Table 5 of the Fire Zone Safety Evaluation Worksheet shown in

Exhibit 2.8. The score for each safety category is then computed by

summing the values in each column. In this case the scores for each

safety category are: containment safety, 13 points; extinguishment

safety, 5 points; people movement safety, 5 points; and general safety,

13 points. In Exhibit 2.9 these scores are compared to those required

by the Life Safety Code. This examination reveals that the hypothetical

retrofit strategy satisfies the Life Safety Code, since for each of the

four safety redundancy requirements the post retrofit score matches or

A horizontal exit can only be credited if at least 30 net square feet

per institutional occupant is provided for the total number of institutional occupants in adjoining compartments. If the zone were the entire

floor, then the horizontal exit would have to divide the floor in such

a way that on either side of the horizontal exit all patients and staff

could seek refuge and have at least 30 net square feet per person.

29
EXHIBIT 2.8 SAMPLE EVALUATION: POST RETROFIT LEVEL OF CONTAINMENT

SAFETY, EXTINGUISHMENT SAFETY, PEOPLE MOVEMENT SAFETY, AND GENERAL SAFETY PROVIDED WITHIN THE FIRE ZONE

Table 5. INDIVIDUAL SAFETY EVALUATIONS

SAFETY

PARAMETERS

CONTAINMENT EXTINGUISHMENT PEOPLE

SAFETY SAFETY MOVEMENT

(Si) (S 2 ) SAFETY (S 3 )

GENERAL

SAFETY

(SG)

1. CONSTRUCTION 4 4 4

2. INTERIOR FINISH

(Corr. & Exit) 3 3 3

3. INTERIOR FINISH (Rooms)

CO 3

4. CORRIDOR

PARTITIONS/WALLS 0 0

5. DOORS TO

CORRIDOR 0 ° 0

6. ZONE DIMENSIONS 11111111111! mmmiP -4

7. VERTICAL OPENINGS 3 3 3

8. HAZARDOUS AREAS 0 0 0

9. SMOKE CONTROL 0 0

10. EMERGENCY

MOVEMENT ROUTES 3 3

11. MANUAL FIRE

12. SMOKE

ALARM

DETECTION

^^8 1 Hi

& ALARM iSi ° ° 0

13. AUTOMATIC

SPRINKLERS

0 0 Of 2 = 0 0

TOTAL VALUE s,= 13 s 2 = 5 s

3 = 5 S G

= 13

30
EXHIBIT 2.9 SAMPLE EVALUATION: EVALUATION OF POST RETROFIT LEVEL OF SAFETY

PROVIDED WITHIN THE FIRE ZONE TO DETERMINE IF IT 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.

FIRST FLOOR 9.0 4.0 6.0 3.0 6.0 1.0

ABOVE FIRST FLOOR 14.0 8.0 8.0 5.0 9.0 3.0

Table 7. ZONE SAFETY EQUIVALENCY EVALUATION YES NO

CONTAINMENT

SAFETY (Si)

less MANDATORY

CONTAINMENT (S a )

Si Sa C @-0=[il V

EXTINGUISHMENT locc SAFETY (S 2 )

' eSS

MANDATORY >0

EXTINGUISHMENT |Sb)

S 2 Sb E 0-0= 0 V

PEOPLE

MOVEMENT fc . SAFETY l s 3i

less MANDATORY

PEOPLE >0

MOVEMENT (S c )

S 3 Sc P E-m=m V

GENERAL

SAFETY (S G | less

OCCUPANCY

RISK (R) -°

Sg R G 0-0 = 0 V

31
exceeds the score required by the Life Safety Code. Note, however, this

analysis has not addressed the crucial issue of the costs of the hypothetical retrofit strategy. This issue will be introduced gradually

beginning with the next section.

2.4 THE COSTS OF STRICT COMPLIANCE VERSUS EQUIVALENCY

The framework for determining the cost savings of the equivalency methodology over those associated with strict compliance will be developed in

this section.

However, before the cost savings associated with the equivalency methodology can be quantified, two additional, pieces of information are needed.

The first is concerned with the units which must be used in reporting

the required information on each of the 13 Building Safety Features. The

second relates a unique parameter (state) for each of the 13 Building

Safety Features in Table 4 of the Fire Zone Safety Evaluation Worksheet

to strict compliance to the Life Safety Code. With these two pieces of

information it is possible to use data on the unit cost of each element

requiring treatment in order to calculate the total cost of each potential

retrofit. ^ These costs may then be compared with those resulting from

the strict compliance solution to determine the savings attributable to

the equivalency methodology.

Data Requirements

In order to address the first issue a cost format patterned after

Table 4 of the Fire Zone Safety Evalution Worksheet has been developed.

This format is presented as Table 2.2. Notice that each of the 13 Building Safety Features is listed in Table 2.2. However, Table 2.2 differs

from Table 4 of the Fire Zone Safety Evaluation Worksheet in one very

important way. In every case the lowest possible state associated with

a given feature has been eliminated. This was done because the scale

of the job is a function of the number of elements requiring treatment

in order to advance from the existing state to a higher state. Since

moving from a higher state to a lower state^ is not permitted, attention

will be focused upon potential retrofits.

To better illustrate this approach and to make this rationale more transparent, two additional tables, Table 2.3 and 2.4, have been prepared.

Table 2.3 identifies the abbreviations for the elements which appear in

Table 2.4. Table 2.4 is identical to Table 2.2 with the exception that

the elements and the units used to determine the scale of the job have

^ See Appendix A for a brief discussion of how the unit cost of each

element associated with a potential retrofit was established.

2 It is always possible to remain in the same state at zero cost.

32
Table 2.2 Required Information on Key Safety Parameters

Building

Safety Feature Parameter Descriptors

Combustible

1. Construction Wood Frame Ordinary Non-combustible

Floor Protected Protected Protected Fire Resistive

2. Interior Finish Class B Class A

[Corr. & Exit]

Class B Class A

3. Interior Finish

[Rooms

]

< 1/3 HR 1/3-1. 0 HR >1.0 HR

4. Corridor

Partition Walls

5. Doors to <20 min FR >20 min FR >20 Min. FR & Auto Closer

Corridor

Dead End No Dead Ends >30' & Corridor Length is

6. Corridor 30 '-100 ' >150 100- 150 <100

Lengths

Enclosed with Indicated Fire Resistance

7. Vertical <1 HR >1 HR <2 HR 2 HR

Openings

Single Deficiency No Deficiencies

8. Hazardous

Areas

Mech. Assisted Systems

9. Smoke Control Smoke Partition Fire Zone Corridor

10. Emergency w/o Horizontal Horizontal Exit(s) Direct Exit(s)

Movement Exit (s

)

Manual Fire Alarm

11. Manual Fire w/o FD Conn w/FD Conn

Alarm

Corridor Only Rooms Only Corridor & Habit. Space Total Space

12. Automatic

Detection

& Alarm

Corridor Corridor & Habit. Space Total Space

13. Sprinklers

33
Table 2.3 Abbreviations for Elements and Units to be Used

in Reporting Data on Potential Retrofits

Abbreviation Definition

Ft 2 (C) Square feet of construction to

be protected (e.g., ceilings,

walls, columns, or floors)

Ft 2 (F) Square feet of f loor/ceiling area

Ft 2 (W) Square feet of wall area

Ft(P) Linear feet of partition extended

to the structural slab

D Number of doors

D + F Number of door and frame systems

0 Number of openings

C Number of closers

FD Number of fire doors

FD + F Number of fire door and frame systems

CPFD + F Number of corridor partitionings

with fire door and frame systems

S Number of stairwells

# Number of any element/unit

34
Table 2.4 Elements and Units to be Used in Reporting Data on Potential Retrofits

Building Safety

Feature Parameter Descriptors

Combustible Non-combustible

1. CONSTRUCTION Wood Frame Ordinary

FLOOR Protected Protected Protected Fire Resistive

# Ft 2 (C) Ft 2 (C) Ft: 2 (C) Ft 2 (C)

2. INTERIOR FINISH

[Corr. & Exit]

Class B

Ft 2 (F) ,Ft 2 (W)

Class A

Ft 2 (F ), Ft 2 (W)

3. INTERIOR FINISH

[Rooms]

Class B

Ft 2 (F ) ,Ft 2 (W)

Class A

Ft 2 (F),Ft2 (W)

4. CORRIDOR <1/3 Hr 1/3-1. 0 Hr >1.0 Hr PARTITION WALLS

Ft 2 (W) ,0 Ft 2 (W) ,0 Ft 2 (W) ,0

5. DOORS TO <20 min FR >20 min FR >20 min FR CORRIDOR

D ,D+F ,0 D ,D+F ,0 D ,D+F ,0 ,

Dead End No Dead Ends >30' & Corridor Length Length is

6. CORRIDOR 30 1 -100 1 >150' o 0 1 t—

* Ln O <100' LENGTHS S S s S

Enclosed with Indicated Fire Resistance

7. VERTICAL <1 HR >1 HR <2 HR 2 HR

OPENINGS Ft 2 (W) ,FD,FD+F Ft 2 (W) ,FD,FD+F Ft 2 (W) , FD

,

FD+F

Single Deficiency No Deficiencies

8. HAZARDOUS

AREAS Ft 2 (F), FT2 (W),FD,FD+F Ft 2 (F ) ,Ft 2 (W) , FD , FD+F

Smoke Partition Mechanically Assisted Systems

9 . SMOKE Fire Zone Corridor CONTROL Ft 2 (W) , CPF+D # #

Multiple Routes

10. EMERGENCY w/o Horizontal Horizontal Exit[s] Direct Exit[s] MOVEMENT Exit [ s

]

ROUTES

# Ft 2 (W) , Ft(P),CPF+D #

Manual Fire Alarm

11. MANUAL FIRE w/o F.D. Conn w/F.D. Conn ALARM # #

Corridor Only Rooms Only Corridor & Habit. Space Total Space

12. AUTOMATIC

DETECTION 6, Ft 2 (F) Ft^(F) Ft 2 (F) Ft 2 (F) ALARM

Corridor Corridor & Habit. Space Total Space

13. SPRINKLERS Ft 2 (F) Ft 2 (F) Ft 2 (F)

35
1 been filled in beneath each potential retrofit. For example, suppose the

fire zone was found to have 500 square feet of interior finish in the

corridors and exits which had a fire rating of Class C (e.g., plywood

paneling), and 500 square feet with Class B (e.g., ceiling tiles), all

other areas being Class A. Then to upgrade that feature in the fire

zone to Class B would require that the 500 square feet of interior

finish with a Class C flame spread be treated. If the feature was

to be upgraded to Class A then all 1,000 square feet in Class B and

in Class C would have to be treated. That is, the row of Table 2.2

corresponding to the case just described when filled in would be:

2. INTERIOR FINISH

(Corr & Exit)

CLASS B

0,500

CLASS A

500,500

As can be seen from Table 2.4, the scale of the job is measured in the

number of elements required to move to a higher state. For Building

Safety Features 1 (Construction), 2 (Interior Finishes: Corridors and

Exits), 3 (Interior Finishes: Rooms), 12 (Automatic Detection & Alarm),

and 13 (Sprinklers'5 ) the scale of the job is measured in terms of square

1 It is important to point out that the elements and units referenced in

Table 2.3 and 2.4 are facility dependent. More specifically, they have

been tailored to the typical hospital design analyzed in in Chapter 3.

Additional research may conclude that certain health care facility

types will require slightly different elements and units as inputs.

o In the case cited above the initial state for Building Safety Feature 2 was Class C. If the initial state were Class B, then the row of

Table 2.2 would be:

2. INTERIOR FINISH CLASS B CLASS A

(Corr & Exit) 0,0 500,0

Thus the only potential retrofit would be to go to Class A. We could

of course remain in Class B at zero cost. If the initial state were

Class A, then the row of Table 2.2 would be:

2. INTERIOR FINISH CLASS B CLASS A

(Corr & Exit) 0,0 0,0

In this case no potential retrofits exist. Consequently, it is possible

to remain in Class A at zero cost. In the above example the first entry

corresponds to the square feet of floor area requiring treatment; the

second entry corresponds to the square feet of wall area requiring treatment. This scheme was selected to facilitate data inputs into the com- puterized procedure discussed in Section 2.6.

A fixed number of square feet per detector and sprinkler head is

assumed for all calculations involving the installation of automatic

detection and alarm and sprinkler systems.

36
feet treated. In this case square feet can be interpreted to mean either

the square feet of floor/ceiling area or square feet of wall area requiring

treatment. The fourth feature. Corridor Partition Walls, is slightly more

complicated. It consists of a square feet of wall area count, denoted

as Ft^(w), and a number of openings count, denoted as 0. For Building

Safety Features 5, 6 and 11 the count refers to the number of times that

the element listed under each potential retrofit must be treated to move

to that state. In these cases unit costs are per opening, per door, per

door and frame system, and per automatic closer for Building Safety

Feature 5. For Building Safety Feature 6 the unit cost is per dead

end removed (stairwell installed). For the eleventh feature the unit

cost is either per manual fire alarm installed or per connection to the

fire department. The treatment of vertical openings is slightly more complicated because it requires information on both the square feet of

surface requiring fireproofing, the number of fire doors installed, and

the number of fire door and frame systems installed.

For example, if the fire zone contained 40 doors to the corridor and

the no door charge was appropriate in 7 cases, due to ordinary glass

lights, and all other doors have a fire rating of more than 20 minutes,

line 5 of Table 2.2 would look like:

5. DOORS TO <20 MIN FR >20 MIN FR >20 MIN FR

CORRIDOR & AUTO CLOS

0,0, 7,0 0,0, 7 ,0 0,0,7,40

In the event that all doors had a fire rating of 20 minutes or more,

line 5 of Table 2.2 would look like:

5 . DOORS TO

CORRIDOR

<20 MIN FR >20 MIN FR >20 MIN FR

& AUTO CLOS

0 , 0,0 ,0 0 , 0 , 0,0 0,0,0,40

Three of the 13 Building Safety Features have still not been discussed.

These features require special treatment since the units used in com- puting the scale of the job in moving from one state to another may

change. Consider the smoke control safety feature (line 9 in Table 2.3).

If there is presently no smoke control, three retrofits are possible:

(1) a smoke partition, (2) mechanically assisted systems 1 by fire zone,

and (3) mechanically assisted systems by corridor. Since the configuration of fire zones may vary within the facility, the cost of installing

a smoke partition may also vary considerably. Thus the number of elements to be used in calculating the scale of the job is the number of

square feet of wall area requiring fireproofing as well as the number

Mechanically assisted systems include a smoke partition as well as automatically controlled fans, smoke vent shafts, or a combination

of the two.

37
of corridor partitioning systems which contain a fire door and frame

that are installed. For mechanically assisted systems, however, the scale

of the job is the number of automatically controlled fans or smoke vent

shafts installed. Consequently , an adequate assessment of costs requires

two measures.

The same problem results in the treatment of emergency movement routes.

For this feature the installation of a horizontal exit is analogous to

the installation of a smoke partition. (In fact the installation of a horizontal exit permits a smoke partition to be claimed under the smoke

control safety feature. ) Since layouts may vary from zone to zone it

appears more efficient to record the costs of installing a horizontal

exit on the basis of square feet of wall area requiring fireproofing,

the linear feet of partition extended to the structural slab above, and

the number of corridor partitioning systems which contain a fire door

and frame that are installed. (The use of these measures permits greater

flexibility in the use of the computerized procedure since unit costs

remain constant over a wide range of job sizes.

)

The last Building Safety Feature to be treated is the one dealing with

hazardous areas. Hazardous area deficiencies may be removed through the

installation of a fire resistive enclosure and/or an automatic sprinkler

protection system. Four separate pieces of information are thus required

to cover all cases. For example, the cost of a fire resistive enclosure

depends upon the square feet of wall area, Ft^(W), which must be upgraded

to a 2 hour fire rating and the number of fire doors, FD, or fire door

and frame systems, FD+F, which must be installed. The costs of an automatic sprinkler protection system, however, depend on the square feet of

floor area, Ft^(F), in the hazardous area. A double deficiency may be

reduced to a single deficiency through the installation of either a fire

resistive enclosure or an automatic sprinkler system. To determine the

least-cost solution, the scale of both potential retrofits must, therefore, be included. To move from a double deficiency to no deficiencies

the installation of both a fire resistive enclosure and an automatic

sprinkler protection system is required. To move from a single deficiency to no deficiencies in a high hazard area either an automatic

sprinkler system or a fire resistive enclosure has already been installed,

so the number of units for the system already in place should be recorded

as zero. The appropriate figure(s) for the potential retrofit should

then be entered either before or after the zero(es) depending on whether

the hazardous area is enclosed or sprinklered. If the hazardous area is

defined as ordinary, then either system may be used to remove the

deficiency.

1 As in the earlier cases, the order in which the figures are entered

is important. Ft z (F) should always be entered first; Ft z (W) second;

the number of fire doors to be installed, FD, third; and the number

of fire door and frame systems, FD+F, last.

38
The Prescriptive Requirements of the Life Safety Code

It is now time to address the second issue, the value of each Building

Safety Feature which corresponds to strict compliance to the Life Safety

Code. Tables 2.5 and 2.6 show the level of each safety feature which

corresponds to strict compliance for all possible cases. Table 2.5 shows

the level of each feature corresponding to strict compliance for health

care facilities which are non-sprinklered. Table 2.6 shows the level of

each feature corresponding to strict compliance for health care facilities

which are totally sprinklered. Each table is then divided into a part

for new buildings and a part for existing buildings. In all, eleven

cases are presented in the two tables, four for non-sprinklered health

care facilities and seven for sprinklered health care facilities.

The four non-sprinklered cases presented in Table 2.5 are analyzed first.

For example, from Table 2.5 it can be seen that to determine the value

(and level) of each safety parameter which corresponds to strict compliance for a new 1 story non-sprinklered health care facility, it would be

necessary to refer to the first column of the table. The first column

of Table 2.5 reveals that the construction type must be protected noncombustible in order to be in strict compliance to the Life Safety Code.

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 solution for the treatment of vertical

openings is prescribed by the Life Safety Code for this building type.)

Continuing in the first column it should be noted 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 eleventh

and twelth rows of this column of Table 2.5 indicate that manual fire

alarms with a fire department connection are required and that smoke

detection and alarm devices are required in the corridors. (Recall that

the facility is non-sprinklered so that the last safety parameter, automatic sprinklers, is listed as none.)

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

Building Safety Feature are summed, a total score of 13 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 2.5 are now entered onto Table 5 of the Fire Zone Safety Evaluation Worksheet (see

Exhibit 2.5) one would find that the following score for each safety

category results:

Containment safety

Extinguishment safety

People movement safety

General safety

9 points

6 points

6 points

13 points

39
Table 2.5 Values of Safety Parameters Corresponding to Strict Compliance to the Life Safety

Code: Non-Sprinklered Facilities

BUILDING TYPE

BUILDING SAFETY

FEATURE NEW 1 STORY

NEW-MORE

THAN 1 STORY

EXISTING

1 STORY

EXISTING

MORE THAN

1 STORY

PROT. NON-COMB. FIRE RESISTIVE PROT. NON-COMB. FIRE RESISTIVE

1. CONSTRUCTION 2 4 2 4

2. INTERIOR FINISH CLASS A CLASS A CLASS B CLASS B [Corr. & Exit] 3 3 0 0

CLASS B CLASS B CLASS B CLASS B

3. INTERIOR FINISH

[Rooms

1 1 1 1

4. CORRIDOR

> 1.0 HR _> 1.0 < 1/3 HR < l/3 HR

PARTITIONS/WALLS 2 2 0 0

> 20 Min > 20 Min. > 20 Min. > 20 Min.

5. DOORS TO

CORRIDOR 1 1 1 1

100'-150' 100'-150' 100'-150' 100'-150'

6. ZONE DIMENSIONS30 0 0 0

Non-App. 2 HR NotApp. > 1- < 2 HR

7. VERTICAL

OPENINGS 0 3 0 2

No Deficiencies No Deficiencies No Deficiencies No Deficiencies

8. HAZARDOUS

AREAS 0 0 0 0

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

9. SMOKE CONTROL 0 0 0 0

10. EMERGENCY

Multiple Routes Multiple Routes Multiple Routes Multiple Routes

MOVEMENT ROUTES 0 0 0 0

W/FD Conn. W/FD Conn. W/O/FD Conn. W/O/FD Conn.

11. MANUAL FIRE ALARM 2 2 1 1 Corridor Only Corridor Only None None

12. SMOKE DETECTION

& ALARM 2 2 0 0

None None None None

13. AUTOMATIC

SPRINKLERS 0 0 0 0

TOTAL VALUE 13 18 5 9

3 No dead ends greater than 30 feet and corridor length is as recorded.

40
Table

2.6

Values

of

Safety

Parameters

Corresponding

to

Strict

Compliance

to

the

Life

Safety

Code:

Totally

Sprinklered

Facilities

z >* W 06 H O

O

z >< M OS H O

2

Z -H M X

tn W

06 O

O M

O H

M M

OS H

OS 06 O <

O O,

O 06 H O

Q

CO M

02 0(2 o os O O

Q U

< <

N W Si

06

>*O H

z z

w w o 33

06 W ggw 33

CO O 02 M W

H hJ siO M H 02 < CO

41

No

dead

ends

greater

than

30

feet

and

corridor

length

is

as

recorded.
Note that the scores for the first three categories correspond to the

values given as the mandatory safety requirements for a fire zone located

on the first floor of a new health care facility in Table 6 of the Fire

Zone Safety Evaluation Worksheet (see Exhibit 2.7 in the previous section)

Recall that the level of safety associated with the general safety require

ment 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 strict 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 2.5, new non-sprinklered

health care facilities with more than 1 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

8 points

9 points

18 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 2.7 of the previous section)

for fire zones located above the first floor in a new health care facility. If this exercise were repeated for the third and fourth columns

of Table 2.5, 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 health care facilities. 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 nonsprinklered cases. If one were to perform the same set of calculations

for the seven cases where the health care facility was sprinklered

(Table 2.6), one would find that the resulting scores for each safety

redundancy requirement would exceed those for the same building type

if the building were non-sprinklered.

Cost Saving Potential

Now that the basis for calculating the costs associated with each potential retrofit, the value of each Building Safety Feature which corresponds

to strict compliance, and the level of safety provided by strict compliance to the Life Safety Code for each safety redundancy requirement and

class of occupancy have been established, it is possible to examine the

cost saving potential of the equivalency methodology.

The present discussion assumes that it is the total score for each safety

category which is of the utmost importance and not the level of any one Building Safety Feature (recall the statement of the redundancy clause

in the Life Safety Code). Based on this assumption it is possible to

introduce the concept of cost-effective levels of fire safety. For

42
example, the level of fire safety, be it for sprinklered or for non- sprinklered facilities as reflected in the score for each safety category,

provides some degree of latitude in changing the level of two or more

of the safety features simultaneously (and perhaps reducing total fire

safety costs) while holding the total score constant. To illustrate this

point, the concept of equal-protection and equal-cost curves will be

used. The basic framework used will be that of cost-benefit analysis.^’^

Cost-benefit analysis, by the systematic study and weighing of available

alternatives, provides a guide for increasing the efficiency with

which financial and other resources are allocated. Under certain circumstances cost-benefit analysis could be used to identify the optimal

level of fire safety. In a more general framework cost-benefit

analysis may be used to determine the most efficient level of safety

for a given dollar expenditure or conversely the least-cost means of

achieving a given level of safety. This implies that the costs which

are relevant in determining the most efficient level of protection^

(general safety, for example) within the framework of cost-benefit analysis are the least-cost means for producing any level of safety.

In order to illustrate this concept and to introduce some of the topics

which will be discussed in Section 2.6, it is necessary to make several

simplifying assumptions. In particular, it will be assumed that there

are only two techniques, A and B (for example, two of the 13 Building

Safety Features), which produce general safety. Furthermore, it will be

assumed that the levels of these two techniques are continuously variable.

(For example, the level of each technique may be the number of minutes

This treatment bears heavily on some of the previous work conducted

by one of the authors. For a comprehensive treatment the interested

reader is referred to Robert E. Chapman and Peter F. Colwell, The

Economics of Protection Against Progressive Collapse , National

Bureau of Standards, NBSIR 74-542, September 1974.

2 . E. J. Mishan, Cost-Benefit Analysis: An Introduction , Praeger,

Washington, D.C., 1971.

Cost-benefit analysis is sometimes called risk-benefit analysis in

the context of safety.

^ Any such approach would have to assess all social costs and benefits

regardless to whom they accrue. For an in-depth discussion of how this

analysis would be conducted the interested reader is referred to

John S. McConnaughey , An Economic Analysis of Building Code Impacts:

A Suggested Approach , National Bureau of Standards, NBSIR 78-1528,

October 1978.

^ Implicit in this statement is that some minimum level, as identified

by the Life Safety Code or the Equivalency Methodology, is attained.

The fact that this level may not be economically efficient is best

handled by the methodology developed by McConnaughey.

43
of fire resistance provided by that technique.) This concept may be

illustrated graphically. In Figure 2.1 the level, or fire resistance,

of each technique is measured along the appropriate axis. The curves in

Figure 2.1 which are labeled q^ , q£ , and q^ are equal-protection curves. Each equal-protection curve indicates all those combinations of techniques A and B which will produce an equal amount of general safety.

In Figure 2.1, higher equal-protection curves indicate higher levels of

general safety. (In the context of the Fire Zone Safety Evaluation

Worksheet, higher equal protection curves imply higher scores.) Suppose

the curves q^, q 2

> and q^ are thought of as being associated with three

different fire zone locations. For example, q^ could correspond to the

required level of general safety for a fire zone on the first floor of an existing health care facility. Similarly, q 2 and q^ could corre- spond to the required level of general safety for fire zones on the

third and sixth floors of the same health care facility. In such a case

a particular score could be attached to each equal-protection curve. For

example, let qi have a score of 4 points, q 2 a score of 7 points, and

q^ a score of 10 points.

The straight lines in Figure 2.1, labeled C^, , C2 , C3, and Co, are equal-cost lines based on the assumption that the unit prices of techniques A and B are constant. Each equal-cost line shows all the combinations of techniques A and B which cost the same. In Figure 2.1, higher

equal cost lines indicate greater costs. Thus the least-cost combination

of techniques A and B for producing a certain level of general safety

is the one where the lowest possible equal-cost line touches (is tangent

to) the specific equal-protection curve in question. Points a, 8, and y are the least-cost combinations which produce q^ , q 2

, and q^ units of

general safety. By allowing only one of the two techniques to vary

(for example, as a result of strict compliance to a code provision 1 ),

the resulting combinations of the two techniques are not necessarily

least-cost combinations. Thus, if one were to hold technique B constant

at level B^ and just vary the level of technique A, q^ would be produced

at C

1 which is higher than Cj , q 2 would be produced at C

2

j and q^ would

be produced at which is higher than C^.

Figure 2.2 further illustrates this point by showing costs as a function

of the level of general safety being produced. The C* function shows

the costs of producing various levels of general safety while holding

the level of technique B constant. The C function shows the lowest cost

(that is, it implies only the most cost-effective methods are used) of

producing various levels of general safety. Any cost curve which is

not derived from the path of tangency points between the equal-protection

curves and the equal-cost lines cannot be below the C function. Therefore, the C function is the lower envelope of all other cost curves

^ Refer to Tables 2.5 and 2.6 for an illustration of this point. An

examination of these tables reveals that the flame spread rating for

interior finishes in rooms is Class B in all eleven cases of strict

compliance

44
FIGURE 2.1 EQUAL-COST LINES AND EQUAL- PROTECTION CURVES

FIGURE 2.2 COSTS AS A FUNCTION OF THE LEVEL OF GENERAL SAFETY BEING PRODUCED

$ COST OF

GENERAL

SAFETY

Ql $2 ^3

LEVEL OF GENERAL SAFETY

45
derived from the same equal-cost and equal-protection curves* It is the

C function which is relevant for determining the most efficient level of

general safety. Note that strict compliance to a fire safety code,

as the Life Safety Code, does not guarantee that the solution will be on the C curve. Only with an Equivalency Methodology it is possible to

guarantee that the solution will be the most cost-effective and hence

lie on the C curve.

Assume that the C* curve corresponds to the cost resulting from adherence

to the prescriptive provisions of the Life Safety Code for each of the

three fire zone locations examined. The C curve may then be thought

of as the costs resulting from providing an equivalent level of general

safety through the use of an Equivalency Methodology for each of the

three fire zone locations. Potential savings attributable to the use

of an Equivalency Methodology may now be read directly from the C and

C* curves. In the first case, where it was assumed that the fire zone was located on the first floor of the health care facility, the cost

savings are equal to C^ minus Cg. In the second case, where it was assumed that the fire zone was located on the third floor of the health

care facility, no savings are attributable to the Equivalency Methodology

since the same solution is provided through strict compliance to the

Life Safety Code. In the third case, where it was assumed that the fire zone was located on the sixth floor, the cost savings are equal to Cg

minus Cg. Thus the actual savings attributable to the Equivalency

Methodology are bounded from below by zero.

In calculating savings attributable to the Equivalency Methodology one must not lose sight of the fact that the solution must satisfy all four

safety categories (containment, extinguishment, people movement, and

general) simultaneously. Although the approach taken here has focused

on only one category, general safety, and only two of the 13 Building

Safety Features, the basic methodologies will apply to the four category13 Building Safety Feature case. (For those readers wishing a "theoretical"

discussion of the mathematical underpinnings of the above claim which

includes multivariate calculus and constrained optimization, both with

single and multiple constraints, the text by Silberberg is highly recommended. The word theoretical has been placed in quotations in the

sentence above since each of the 13 Building Safety Features is not

continuously variable as was assumed in the previous discussion. It is

important to point out that most of the concepts introduced in this

section, including unit costs, variations in the scale of the job, and

the C and C* functions, can be shown to perform in an analogous manner

in the discrete case treated by the computer program.

1 Eugene Silberberg, The Structure of Economics:

McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1978.

A Mathematical Analysis ,

46
2.5 ADVANTAGES OF THE EQUIVALENCY METHODOLOGY

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. It is important to point out that these reductions are based only on the entries

which appear in Table 4 of the Fire Zone Safety Evaluation Worksheet.

Experts in the area of fire engineering claim that through the consideration of addition technical and engineering data these costs can be

reduced even further. (Previous studies in other areas have demonQ

strated the cost saving potential of design innovations. ) 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. 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 simultaneously.

Although all of the preceding topics are of crucial importance, perhaps

the greatest advantage offered by the Equivalency Methodology is its

ability to be adapted to computer optimization techniques. Computer

optimization techniques are useful because they identify the leastcost means of achieving compliance to the Life Safety Code. In

addition to the least-cost solution, computer optimization techniques

provide a systematic procedure for generating from 10 to 20 alternative

means of achieving compliance to the Life Safety Code some of which are quite close to the least-cost solution. The added information provided

by the alternative solutions will 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 sur- rounding 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 would have on the selection of the "best" retrofit

strategy.

2.6 COMPUTERIZED PROCEDURE FOR IDENTIFYING COST-EFFECTIVE RETROFITS

The computerized procedure presented in this section is based on a mathematical technique known as linear programming. In its usual context

1 In the context of the last section (C* - C)/C* is between 0.7 and 0.5.

2 Louis J. Krueger and Richard M. Patton, "More Fire Safety Can

Cost Less," Hospitals , Vol. 51, February 1, 1977, pp. 127-132.

47
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 in that 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

factor possible at any one time. This is due to the! requirement that

the most hazardous level associated with each feature determines the score for that feature. 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 method of approach taken in developing and using the linear programming procedure has the Fire Safety Evaluation System as its foundation.

The steps which must be taken in order to go from the basics of the Fire

Safety Evaluation System to the linear programming procedure are shown

in Figure 2.3.

Figure 2.3 User Flowchart

* A linear function is defined as a function of the form

f(X) = a Q

+ a lXl + . . . + a n

x

n where a- are coefficients not all zero and the x- are variables.

The geometrical representation of a linear function is a straight

line, a plane, or a hyperplane. For example, f(x) = a + bx. a straight line, is a linear function where as g(x) = c + dx , a parabola, is not.

2 The above condition ...requires that all variables corresponding to

safety feature levels must be either zero or one. This requirement

implies that the problem actually solved is an integer program. The

solution to a linear programming problem yields continuous rather than

integer variables; however, it can be shown, because of the constraint

structure of the model, that the continuous solution is always "nearly"

integer.

48
Figure 2.3 displays the sequence of steps between the Fire Safety Evaluation System and the computerized procedure. 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 existing state of each

feature and the fire zone to be identified. 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 parameter which has a higher score than the

parameter corresponding to the existing state.) One important opportunity which should not be overlooked is the collection of information

on potential retrofits during the safety inspection. As indicated in the

third block, 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. 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. The fourth step

in the sequence of events relates to the unit cost or cost Der element.

These costs are the ones actually used in performing the economic

analyses. They are an integral part of the procedure and are stored

in an "element cost matrix." This cost matrix interacts with the information on the number of elements in the following way. 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 (see Table 2.4).

This "format" is followed when information on the number of elements

is input. All of this information is then stored in an "element count

matrix." The product of the element count and element cost matrices

yields the total cost associated with each potential retrofit. It is

important to point out that the user has the option to accept or modify

any information contained in the element cost matrix. The engineering

considerations underlying the per unit or per element costs are presented

in Chapter 3 and Appendix A. Thus should the user feel that the information in the element cost matrix does not adequately reflect the costs

associated with the local construction market or is inappropriate on some other grounds, it can be modified either through the use of time-location

factors or changing one or more of the engineering assumptions.

The information identified in the sequence of steps outlined above is

the only information required to run the computerized procedure.

Although the computerized procedure is only a "working prototype" a maximum amount of flexibility has been built into it. This section

1 Engineering input is important at all stages of the procedure but is

particularly important in identifying potential retrofits.

In particular, the computerized procedure 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 higher level of safety than required by the Life Safety Code.

49
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, a comparison report

A Computerized Approach for Identifying

Cost-Effective Fire Safety Retrofits in Health Care Facilities —has been

prepared. 1 The companion report consists of program documentation, flow

charts, format statements, sample computer runs and a complete listing of

the computer program.

R. E. Chapman, W. G. Hall, and P. T. Chen, A Computerized Approach

for Identifying Cost-Effective Fire Safety Retrofits in Health Care

Facilities , National Bureau of Standards, NBSIR, (In Press).

50
Engineering input is of vital importance at all stages of the building

process. The Fire Safety Evaluation System is designed to maximize the

impact of the engineering expertise at the disposal of health care facility administrators.

3. COST CONSIDERATIONS: A CASE STUDY

The development of the cost considerations presented in this chapter

closely parallels the discussion of the Life Safety Code, the Equivalency Methodology and the computerized procedure presented in Chapter 2.

These cost considerations play a key role in the process of choosing among

alternative retrofit scenarios for a fire zone in a health care facility.

The cost considerations presented in this chapter include:

(1) the selection of a prototypical hospital design suitable for

applying the concepts developed in Chapter 2;

(2) the enumeration of all fire zones within the prototypical

hospital

(3) the evaluation of the existing levels of each of the 13 Building

Safety Features for each fire zone;

51
(4) the establishment of fire safety retrofit strategies for

each feature based on sound design judgment; and

(5) the preparation of a cost estimate for each retrofit

strategy for each Building Safety Feature.

Information on the existing state of each Building Safety Feature, potential retrofits for that feature, counts on the number of elements which

must be treated to move to a higher state, and element costs are input

into the computer program causing a series of detailed cost analyses

to be performed. These analyses include cost comparisons between the

least-cost solution and strict compliance solution as well as among the

least-cost solution and the set of alternative solutions. The results

of the cost comparisons are presented in Section 3.3.

3.1 SELECTION OF A PROTOTYPICAL HOSPITAL

In order to identify the relevant engineering and architectural design

information for hospitals that would be suitable for the synthesis of the

protypical hospital, it was convenient to work closely with the Central

Office of the Veteran's Administration (VA). The VA was selected as the

primary information source for several reasons. First, the VA could make

available designs on more than 170 hospitals of various ages. Second,

the VA has cost information on many of the potential retrofits which are identified in the Fire Safety Evaluation System. Finally, through contact with the National Bureau of Standards, a number of VA personnel

have become familiar with the Fire Safety Evaluation System. Based on discussions with the VA personnel and the application of engineering

judgment, four hospitals were selected. These designs were selected

because they represent the typical designs of the VA's hospitals. The

four hospitals selected and their date of construction are summarized

in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1 Hospital Layouts Used to Generate Data for the Prototypical

Hospital

Hospital Location Date Built

Number of Typical

Buildings

(Other VA Hospitals)

Dallas, Texas 1951 15

Jackson, Mississippi 1958 6

Atlanta, Georgia 1962 9

Bronx, New York 1974 8

52
Using information from the layouts of these hospitals, a prototypical

hospital design was then synthesized. The process through which the prototypical design was synthesized involved the reconstruction of a hospital

design in which many construction features, although they were perfectly

acceptable at the time of their construction, may require modification

in order to meet the requirements of the 1973 Life Safety Code. This prototypical design was used in conducting the cost cases presented in

Section 3.3. A brief description of the prototypical design is given in

the following section.

3.2 The Prototypical Hospital Design

The design of the prototypical hospital presented in this chapter was selected to illustrate the process of: (1) identifying retrofit strategies and alternatives to upgrade the facility to the requirements of

the 1973 Life Safety Code; (2) selecting retrofit features which would

satisfy strict compliance to the 1973 Life Safety Code; and (3) selecting

the least-cost combination of retrofits which complies with the 1973

Life Safety Code.

Figure 3.1 is an isometric view of the prototypical hospital. It reveals

a seven story "T" shaped structure. The structure is assumed to be a general hospital housing approximately 300 patients. There is a full

basement and a small penthouse provided to house the machinery for the

four elevators. The hospital is assumed to have been built around 1960.

It is constructed with structural steel framing protected by a fire resistive concrete covering, reinforced concrete floors, fixed windows and

masonry exterior walls. Heating, ventilation and air-conditioning is

also provided throughout the hospital. The design features of each fire zone are described in the following subsection.

3.2.1 Configuration of the Fire Zones

In all but one case, there is a single fire zone for the basement and each

of the seven floors in this hospital. The design features upon which the

requirements of the Life Safety Code impinge are therefore listed for each

floor. In each case this scenario is based on design experience and engineering judgment and upon assumptions of what an actual inspection of the

premises would reveal.

The Basement

The basement floor layout is shown in Figure 3.2. It is neither used by

any patients nor in any patient egress route. Mechanical and electrical

rooms housing the building service equipment are located on this floor and

take up approximately 50 percent of the total floor area. There are also

two storage rooms, a cafeteria, a kitchen and other small rooms. The reinforced concrete basement walls and first floor slab together with three

enclosed stair exits make this (basement) floor fire resistive. A complete extinguishment system is provided for the entire floor. The Fire

Safety Evaluation System will not be applied to this floor since it is

53
Figure 3.1
STORAGE

Figure 3.2

FLOOR PLAN OF THE PROTOTYPICAL HOSPITAL: BASEMENT FLOOR

2

s

II

©

55
not used by any patients and since a fire resistive enclosure with an automatic extinguishment system is between it and patient areas.

The First Floor

The first floor layout is shown in Figure 3.3. This floor is divided into

two fire zones denoted as Zone 1 and Zone 2 in Figure 3.3. Emergency

treatment rooms are located in Zone 1. The out patient clinic, pharmacy,

auditorium and offices are located in Zone 2. Zones 1 and 2 are separated

by a horizontal exit with a fire dodr. The horizontal exit dividing

Zone 2 and Zone 1 is designated by the darkened line in Figure 3.3. From

the basement and upper floors there is one enclosed stairway which exits

into the Zone 2 corridor near the emergency treatment area. Two additional

enclosed stairways may be used to exit into the Zone 2 corridor. However,

both of these exits also have direct access to the outside of the building

(see Figure 3.3). Zone 2 is thus listed as being on a patient egress

route. Three other exits from Zone 2 and one other exit from Zone 1 are also shown in Figure 3.3.

Fire Hazard Scenario:

Zone 1 : There is enough space for five patients and four attendants.

The interior finish as Class A is evaluated for the corridor and exits

and as Class B for the rooms. Doors to the corridor are of a fire

rating of less than 20 minutes; there are no dead-end corridors and no hazardous areas. There is one horizontal exit which may also be

claimed as a smoke partition, and there is a localized manual fire

alarm. Neither smoke detectors and alarms nor automatic extinguishment devices are provided.

Zone 2 : There are generally about 10 outpatients being cared for

by one attendant. Interior finish for the rooms is evaluated as Class C; corridor partition walls are rated at between 20 minutes

and one hour; doors to the corridor have a fire rating of less than

20 minutes. The two utility rooms and the pharmacy are evaluted

as hazardous areas. There is one horizontal exit located between

Zones 1 and 2, and there are localized manual fire alarms in three

places. Again, as in Zone 1, neither smoke detectors and alarms nor automatic extinguishment devices are provided.

The Second Floor

The second floor layout is shown in Figure 3.4. This floor contains

surgery and recovery areas, x-ray areas, utility and storage areas, and

some office spaces. There are three exits leading into the enclosed

stairways.

Fire Hazard Scenario:

The entire floor is a single fire zone. Ten patients and six

attendants are assumed to occupy the floor at any one time. In

56
Figure 3.3

FLOOR PLAN OF THE PROTOTYPICAL HOSPITAL: FIRST FLOOR

57
Figure 3.4

FLOOR PLAN OF THE PROTOTYPICAL HOSPITAL: SECOND FLOOR

>-<

at

I X

>

<

<r

i x

58
addition to the patients and attendants, a maximum of 20 office

workers and medical technicians may occupy the floor. All con- struction is of the noncombustible, fire-resistive type, and some interior finishes in the corridors, exits and rooms have Class C

flame spread ratings. All corridor partition walls are rated at

between 20 minutes and one hour; doors to the corridor have less

than a 20 minute fire rating; all dead-end corridors are less

than 30 feet in length with the longer corridor being 135 feet

in length. Doors and door frames for the three exis are rated at

less than one hour of fire resistance. There is no automatic

extinguishment system in any of the hazardous areas^ (e.g. , library,

x-ray file room, storage room and laboratory). There is no provision for smoke control, and there are three emergency movement routes

without any horizontal exits. There are two localized manual fire

alarm stations, and there are neither smoke detectors and alarms

not automatic extinguishment devices.

The Third Through Seventh Floors

The third through seventh floor layouts are shown on Figure 3.5. Each of

these floors provides sleeping facilities for patients, a kitchen, rooms

for clean and soiled linen and other areas as shown on the figure. Each

floor is a single fire zone.

Fire Hazard Scenario:

The maximum number of patients is 58 per floor, and there are 5 attendants for each floor. Construction of all floors is of the

noncombustible—fire resistive type; and some interior finishes

in the corridors, exits and rooms have a Class C flame spread rating.

There are three large wired glass openings enclosed with non-UL approved

frames. All interior doors have less than a 20 minute fire rating with

ordinary glass lights, and a few have defective latches. The longest

dead-end corridor is 45 feet in length within a 135 foot long corridor.

Doors and door frames for the three exits are rated at less than one hour of fire resistance; and there is no extinguishment system in the

hazardous areas (laboratory, kitchen, linen rooms and storage room).

1 High hazard areas (double deficiency) identified by the Life Safety

Code include: 1) soiled linen rooms; 2) paint shops; 3) trash

collection rooms; and 4) rooms or spaces used for storage of com- bustible supplies and equipment in quantities deemed hazardous by

the authority having jurisdiction. (The fire hazard potential of

pharmacies, laboratories, and other medical support activities can vary widely from nonhazardous to high hazard and thus must be evaluated on a case by case basis.) Other hazardous areas (single

deficiency) identified by the Life Safety Code include: 1) boiler

and heater rooms; 2) laundries; 3) kitchens; 4) repair shops;

5) handicraft shops; 6) employee locker rooms; and 7) gift shops.

59
FIGURE 3.5 FLOOR PLAN OF THE PROTOTYPICAL HOSPITAL: THIRD THROUGH SEVENTH FLOORS

60
There is no provision for smoke control, and there are three emergency

movement routes without any horizontal exits. There are two localized

manual fire alarm stations, and there are neither smoke detectors and

alarms nor automatic extinguishment devices.

3.2.2 The Retrofit Scenario

Before a complete retrofit scenario can be formulated, several engineering issues relating to the assessment and evaluation of the existing

prototypical hospital must be addressed. Table 3.2 serves as a summary

and overview of the occupancy risk factors for each fire zone.

Identifying Retrofits

Tables 3.3 through 3.6 list the engineering assessment of the existing

conditions of the design features for each fire zone used to define the

initial state of each of the 13 Building Safety Features listed in

Table 4 of the Worksheet. Table 3.7 summarizes element counts and several

other critical factors that will be used in the cost comparisons. In particular, these quantities will be used to develop cost estimates for the

alternative retrofits discussed in Section 3.3. The potential retrofits

associated with each factor in each fire zone are summarized in Tables 3.8

through 3.10.

Pricing Retrofits

The estimated cost of each potential retrofit is presented in Tables 3.11

through 3.14. These prices were obtained by combining the information

presented in Tables 3.8 through 3.10 with the per unit or per element

costs presented in Appendix A. In practice the pricing information

presented here would only be the first cut at a final overall estimate of

the cost of the retrofit package. For this reason detailed construction

specifications will not be given. Construction specifications would, however be written prior to the preparation of a final construction estimate.

(It is important to point out that the user could easily check whether or not the retrofit package upon which the final estimate is based is appropriate through the use of the CHANGE option described in the companion

report.

)

61
Table 3.2 Summary of Occupancy Risk Factors in Each Fire Zone

Fire

Zone

Patient

Mobility

(M) a

Patient

Density

(D)

Zone

Location

(L)

Ratio of

Patients to

Attendant

(T)

Patient

Average

Age

(A)

Basement N.A N.A. N.A N.A. N.A.

1st Floor

Zone 1 3.2 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.2

1st Floor

Zone 2 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.5 1.2

2nd Floor

Single Zone 3.2 1.2 1.2 1.0 1.2

3rd Floor

Single Zone 3.2 2.0 1.2 1.2 1.2

4th Floor

Single Zone 1.6 2.0 1.4 1.2 1.2

5th Floor

Single Zone 1.6 2.0 1.4 1.5 1.0

6th Floor

Single Zone 1.6 2.0 1.4 1.5 1.0

7th Floor

Single Zone 1.6 2.0 1.6 1.5 1.0

Legend

N.A. = not applicable

a Letters denote entries in Table 2 of the Fire Zone Safety Evaluation

Worksheet.

62
Table 3.3 Existing Condition of Each Building Safety Feature in Zone 1 of the First Floor

Building Safety

Feature Description Va lue

1 . Construction Non-combustible/

fire resistive

2

2. Interior Finish

(Corridor and Exit)

Class A Finish 3

3. Interior Finish

(Rooms

)

Class B Finish 1

4. Corridor

Partition Walls

Between a 20 minute and

1 hour fire rating

1

5. Doors to Corridor Less than a 20 minute

fire rating

0

6. Zone Dimensions No dead ends 1

7. Vertical Openings Between a 1 and 2 hour

fire rating

2

8. Hazardous Areas None 0

9. Smoke Control Smoke Partition 0

10. Emergency Movement

Routes

Multiple routes with a horizontal exit

3

11. Manual Fire Alarm Manual fire alarm without

fire department connection

1

12. Smoke Detection & Alarm

None 0

13. Sprinklers None 0

63
Table 3.4 Existing Condition of Each Building Safety Feature in Zone 2 of the First Floor

Building Safety

Feature Description Value

1. Construction

2. Interior Finish

(Corridor & Exit)

3. Interior Finish

(Rooms

4. Corridor Partition Walls

5. Doors to Corridor

6. Corridor Length

7. Vertical Opening

8. Hazardous Areas

9. Smoke Control

10. Emergency Movement

Routes

11. Manual Fire Alarm

12. Smoke Detection & Alarm

13. Sprinklers

Non-combu s t ib le

/

fire resistive

All corridor ceiling is

of Class C (accoustical

ceiling)

Class C plywood panel in

the Medical director's

office

Between a 20 minute and

1 hour fire rating

Less than 20 minutes

of fire resistance with

some defective latches

All dead ends are less than

30 feet in length

3 exit doors and frames to

stairways are of less than

1 hour of fire resistance

The pharmacy and other

hazardous areas do not have

an extinguishment system

Smoke Partition

Multiple routes with

horizontal exits

Manual fire alarm without

fire department connection

None

None

2

-5

-3

2

0

0

0

-11

0

3

1

0

0

64
Table 3.5 Existing Condition of Each Building Safety Feature on the

Second Floor

Building Safety

Feature Description Value

1. Construction Npn-combustible/ 4

fire resistive

2. Interior Finish

(Corridor & Exit)

All corridor ceiling is of -5

Class C (acoustical ceiling)

3. Interior Finish

(Rooms

)

Class C plywood paneling -3

in the waiting rooms and

in the library

4. Corridor Partition Walls 1/3 to 1 hour fire rating 1

5. Doors to Corridor Less than 20 minutes of fire 0

resistance with some defective

latches

6. Zone Dimensions All dead ends are less than 0

30 feet in length

7. Vertical Opening 3 exit doors and frames to 0

stairways have less than

1 hour of fire resistance

8. Hazardous Areas No extinguishment system in -11

the x-ray file room, library,

storage room and other

hazardous areas

9. Smoke Control None 0

10. Emergency Movement

Routes

Multiple routes without 0

horizontal exits

11. Manual Fire Alarm Manual fire alarm without 1 fire department connection

12. Smoke Detection & Alarm

None 0

13. Sprinklers None 0

65
Table 3.6 Existing Condition of Each Building Safety Feature on the Third

Through Seventh Floors

Factor Description Value

1. Construction

2. Interior Finish

(Corridor & Exit)

3. Interior Finish

(Rooms

)

4. Corridor Partition Walls

5. Doors to Corridor

6. Zone Dimensions

7. Vertical Openings

8. Hazardous Areas

9. Smoke Control

Non-combustible/

fire resistive

All corridor ceiling is of

Class C (acoustical ceiling)

Class C plywood paneling in

Doctor's offices, Doctors'

lounge and the waiting room

3 wired glass openings (1000

square inches each) do not

have approved steel frames

Doors have less than 20

minutes of fire resistance,

doors have ordinary glass

lights (700 square inches

each) and a defective latch

45 foot dead end in one corridor

3 exit doors and frames to

stairways have less than

1 hour of fire resistance

No extinguishment system

in any hazardous areas

None

4

-5

-3

0

-10

-4

0

-11

-2

10. Emergency Movement

Routes

Multiple routes without

horizontal exits

0

11. Manual Fire Alarm

12. Smoke Detection & Alarm

13. Sprinklers

Manual fire alarm without 1 fire department connection

None 0

None 0

66
Number

of

Number

of

Corridor

Corridor

Corridor

Hazardous

Fire

Zone

Floor

and/or

Number

of

Elevator

Number

of

Doors

to

Length

Dead

Ends

Area

Areas

Area

Fire

Zone

of

Doors b

Doors

Exit

Doors

Hazardous

Areas

(Feet)

(Feet)

(Square

Feet)

(Square

Feet)

(Square

Feet)

O 0) O <D O C O C

rH

O r-t o

E*«M taN 0) Q> V4 co

CO

O

xs

*-> c C 3

CO

O 3 O

<D

C

CO 0) 0) S

tS "0)

<D CO 0) C CJ -< O *H X) N U <0 •H H

60

M CUC C ^ CO 0) CO 4-t 6 C/3 CO

o) c a) •H

-C T5 60 O H *H

<0 -H £ 0) 3« co

4-io on o m

<D <D <D x: > 0 U O 3 S C M-iO O U co <D O -u X> 0) co rH 4J

4-1 0) CO ^ X 3 M 4J S O 0) T5 CO U C -*-* C (D C 0) C 01 B v B

<U 73 0> c »—1 W -H 0)

67

This

figure

does

not

include

elevator

doors,

exit

doors,

and

doors

on
Table

3.8

Potential

Retrofits

for

Zone

2

of

the

First

Floor

00

M *0 TJ U

C 0) (0 •H U Q> M ig h t

U£ o H -o XI

to® *5=

OtS *-» -H M

I 4J 4J 0)

03 CO CO CO

<u a) m o OH rH

<d oo a> o

to a>>

CO <D n *h 2 ^

O O • T3 <0

h ^ C w ed a. n co co

a> co xi c c

Cd m ti H O

ES

•h a co oo

4J *H CO CO CO .C

4J

CO «-« G

o J= 0

•H O CO

M r-4 QJ a

•H O

a)o co

U r-i O

c

(1) to 00 QJ n 4J a § W »S

Automatic

Detection

and

0

Install

detectors

Install

detectors

Install

detectors

and

Install

detectors

Alarm

and

alarm

in

the

and

alarm

in

all

rooms.

alarm

in

all

corridors

alarm

so

as

to

co

corridor.

an( j

habitable

spaces.

all

spaces.
Table

3.9

Potential

Retrofita

for

the

Second

Floor

0) o u JS

U (9 •H

O

X

V

V > ®

a S'

00

M c CO U'H h | U U II

CD CQ C0 CQ

4> 4>m o

(JM *-< 0) 00 01 u P M

CO -H

O

CO 4-C CQ 0) 4J > 4) ffl 10 41 U S

4) OOH O W N H

H

CO <o -4 H !>, B W <0 O. M <0 CO

41 CO £ C

C

K ffl

UH

O * § « .p

p -h

rl 'iH ' CO 3 l* P r* C W CO CO

0) CO i s

•H J> u o a o

oo CO d ao 1 •H CO

a ^

•H *H

OM

a co • CO CO

Cl. r—*

4) 4) . . > M

m

h 41

a

CL-H CO .P U U 41

CO co

B

co MO--' H 4-» cm I 4-1 4J

4» 4)M

OM

4> 00 4) a m

co -H

CO «M

CQ 4)> 4) CO 41 iJ M -H 3 0£ C O O -H

TP to

B

41

O

O

O 4J CS

CO P a m co 4) (0 £ QB CD 4-1

f* *P a s

•H

N

M CO P. J=

4J 4J

M

C CM Po o 3 e

CO

H XI P h ca H CO

00p

•H CQ • —' 00

41

a P P CD *H

CQ CQ

M

p.^h co O M

•PO CO TJ

•P

M P O

CO -P•H

CO

M

M

M

OO

U

O

4J CQ CO

a -H CO .P u O 4)

CO CO S

0) CO MO*-' H *J

co CO P rH M CO

4) CO 00 4) M 4J 1 8 W OS

M TJ £ §

Legend -

Impossible

or

Infeasible

Retrofit 0

Existing

State
Table

3.10

Potential

Retrofits

for

the

Third

Through

Seventh

Floors

03 03 M O

U CO U ’V

to D 44 > <U to n 01 u B • U -h p o to O 4= C 44 U

O O -H 3 O

TJ CO B «0 O y UN H H

to to i—

H c U (0 G. U CO to

0) 10£ C C a to U H O

<U > *H

0)

03 *H C

O 4= 03

CO O 0) H 10 5

CL 44

03 O 03 05 4J JD

CO *4 O 03 •H *iH O M CL C

0) *H

OS £

M 03 C 3

I *44 M 03 o

•H (D 42 H<U )

1 CD 44 —I

01 to 0)

I 44 40 T3

to 01 C

> «4-J CO 3 01 O

Q) •!-« CO > 4= 00 <D O O 3 44 H to -H 3

Cu 44 C a o to *h

CO 44 M B

n c

0) -H

I 44 44

CO CO CO

0) 03 M O M

03 00 0) C V4

CO -H

CO *4-4 CO 03> 0)

CO 03 44 U *H 3 o 4= a

O O -H

T) CO s

•—< >> c a u to

to 4=

05 CO 44

C CO

CO 4=

44

CO r-1 C i-l

e s

3 0 44

44 -H CO CO

<13 CO C

C CO *H

CO CO 44

3 03 03 >» > ^4 r4 Q) ft, a-H CD

03 >

U M -H

CO *H 44 C & C3 •H 03 T3 4= MU M 44 03 O *H -O u

u B

0) o

4-» o

c oti

03 <0 00 03 U 44

03 3

0 5 W 05

70

Automatic

Detection

0

Install

detectors

and

Install

detectors

and

Install

detectors

and

Install

detectors

and

Alarm

alarm

in

the

corridor*

alarm

in

all

rooms*

alarm

in

all

corridors

alarm

so

as

to

co'

and

habitable

spaces*

all

spaces*
11

Summary

of

Critical

Element

Counts

corridors

and

habitable

spaces,

and

the

total

space.
Table 3.12 Retrofit Prices for Zone 2 of the First Floor

Building

Safety

State

Feature

1 2 3 4 5

1. Construction - - 0 - -

2. Interior Finish

(Corridor and Exit)

0 600 600 - -

3. Interior Finish

(Rooms)

0 300 300 - -

4. Corridor Partition

Walls

- - 0 - -

5. Doors to Corridor - 0 5700 6840 -

6. Zone Dimension - - - 0, (15000) a -

7. Vertical Openings - - 0 3750 3900

8. Hazardous Areas 0 - 540 - 3850

9. Smoke Control - 0 - - -

10. Emergency Movement

Routes

- - - 0 -

11. Manual Fire Alarm - 0 1000 - -

12. Automatic Detection

and Alarm

0 3150 11250 14400 15750

13. Sprinklers 0 2800 12800 14150 -

Legend

- Impossible or Infeasible Retrofit

0 Existing State

a The $15000 charge is due to the strict compliance requirement for an exit stairway leading down from the second floor.

72
Table 3.13 Retrofit Prices for the Second Floor

Building

Safety

State

Feature

1 2 3 4 5

1. Construction - - 0 - -

2. Interior Finish

(Corridor and Exit)

0 800 800 - -

3. Interior Finish

( Rooms

)

0 600 600 - -

4. Corridor Partition

Walls

- - 0 - -

5. Doors to Corridor - 0 8100 9720 -

6. Zone Dimensions - - - 0, (15000) a -

7. Vertical Openings - - 0 3750 3900

8. Hazardous Areas 0 - 1035 - 6860

9. Smoke Control 0 1400 - - -

10. Emergency Movement

Routes

- - 0 4650 -

11. Manual Fire Alarm - 0 1000 - -

12. Automatic Detection

and Alarm

0 4500 12915 17415 19575

13. Sprinklers 0 4000 15480 17640 -

Legend

- Impossible or Infeasible Retrofit

0 Existing State

a The $15000 charge is due to the strict compliance requirement for an exit stairway leading down from the third floor.

73
Table 3.14 Retrofit Prices for the Third Through Seventh Floors

Building

Safety

State

Feature

1 2 3 4 5

1. Construction - - 0 - -

2. Interior Finish

(Corridor and Exit)

0 800 800 - -

3. Interior Finish

( Rooms

0 600 600 - -

4. Corridor Partition

Walls

- 0 1200 - -

5. Doors to Corridor 0 3000 9000 10800 -

6. Zone Dimensions - 0 - 15000 -

7. Vertical Openings - - 0 3750 3900

8. Hazardous Areas 0 - 720 - 7453

9. Smoke Control 0 1400 - - -

10. Emergency Movement

Routes

- - 0 4650 -

11. Manual Fire Alarm - 0 1000 - -

12. Automatic Detection

and Alarm

0 4500 12623 17123 19575

13. Sprinklers 0 4000 15220 17673 -

Legend

- Impossible or Infeasible Retrofit

0 Existing State

74
3.3 APPLICATION OF THE COMPUTERIZED PROCEDURE TO A PROTOTYPICAL HOSPITAL

The focus of this section is on the presentation of the results of a series of computer studies based on the prototypical hospital design.

The results of the computer studies for each fire zone of the prototypical

hospital are presented in Section 3.3.1. In that section a series of

retrofit packages are identified for each fire zone. These retrofit

packages include not only the least-cost solution and the prescriptive

solution, but alternative retrofit strategies as well, such as total

sprinklering or the removal of a dead-end corridor. The full range of

admissible retrofits 1 generated by the computerized procedure is presented in Section 3.3.1. This approach is intended to stress the flexibility of the Equivalency Methodology. In practice health care facility

decision makers would probably wish to consider a subset of the admissible retrofits identified by the computer program in choosing a retrofit

strategy for the entire building. Section 3.3.2 addresses this requirement. The approach taken in Section 3.3.2 stresses similarity of

retrofits across fire zones. It is felt that this approach is most

consistent with the requirement for sound design judgment in the choice

of a comprehensive retrofit strategy. This approach also serves to reduce

the number of admissible retrofits to a more manageable number. Results

from the admissible retrofits considered in Section 3.3.2 support the

claim that the Equivalency Methodology can reduce the costs of compliance

to the Life Safety Code by 50 percent or more. Furthermore, the use of

the Equivalency Methodology permits code compliance to be achieved at a significant reduction in retrofit costs (25 to 35 percent) even if high

cost options such as the installation of a stairwell or total sprinklering are included in the retrofit strategy.

3.3.1 Alternative Retrofit Strategies by Fire Zone

The focus of this section is on establishing the technical underpinnings

for the results and for the cost saving implications of the use of the

Fire Safety Evaluation System Equivalency Methodology presented in Section

3.3.2. Details are given on each of the three fire zones'^ contained in

the protypical hospital. A synthesis of the results of this section into

An admissible retrofit strategy is one which matches or exceeds all

four safety redundancy requirements. All admissible retrofit strategies therefore satisfy the Life Safety Code. An admissible retrofit

strategy differs from a potential retrofit strategy in that a potential retrofit strategy may not satisfy the four safety redundancy

requirements of the Life Safety Code.

2 Zone 1 of the first floor already satisfies the prescriptive requirements of the Life Safety Code. The third fire zone, the patient room

floors, floors three through seven, is repeated five times. See Table

2.5 for a summary of the levels of each factor which corresponds to

strict compliance to the Life Safety Code for non-sprinklered facilities.

75
a comprehensive retrofit strategy is given in Section 3.3.2. Two types of

summary information are presented for each fire zone. The retrofits identified by the computerized procedure are first ranked from least costly to

most costly and plotted graphically. These results are shown in Figures

3.6, 3.7, and 3.8. Details of each retrofit package are then summarized

in Tables 3.16, 3.17, and 3.18. A fourth table, Table 3.15, is included

in order to establish a base for comparison. Table 3.15 identifies the

initial states for each of the 13 Building Safety Features in the three

fire zones under consideration.

First Floor, Fire Zone 2

The initial state for each of the 13 Building Safety Features in Zone 2 of the first floor is shown in the first column of Table 3.15. If the scores associated with the initial state of each of the 13 safety factors were entered onto Table 5 of the Fire Zone Safety Evaluation Worksheet,

the result would indicate that in order to achieve compliance to the Life

Safety Code the following net improvements would be needed: 19 points in

containment safety, 11 points in extinguishment safety, 3 points in people

movement safety, and 13 points in general safety.

In order to use the computerized procedure to solve for a cost-effective

retrofit strategy for this fire zone, it was necessary to obtain a set

of critical element counts. These counts were taken from the floorplans

and are summarized in Table 3.11 of the previous section. Through the use of the computerized procedure, seven admissible retrofit strategies were found which had costs less than or equal to the costs of strict

compliance. An eighth admissible retrofit strategy corresponding to

total sprinklering was also found but was more expensive than the prescriptive (strict compliance) solution. 1

’ A graphical summary of the

eight admissible retrofit strategies, ranked from least costly to most

costly, is shown in Figure 3.6. A ninth (admissible) strategy, the

prescriptive solution, is plotted at the far right. In each case the

height of the bar denotes the expected retrofit cost for each strategy.

These strategies are identified by a letter along the horizontal axis

of the figure which corresponds with a definition of a retrofit package

given in Table 3.16. Analysis of Figure 3.6 reveals that retrofit

^ Several other admissible retrofits which were more expensive than the

prescriptive solution were also found. In the other fire zones a certain number of admissible solutions which were more expensive than the

prescriptive solution were also found. Beyond the rather academic

issue of their existence, they are of little interest. Consequently,

unless specifically noted, no solution whose cost exceeds the prescriptive solution will be discussed in this section.

9 • • • •• The total sprinklering alternative is included even though it is more expensive than the prescriptive solution in this case since totally

sprinklering the entire building is a retrofit strategy considered in

Section 3.2.2.

76
Table 3.15 Initial States Used in Case Study of the Prototypical Hospital

Building Safety Zone 2 Floors 3 Feature Floor 1 Floor 2 Through 7

Construct! on Non-Combus tib le Non-Combustible Non-Combustible

Fire Resistive Fire Resistive Fire Resistive

Interior Finish Class C Class C Class C (Corridor & Exit)

Interior Finish Class C Class C Class C (Rooms

)

Corridor Between 20 Between 20 Less Than

Partition Walls Min. and 1 Hour Min. and 1 Hour 20 Min.

Doors to Less Than Less Than No Door

Corridor 20 Min. 20 Min.

Zone No Dead End > 30' No Dead End > 30' Dead End Between

Dimensions Length: 100'-150' Length: 100'-150' 30' and 100'

Vertical Enclosed: Less Enclosed: Less Enclosed: Less

Openings than 1 Hour than 1 Hour than 1 Hour

Hazardous Double Deficiency Double Deficiency Double Deficiency

Areas in Zone in Zone in Zone

Smoke Smoke No Control No Control

Control Partition

Emergency Horizontal Multiple Routes: Multiple Routes:

Movement Exit No Horizontal Exits No Horizontal Exits

Manual Fire Without Fire Without Fire Without Fire

Alarm Dept. Connection Dept. Connection Dept. Connection

Smoke Detection None None None

and Alarm

Automatic None None None

Sprinklers

77
FIGURE 3.6

RETROFIT PACKAGES AND THEIR ASSOCIATED COSTS FOR

ZONE 2 OF THE FIRST FLOOR

A B C D E F G H I

RETROFIT PACKAGE

78
Table 3.16 Retrofit Packages for Zone 2 of the First Floor

Retrofit Retrofit Description Surplus Retrofit Percent of Package (Upgraded from the Initial State) C E P G Cost Prescriptive

A Interior Finish (C&E a ): Class A Interior Finish (Rooms): Class A

Hazardous Areas: No Deficiencies

5 0 5 11 4750 45.5

B Interior Finish (C&E): Class A

Interior Finish (Rooms): Class A Hazardous Areas: No Deficiencies Manual Fire Alarm: With Fire

Department Connection

5 1 5 12 5750 55.0

C Interior Finish (C&E): Class A 7 2 6 13 7550 72.2 Interior Finish (Rooms): Class A Hazardous Areas: No Deficiencies

Automatic Sprinklers: Corridor

D Interior Finish (C&E): Class A 5 2 7 13 7900 75.6 Interior Finish (Rooms): Class A

Hazardous Areas: No Deficiencies

Smoke Detection and Alarm: Corridor

E Interior Finish (C&E): Class A 7 0 7 13 8500 81.3 Interior Finish (Rooms): Class A Vertical Openings: Enclosed Between

1 and 2 Hours Hazardous Areas: No Deficiencies

F Interior Finish (C&E): Class A 8 0 8 14 8650 82.8 Interior Finish (Rooms): Class A Vertical Openings: Enclosed Greater than 2 Hours Hazardous Areas: No Deficiencies

G Interior Finish (C&E): Class A 6 0 6 12 10450 100.0 Interior Finish (Rooms): Class A Doors to Corridor: Greater Than

20 Min. Hazardous Areas: No Deficiencies

H Interior Finish (C&E): Class A 9 3 10 15 14310 136.9 Interior Finish (Rooms): Class A Hazardous Areas: Single Deficiency

(in Zone)

Automatic Sprinklers: Total Space

I Prescriptive 0005 10450 100.0

a Corridor and Exit.

k If the initial state is above the prescriptive state, then the retrofit cost

for that factor is zero.

c See Table 2.5 for a complete listing of the values of the safety parameters

corresponding to strict compliance to the Life Safety Code in non-sprinkered

facilities.

79
packages A and B are equal to about half the cost of the prescriptive

solution, and that retrofit packages C, D, E and F cost approximately

25 percent less than the prescriptive solution.

The least-cost retrofit strategy indicated by Table 3.16 involves the

upgrading of all interior finishes in the corridor and exits and in

the rooms to a Class A flame spread rating and the removal of all deficiencies from hazardous areas within the fire zone. The cost of this

retrofit strategy is shown to be approximately $4750 (or 45 percent of

the prescriptive cost). In addition to being less costly, this strategy

has a surplus score in three of the four redundancy requirements. The

prescriptive solution has a surplus in only one of the four redundancy

requirements, that of general safety. Surplus scores are indicated under

the column headings C (Containment), E (Extinguishment), P (People Movement), and G (General).

Retrofit package B is the same as A with the exception that the manual

fire alarm system has been provided with a connection to the fire department. This retrofit strategy costs approximately $5750 (or 55 percent

of the prescriptive costs) and has the following surpluses: C, 5 points;

E, 1 point; P, 5 points; and G 12 points. Row G of Table 3.16 shows

that the retrofit strategy with the highest surplus in all four categories

is to totally sprinkler the fire zone. This strategy, however, is almost

37 percent more expensive than the prescriptive solution.

Based on the preceding discussion it appears that retrofit packages A

and B would seem to be the most attractive. This is due both to their

cost advantage and their similarity. Note also that retrofit package A

is contained in packages B through G.

Second Floor Fire Zone

An analysis of the second floor fire zone produces several important

differences from the case just examined. In order to establish a reference point, the initial state for each of the 13 Building Safety Features

in the second floor fire zone may be taken from the second column of

Table 3.15. Entering the scores associated with the initial state of

each of the 13 safety features into the appropriate places in Table 5 of the worksheet (see Exhibit 2.5) will show that in order to achieve

compliance to the Life Safety Code net improvements of 22 points in

containment safety, 11 points in extinguishment safety, 8 points in

people movement safety and 16 points in general safety are needed.

As in the previous case, the input is the computerized procedure is sum- marized in Table 3.11 as the critical element counts. All critical

element counts are based on the floor plans presented in section 3.2.

Table 3.15 reveals that two of the 13 Building Safety Features on the

second floor are in a lower state than in Zone 2 of the first floor.

This has a significant impact on the admissible retrofit strategies

generated by the computerized procedure. More succinctly, the number of

admissible retrofits having a cost less than or equal to the prescriptive

80
24000

|-

RETROFIT

PACKAGES

AND

THEM

ASSOCIATED

COSTS

FOR

THE

SECOND

FLOOR

FIGURE 3.7

81

RETROFIT

PACKAGE
Table 3.17 Retrofit Packages for the Second Floor

Retrofit Retrofit Description Surplus Retrofit Percent of

Package (Upgraded from the Initial State) C E P G Cost Prescriptive

A Interior Finish (C&E): Class A 3008 8260 41.1

Interior Finish (Rooms): Class A

Hazardous Areas: No Deficiencies

B Interior Finish (C&E): Class A 3109 9260 46.0

Interior Finish (Rooms): Class A

Hazardous Areas: No Deficiencies

Manual Fire Alarm: With Fire

Department Connection

C Interior Finish (C&E): Class A 3008 9660 48.0

Interior Finish (Rooms): Class A

Hazardous Areas: No Deficiencies

Smoke Control: Smoke Partition

D Interior Finish (C&E): Class A 0035 11560 57.5

Vertical Openings: Enclosed Greater

Than 2 Hours

Hazardous Areas: No Deficiencies

E Interior Finish (C&E): Class A 5 0 2 10 12010 59.7

Interior Finish (Rooms): Class A

Vertical Openings: Enclosed Between

1 and 2 Hours

Hazardous Areas: No Deficiencies

F Interior Finish (C&E): Class A 3009 12160 60.5

Interior Finish (Rooms): Class A

Vertical Openings: Enclosed

Greater than 2 Hours

Hazardous Areas: No Deficiencies

G Interior Finish (C&E): Class A 5 2 1 10 12260 61.0

Interior Finish (Rooms): Class A

Hazardous Areas: No Deficiencies

Automatic Sprinklers: Corridor

H Interior Finish (C&E): Class A 3 2 2 10 12760 63.5

Interior Finish (Rooms): Class A

Hazardous Areas: No Deficiencies

Smoke Detection and Alarm: Corridor

82
Table 3.17 Continued

Retrofit Retrofit Description Surplus Retrofit Percent of

Package (Upgraded to from the Initial State) C E P G Cost Prescriptive

I Interior Finish (C&E): Class A 3039 12910 64.2

Interior Finish (Rooms): Class A

Hazardous Areas: No Deficiencies

Smoke Control: Smoke Partition

Emergency Movement: Horizontal Exit

J Interior Finish (C&E): Class A 4019 16360 81.4

Interior Finish (Rooms): Class A Hazardous Areas: No Deficiencies

Doors to Corridor: Between 20 Min.

and 1 Hour

K Interior Finish (C&E): Class A 5 2 4 10 17915 89.1

Interior Finish (Rooms): Class A Hazardous Areas: Single Deficiency

(in Zone)

Automatic Sprinklers: Corridor and

Habitable Space

L Interior Finish (C&E): Class A 5 0 2 10 17980 89.4

Interior Finish (Rooms): Class A Doors to Corridor: Greater Than

20 Min. and Automatic Closure

Hazardous Areas: No Deficiencies

M Interior Finish (C&E): Class A 7 4 5 12 19040 94.7

Interior Finish (Rooms): Class A Hazardous Areas: Single Deficiency

(in Zone)

Automatic Sprinklers: Total Space

N Interior Finish (C&E): Class A 7 5 5 13 20040 99.7

Interior Finish (Rooms): Class A Hazardous Areas: Single Deficiency

(in Zone)

Manual Fire Alarm: With Fire

Department Connection

Automatic Sprinklers: Total Space

0 Prescriptive 0005 20110 100.0

83
solution has increased from 7 to 14. Furthermore, in this case the cost

of totally sprinklering the fire zone is revealed to be less than the

cost of the prescriptive solution. The difference in the costs of the

two solutions, however, is very small (approximately 5 percent).

The 14 admissible retrofits, ranked from least costly to most costly, are included in a graphical summary of costs in Figure 3.7. Also included

is the prescriptive solution and the package ID (a letter between A and N

which corresponds to its (cost) rank). The prescriptive solution is

plotted at the far right and is labeled "0". The height of the bars in

Figure 3.7 denotes the expected retrofit cost of each strategy. The

physical retrofit package associated with each identifying letter is

defined in Table 3.17.

A close examination of Figure 3.7 reveals a distinct pattern in the costs

of the retrofit packages. In particular, there are several plateaus

around which from 2 to 6 retrofit strategies are grouped. The first

plateau is approximately $9,000 and contains retrofit packages A, B and C.

The second plateau is approximately $12,000 and contains retrofit packages D through I. Table 3.17 indicates that although retrofit packages D

through I differ by less than $1,500, there are some significant differences in the factors which require treatment. This provides an example

of how the provision of alternative solutions will enable decision makers

to take into consideration the effects of non-construction costs, such

as a potential reduction in services due to the upgrading of a particular

factor (e.g., the installation of sprinklers in the corridor), on the

retrofit decision. The third and fourth plateaus are centered around

$17,000 and $20,000 and contain retrofit packages J, K, and L, and M, N,

and 0.

The least-cost means of achieving compliance according to Table 3.17 is

to upgrade the flame spread rating on all interior finishes from Class C

to Class A, and to remove all deficiencies from the hazardous areas within

the fire zone. This retrofit strategy would cost approximately $8,260

(or 41.1 percent of the cost of the prescriptive solution). In addition,

this package has a surplus of 3 points in containment safety and 8 points

in general safety while the prescriptive solution has no surplus in con- tainment safety and only 5 points in general safety. A similar pattern

of surpluses is revealed in retrofit packages B and C. (Retrofit packages B and C do not differ significantly from retrofit package A.) The

increases in surplus in the four safety categories (C, E, P and G) are modest until the fourth plateau, retrofit packages M and N, is reached.

Although these packages have high surpluses (C=7, E=4 to 5, P=5, G=13)

they are almost twice as expensive as the basic packages A, B and C.

In this case it appears that unless the decision maker has some strong

a priori belief about the need for a particular retrofit (e.g., total

sprinklering) it would be prudent to opt for one of the more basic

packages.

84
Patient Floor Fire Zones (Floors Three Through Seven )

The analysis of the fire zone for a patient floor highlights the claim

that the Fire Safety Evaluation System can be both economical and flexible*

In order to establish a reference point, the initial state for each of the

13 Building Safety Features, for the third fire zone is obtained from the

last column of Table 3.15. Entering the scores associated with the

initial state of each of the 13 safety factors into the appropriate

places in Table 5 of the worksheet (see Exhibit 2.5) shows that in order

to achieve compliance to the Life Safety Code, net improvements of 33

points in containment safety, 11 points in extinguishment safety, 24

points in people movement safety, and 36 points in general safety are needed. As in the two previous cases, the input for the computerized

procedure is summarized in Table 3.11 as the critical element counts.

All critical element counts are based on the floorplans presented in

Section 3.1. Reference to Table 3.15 indicates that five features (Corridor

Partition Walls, Doors to Corridor, Zone Dimensions, Smoke Control, and

Emergency Movement Routes) are in lower states than they were for Zone

2 of the first floor. (Three features are in a lower state than for the

second floor fire zone.) This has as an implication that more potential

retrofit strategies exist (some of which will be admissible) than for

the second zone of the first floor or for the second floor.

In the computer studies for the patient room floors, 20 distinct admissible retrofit strategies were found that were less expensive than the

prescriptive solution. These 20 retrofit strategies took on values

between $20,000 and $35,000 per floor; the cost of the prescriptive

solution is approximately $38,000 per floor. The 20 admissible retrofit

strategies, ranked by cost, are assigned a package ID between A and T

depending on their (cost) rank. The 20 admissable retrofit packages are plotted in Figure 3.8 along with a twenty-first package, the prescriptive

solution, which is labeled as "U".

It is revealed by Figure 3.8 that the costs of the retrofit packages rise

very slowly. For example, nine retrofits (A through I) are expected to

cost less than $25,000 per floor; four more are expected to cost between

$25,000 and $27,000 per floor. The large number of low-cost retrofit

strategies should facilitiate the tailoring of technical solutions to

the fire safety problem to the operational characteristics of a particular health care facility. The opportunities for combining the technical

aspects of sound design judgment with criteria on the provision of services becomes more clear when Table 3.18 is examined in some detail.

For example, decision makers who wish to preclude the installation of

automatic sprinklers in patient use areas and yet achieve cost savings of

35 percent or more over the prescriptive solution would still have six

retrofit packages from which to choose. Another important piece of information gleaned from Table 3.18 is that totally sprinklering the fire zone

^ Low cost implies a cost saving potential of 35 percent or more over the

cost of the prescriptive solution.

85
RETROFIT

PACKAGES

AND

THEIR

ASSOCIATED

COSTS

FOR

THE

THIRD

THROUGH

SEVENTH

FLOORS

FIGURE 3.8

RETROFIT PACKAGES AND THEIR ASSOCIATED COSTS

FOR THE THIRD THROUGH SEVENTH FLOORS

t Nl 1S03 1IJ0M3R

86

RETROFIT

PACKAGE
Table 3.18 Retrofit Packages for the Third through Seventh Floors

Retrofit Retrofit Description Surplus Retrofit Percent of Package (Upgraded from the Initial State) C E P G Cost Prescriptive

A Interior Finish (C&E): Class A 5026 20403 53.7 Interior Finish (Rooms): Class A

Doors to Corridor: Less Than

20 Minutes

Vertical Openings: Enclosed Greater Than 2 Hours Hazardous Areas: No Deficiencies

Smoke Control: Smoke Partition

Emergency Movement: Horizontal Exit

B Interior Finish (C&E): Class A 4116 21253 55.9 Interior Finish (Rooms): Class A

Doors to Corridor: Less Than

20 Minutes

Vertical Openings: Enclosed Between

1 and 2 Hours Hazardous Areas: No Deficiencies

Smoke Control: Smoke Partition

Emergency Movement: Horizontal Exit Manual Fire Alarm: With Fire Department Connection

C Interior Finish (C&E): Class A 4202 21740 57.2 Interior Finish (Rooms): Class A Doors to Corridor: Less Than

20 Minutes

Hazardous Areas: Single Deficiency

(in Zone)

Smoke Control: Smoke Partition

Automatic Sprinklers: Corridor and Habitable Space

D Interior Finish (C&E): Class A 7306 22153 58.3 Interior Finish (Rooms): Class A

Doors to Corridor: Less Than

20 Minutes

Vertical Openings: Exclosed Greater

Than 2 Hours Hazardous Areas: No Deficiencies

Smoke Control: Smoke Partition Manual Fire Alarm: With Fire

Department Connection

Automatic Sprinklers: Corridor

E Interior Finish (C&E): Class A 4305 22503 59.2 Interior Finish (Rooms): Class A

Doors to Corridor: Less Than

20 Minutes

Vertical Openings: Enclosed Between

1 and 2 Hours Hazardous Areas: No Deficiencies

Smoke Control: Smoke Partition Manual Fire Alarm: With Fire Department Connection

Smoke Detection and Alarm: Corridor

87
Table 3.18 Continued

Retrofit Retrofit Description Surplus Retrofit Percent of Package (Upgraded from the Initial State) C E P G Cost Prescriptive

F Interior Finish (C&E): Class A 5316 22653 59.6 Interior Finish (Rooms): Class A

Doors to Corridor: Less Than

20 Minutes

Vertical Openings: Enclosed Greater

Than 2 Hours Hazardous Areas: No Deficiencies

Smoke Control: Smoke Partition

Manual Fire Alarm: With Fire Department Connection

Smoke Detection and Alarm: Corridor

G Interior Finish (C&E): Class A 6414 23453 61.7 Interior Finish (Rooms): Class A Doors to Corridor: Less Than

20 Minutes Hazardous Areas: Single Deficiency

(in Zone) Smoke Control: Smoke Partition

Automatic Sprinklers: Total Space

H Interior Finish (C&E): Class A 6317 23853 62.8 Interior Finish (Rooms): Class A Corridor Partition Walls: Between

20 Min. and 1 Hour

Doors to Corridor: Less Than

20 Minutes

Vertical Openings: Enclosed Greater

Than 2 Hours Hazardous Areas: No Deficiency

Smoke Control: Smoke Partition Manual Fire Alarm: With Fire Department Connection

Smoke Detection and Alarm: Corridor

I Interior Finish (C&E): Class A 6105 24153 63.6 Interior Finish (Rooms): Class A Doors to Corridor: Greater Than

20 Minutes

Vertical Openings: Enclosed

Greater than 2 Hours Hazardous Areas: No Deficiencies

Smoke Control: Smoke Partition

Manual Fire Alarm: With Fire Department Connection

J Interior Finish (C&E): Class A 7506 25253 66.5 Interior Finish (Rooms): Class A

Doors to Corridor: Less Than- 20 Minutes

Vertical Openings: Enclosed Greater

Than 2 Hours Hazardous Areas: No Deficiencies

Manual Fire Alarm: With Fire Department Connection

Smoke Detection and Alarm: Corridor

Automatic Sprinklers: Corridor

88
Table 3.18 Continued

Retrofit

Package

Retrofit Description

(Upgraded from the Initial State) SURPLUS

C E P G RetrofitCost Percent of Prescriptive

K Interior Finish (C&E): Class A 4 4 2 4 26240 69.0 Interior Finish (Rooms): Class A

Doors to Corridor: Less Than

20 Minutes Hazardous Areas: Single Deficiency

(in Zone) Smoke Control: Smoke Partition

Smoke Detection and Alarm: Corridor

Automatic Sprinklers: Corridor and Habitable Space

L Interior Finish (C&E): Class A 6517 26503 69.7 Interior Finish (Rooms): Class A Doors to Corridor: Less Than

20 Minutes

Vertical Openings: Enclosed Between

1 and 2 Hours Hazardous Areas: No Deficiencies

Smoke Control: Smoke Partition Manual Fire Alarm: With Fire

Department Connection

Smoke Detection and Alarm: Corridor

Automatic Sprinklers: Corridor

M Interior Finish (C&E): Class A 4303 26640 70.1 Interior Finish (Rooms): Class A Doors to Corridor: Less Than

20 Minutes Hazardous Areas: Single Deficiency

(in Zone) Smoke Control: Smoke Partition Manual Fire Alarm: With Fire Department Connection

Automatic Sprinklers: Corridor and Habitable Space

N Interior Finish (C&E): Class A 2004 28253 74.3 Interior Finish (Rooms): Class A Doors to Corridor: Less Than

20 Minutes

Zone Dimensions: No Dead End Greater Than 30' Hazardous Areas: No Deficiencies

Smoke Control: Smoke Partition Manual Fire Alarm: With Fire

Department Connection

0 Interior Finish (C&E): Class A 5326 29776 78.4 Interior Finish (Rooms): Class A Doors to Corridor: Less Than

20 Minutes

Vertical Openings: Enclosed Greater Than 1 and 2 Hours Hazardous Areas: No Deficiencies

Smoke Control: Smoke Partition

Smoke Detection and Alarm: Rooms

89
Table 3.18 Continued

Retrofit Retrofit Description Surplus Retrofit Percent of Package (Upgraded from the Initial State) C E P G Coat Prescriptive

P Interior Finish (C&E): Class B 4 4 2 4 30140 79.3 Interior Finish (Rooms): Class A

Doors to Corridor: Less Than

20 Minutes

Vertical Openings: Enclosed Greater Than 2 Hours Hazardous Areas: Single Deficiency

(in Zone) Smoke Control: Smoke Partition

Smoke Detection and Alarm: Corridor

Automatic Sprinklers: Corridor and Habitable Space

Q Interior Finish (C&E): Class A 4404 32726 86.1 Interior Finish (Rooms): Class A

Doors to Corridor: Less Than

20 Minutes

Vertical Openings: Enclosed Between

1 and 2 Hours Hazardous Areas: No Deficiencies

Smoke Detection and Alarm: Corridor

and Habitable Space

R Interior Finish (C&E): Class A 4127 33003 86.8 Interior Finish (Rooms): Class A

Doors to Corridor: Less Than

20 Minutes

Zone Dimensions: No Dead End

Greater Than 30' Vertical Openings: Enclosed Between

1 and 2 Hours Hazardous Areas: No Deficiencies

Smoke Control: Smoke Partition Manual Fire Alarm: With Fire Department Connection

S Interior Finish (C&E): Class A 1614 34323 90.3 Doors to Corridor: Less Than

20 Minutes

Vertical Openings: Enclosed Greater Than 2 Hours Hazardous Areas: Single Deficiency

(in Zone) Smoke Control: Smoke Partition

Emergency Movement: Horizontal Exit Smoke Detection and Alarm: Corridor

Automatic Sprinklers: Total Space

T Interior Finish (C&E): Class A 5526 35328 93.0 Interior Finish (Rooms): Class A Doors to Corridor: Less Than

20 Minutes

Vertical Openings: Enclosed Greater Than 2 Hours Hazardous Areas: No Deficiencies

Smoke Detection and Alarm: Total

Space

U Prescriptive 00 02 38003 100.0

90
is, in this case, a very attractive retrofit, because it can be totally

sprinklered for approximately $23,450 (or about 62 percent of the prescriptive solution's cost). The least-cost solution for this fire zone

is approximately $20,400 (or about 54 percent of the prescriptive solution's cost).

Another result which clearly stresses the cost saving potential of the

Fire Safety Evaluation System, is that the cost of removing the dead end

corridor through the installation of an exit stairwell can be achieved

at a 25 percent lower cost than for the prescriptive solution. Since the

exit stairwell is one of the most expensive retrofits, it is reassuring

to see that decision makers who have a strong preference for the removal

of dead end corridors can use the Fire Safety Evaluation System to cut

costs dramatically.

3.2.2 Alternative Retrofit Strategies for the Entire Hospital

The focus of this section is on how the admissible retrofit strategies

identified in the previous section can be synthesized into a comprehensive

retrofit strategy for the entire building. In order to begin this process

it is necessary to refer once more to Table 3.18. Of the 21 packages

shown in this table at least seven show promise for incorporation into a comprehensive retrofit strategy. That is they are quite similar to an admissible retrofit for Zone 2 of the first floor and the second floor

fire zone. These retrofits and a brief descriptor are defined as follows:

(1) 3A: Least Cost;

(2) 3B: Least Cost Plus Fire Department Connection on Manual

Fire Alarms

(3) 3D: Sprinklers in the Corridor;

(4) 3E: Smoke Detection and Alarm in the Corridor;

(5) 3G: Total Sprinklering;

(6) 3N: Removal of the Dead-End Corridor; and

(7) 3U: Prescriptive Solution.

As indicated in the previous section, the seven retrofit strategies were

ranked from least costly to most costly and a package ID was assigned to

each which was indicative of its (cost) rank. Figure 3.9 is a graphical

summary of the costs of the alternative retrofit strategies. Table 3.19

The above statement is based on the prototypical hospital design and

thus requires some qualification. If the configuration of the fire

zone were such that several exit stairwells would have to be installed

and the decision maker insisted on their installation then the cost

saving potential of the Fire Safety Evaluation System would be significantly reduced. However, if the fire zone configuration required

several exit stairwells to be installed and the decision maker did not

insist on the installation of the exit stairwell, then the Fire Safety

Evaluation System could be used to identify admissible retrofits which

cut costs significantly (perhaps more than 50 percent).

I

91
FIGURE 3.9

Retrofit Packages and Their Associated Costs for the Entire Building

ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS

A B C D E F G

RETROFIT PACKAGE

92
Table

3.19

Retrofit

Packages

for

the

Prototypical

Hospital:

Floors

One

Through

Seven

o * 4-1 U

1) «3 os o-

<U 04 Q

o

U. U U O

3 O <_> C O T3 4) 4 X l- <U 00 -

4J O CM O <

' 8 S" S° co u X

0 3 0 0. 3 0 0

O TO —

X U 41 cj 0 J! 3

CM N O C i «o E «o 1 m r

w o o o

*0 O Z T) O OS *0

C C O

•O *H ^

o, o.

4-1 4-1 N C O

C C O

•H -H C •• 0.0, to 03 O O O 3 4) O O O •-< H -H T3 ^

O O o c

V V 03 -H

-H V <

C C O

•H .H < 4) 0.0. O

^ ^ 3 b

o o o H .r4 T3 t—

Lj l_, I., m

U 1) «0 3

4J 4J N C I C C «0 CO

I CO c

l r-( 4)

I o -H

w o o o

uO O Z X

O OS -H

C C O

•H 'H <tj • • 0.0. co CO O

0 0 3 4) O O O

•O -H T> O O O C

93
« ° £

o

4"'» (0

•• ® 4> ~ e j

u o

•* o UK"

b. b. U O

u w. o c —

i *j o <s

: c o

>-> Q

41 CL, -U C <5 Q . * O -I

4> 3 •* <

O K 4J 2 O U T3

^

u

fS

4> AJ k-

• r4 H >H U 4J u.

£ 2

® W

CO O O

« CO

•-< e

•• u_i U

UJ o o

•O O 2 T3 U K c

c c

U, U,

'

U P O c E

m to n h u

« U D ^ r~l V

L- U 3 O V U L, W C C

4> 4) « -4

6

UJ o

•« o : CJ DC

U L-< U 41 V V (0 X. u iJ N O C C <0 6

O CO

I* -* u U

V to DC a.

U 0'4 4 OV)

C_> DC

O O O M •—

*J u N ' C C «0 *—« M 2

WOO •0 0 2 o os

C C P

-4 --4 <

u, u, o o o

•*4 • * *0 U U 44 4) V CO

V 3 Ob. U u O u Ltg -O r-< «g

1 N O C Q

co £ « I w I

9 A
defines the scope of each of the seven total facility retrofit strategies

and shows their costs. A wide range in retrofit costs is indicated by

Figure 3.9 beginning with the more basic packages A, B, C and D and proceeding through to the more restrictive packages E (Total Sprinklering),

F (Exit Stairwell), and G (Prescriptive). Figure 3.9 also reveals that

retrofit costs for the entire facility range from approximately $115,000

to $250,000.

It is important to note that retrofit strategies E, F, and G, have added

costs which were not counted in the computer study. The first add-on cost

is associated with the assumption that it was possible to totally sprinkler

a floor with the existing water supply. Although this assumption is rea- sonable for a single zone (floor) it is not reasonable in the case of

totally sprinklering the entire building. In order to ensure that an adequate water supply is available for all zones, it would be necessary

to run two high pressure (2.5 inch) lines up through two of the three

exit stairwells. This fact accounts for the $7,000 add-on cost listed

against retrofit strategy E. For retrofit strategies F and G, the cost

of the exit stairwell was not included in the cost calculations for the

prescriptive solutions for the first and second floor fire zones. (Both

floors had no dead ends greater than 30 feet, and the corridor length was between 100 and 150 feet.) For both the first and second floor,

it is assumed that the exit stairwell can be installed at a cost of

$15,000 per floor. Hence the $30,000 add on for retrofit strategies F

and G.

Based on the preceding discussion, it appears that the technical approach

which offers the most promise for solving the fire safety problem in the

prototypical hospital is to opt for one of the first four packages. The

final choice in an actual case, however, may not be that simple. It

will require close coordination among health care facility decision makers

and their architectural and engineering advisors.

This concern is borne out by noting that the expected retrofit costs of

packages A through D differ by less than $18,000. Therefore it is essential that careful consideration be given to the effects of non construction

costs on the retrofit decision. It is important to note out that nonconstruction costs include not only lost revenues and a reduction in the

level of services, but insurance differentials and operating and maintenance costs as well. Since these costs may be significant and do not

always occur at the same time as the retrofitting activities are being

carried out, one would ideally like to base the selection of a particular

retrofit strategy on an established building investment technique such as life cycle costing. The current procedure does not do this.

Although the lack of this desirable attribute is unfortunate, the present

approach does sharpen the focus of the decision maker considerably. In

particular, by promoting fire safety in health care facilities through

the use of the Fire Safety Evaluation System it becomes possible, by

identifying and quantifying the cost impacts of the Life Safety Code,

to tailor the solution of the fire safety problem to the particular

needs and objectives of the user.

95
The emphasis on cost containment should focus not only on construction

costs but on changes in revenues, operating , maintenance and insurance

costs as well.

4. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

4.1 SUMMARY

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.

This study has focused on one aspect of the fire safety problem in health

care facilities; 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. The Life Safety Code,

96
a voluntary code developed by the National Fire Protection Association,

is currently the most widely used guide for identifying the minimum level

of fire safety in buildings. Although the Life Safety Code may be thought

of as prescriptive since it prescribes fixed 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, Education

and Welfare, 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 in the 1973 Life Safety Code.

Using the Fire Safety Evaluation System as a measurement tool, this study

describes a computerized procedure which helps identify the least-cost

means of achieving compliance to the Life Safety Code. Since each of the

parameters used in the Fire Safety Evaluation System has a unique value

which corresponds to strict compliance, it is possible to quantify the

cost savings attributable to the use of the Fire Safety Evaluation System

over that of strict compliance. Preliminary studies conducted by the

National Bureau of Standards have concluded that the use of a computerized

version of the Fire Safety Evaluation System can result in cost savings

of 50 percent or more over those associated with strict compliance to the

Life Safety Code.

In addition to identifying the least-cost solution, the procedure also

identifies from 10 to 20 retrofit alternatives, some of which are quite

close in cost to the least-cost solution. The use of these retrofit

alternatives is intended to facilitate the design selection process by

providing information on relative costs as well as an opportunity to

match common retrofit packages across fire zones. The use of alternatives

can result in considerable savings of time in defining a comprehensive

retrofit strategy for the entire building. In addition, the provision

of retrofit alternatives should also simplify the problem of assessing

the impacts of non-construction costs on the retrofit decision. The com- puterized procedure 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 higher level of safety than required

by the Life Safety Code.

A prototypical hospital design was developed in order to illustrate how

the computerized procedure would be used to solve actual fire safety

problems. The prototypical hospital is patterned after a 300 bed general

hospital built around 1960. The hospital is constructed with structural

steel framing protected by a fire resistive concrete covering, reinforced

concrete floors, fixed windows, and masonry exterior walls.

Application of the Fire Safety Evaluation System to the prototypical

hospital indicated that all fire zones in areas of patient use, with the

exception of the fire zone containing the emergency room, would require

some type of retrofitting. Information on the scope and complexity of

the retrofit alternatives was obtained from a series of floorplans for

97
the prototypical hospital. This information was then used as input for

the computerized procedure.

Results from the case study indicated that the prototypical hospital could

be upgraded to achieve compliance to the Life Safety Code for approximately

$115,000 if the Fire Safety Evaluation System is used. The cost of

achieving compliance through adherence to the prescriptive provisions of

the Life Safety Code would cost approximately $250,000. Although a significant portion of the cost of strict compliance to the Life Safety Code

was due to the installation of an exit stairwell (to remove a dead-end

corridor), it was found that the use of the Fire Safety Evaluation System

could achieve compliance with the exit stairwell included in the retrofit

package for approximately $185,000. Furthermore, the entire facility

could be totally sprinklered for approximately $160,000 if the Fire

Safety Evaluation System was used. These significant cost savings, even with high cost items included, are due to the inherent flexibility that

the use of the Fire Safety Evaluation Systems offers to decision makers.

4.2 RECOMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

In order to estimate the potential cost savings attributable to the use

of the Fire Safety Evaluation System and to expand the present computerized

procedure to include both a wider variety of health care facilities and

the ability to generate solutions for more than one fire zone at a time,

further research on several topics would be useful.

This study has concluded that cost savings of 50 percent or more over

those associated with strict compliance are possible with the Fire Safety

Evaluation System. The true cost saving potential of the Fire Safety

Evaluation System, although substantial, can only be guessed at now. In

order to quantify the cost saving potential of the Fire Safety Evaluation

System, a regional survey of health care facilities would be useful. The

emphasis of this survey could be on identifying a small set of "typical"

hospitals and nursing homes in each of the nation's health regions. The

initial conditions (states) of these health care facilities could then be

assessed through use of the Fire Safety Evaluation System. Potential

retrofits, including strict compliance to the Life Safety Code, could

then be identified by fire safety experts in the field. All waivers which

would normally be granted should also be documented. Cost engineering

techniques could then be used to estimate the relevant retrofit costs.

The information on the initial states, the potential retrofits and their

costs could then be used to estimate the cost saving potential of the

Fire Safety Evaluation System by facility type.

It is important to point out that the procedure described in this report

focuses on identifying the least-cost combination of retrofits for a single fire zone in a health care facility. Most health care facilities,

however, will usually contain several interconnected fire zones. Consequently, the installation of certain retrofits may affect the performance

of some retrofit measures in other fire zones. These interdependencies

are not explicitly dealt with when each fire zone is analyzed individually.

98
Taking these interdependencies into consideration would most likely result

in further cost reductions through economy of design and construction.

The costs currently being used in the computerized procedure are location,

time and facility dependent. It would be useful to have a straightforward

means for adjusting costs to different locations and times as well as for

different facility types. Cost engineering techniques could be used to

develop a parametric procedure for estimating retrofit costs. This

approach has an advantage over the use of straight average cost figures in

that it permits local market conditions and the condition of the building

to register their effects on anticipated retrofit costs. Such an approach

thus allows the user to adjust costs systematically to a particular time

and location and to estimate costs for a wide variety of facility types.

Emphasis should also be placed on incorporating established building

investment techniques, such as life-cycle costing, into the computerized

procedure.

99
APPENDIX A

i

Unit Pricing Information

The unit pricing information presented in this section is based on anticipated costs in the Washington, D.C. area for the last quarter of

1978. These figures are used as a resident element cost matrix for the

computerized procedure discussed earlier in the report. They can be

used to identify the least-cost combination of the retrofits for a single zone as well as the costs of strict compliance and any alternative

retrofit strategies. It is important to point out that the unit prices

presented in this section are adequate only for the purpose of budget

planning prior to the request for construction design. The actual cost

estimates for a particular retrofit strategy will have to be made

following the completion of the retrofit specification, design and material selection, and the establishment of the date of retrofits. Most

of the unit pricing information presented in this section was either

obtained from the Central Office of the Veteran's Administration or the

Building Construction Cost Data 1978 booklet published by the Robert

Snow Means Company, Inc. The unit prices are IN-PLACE PRICES which

include: demolition, waste removal, building materials, labor, installation and finishing, refinishing of adjacent areas and a markup for

contractor overhead and profit. Similar unit pricing information can also be developed by local estimators for various retrofit strategies

at specific locations. This information can be used to redefine the

element cost matrix. For a more complete discussion the interested

reader is referred to the companion report, A Computerized Approach for

Identifying Cost-Effective Retrofits in Health Care Facilities . The

unit pricing information used in the study is given as follows:

Coat with Fire-Retardant Paint $0.40 Per Square Foot; (PSF)

Fireproof with Intumescent Mastic

1/8" thick, 3/4 hour $1.30 PSF

3/16" thick, 1 hour $2.70 PSF

7/16" thick, 2 hour $3.90 PSF

Fireproof Existing Wood Panel $0.50 PSF

Replace Carpeting $1.60 PSF

Install Drywall Including Painting

1/2" thick $0.75 PSF

5/8" thick $0.80 PSF

Replace Door to Achieve 20 Minute or More Fire Resistance

4'x7' door and hardware $ 300 each

4'x7' door, frame and hardware $ 700 each

7'x7' door, frame and hardware $1100 each

Add automatic closing device $ 60 each

100
Replace Door to Achieve Class B & C

Fire Rating

4 ' x 7

door and hardware $ 450 each

4'x7' door, frame and hardware $1 ,250 each

7 'x7

door and hardware $ 800 each

7 'x7

door, frame and hardware $1 ,650 each

Replace Door to Achieve Class A

Fire Rating

4 'x7

door and hardware $ 500 each

4 'x7

door, frame and hardware $1 ,300 each

7 'x7

door and hardware $ 900 each

7 'x7

door, frame and hardware $1 ,750 each

Replace Ordinary Glass Light With

Wire Glass Light $ 40 each

Replace Defective Latch $ 60 each

Replace Window Frames in Corridor $ 400 each

Partition Walls (1000 square

inches

)

Add Corridor Partitioning (8' wide)

With Fire Door

Class B and C Rating

Class A Rating

$3,800 each

$3,900 each

Provide Partition Extension

(average 3' high) From Existing

Partition to Structural Slab

Above $ 30 Per Linear Foot; (PLF)

Install Coded Manual Fire Alarm Station $ 140 each

Connect Existing Manual Fire Alarm

Stations to Fire Department $1,000 Per Fire Zone

Install Detectors, Photoelectric

and Ionization $ 2.25 PSF

Install Magnetic Door Release Each Leaf $ 425 each

Install

Areas

Sprinklers in Nonhazardous

$ 2.00 PSF

Install Sprinklers in Hazardous Areas $ 2.25 PSF

101
Add a Fire Alarm to the Sprinkler

Install Halon Head for Mechanical

and Electrical Areas

Add External Stairwell for Exit

$ 225 each

$ 8,000 each

$15,000 Per Floor

102
REFERENCES

1. Building Construction Cost Data 1978 , Robert Snow Means Company,

Inc., New York, 1978.

2. Chapman, R. E. and P. F. Colwell, The Economics of Protection

Against Progressive Collapse , National Bureau of Standards,

NBSIR-74-542 , September 1974.

3. Chapman, R. E., W. G. Hall and P. T. Chen, A Computerized Approach

for Identifying Cost-Effective Fire Safety Retrofits in Health Care

Facilities , National Bureau of Standards, NBSIR (In Press).

4. Code for Safety to Life from Fire in Buildings and Structures , National Fire Protection Association, NFPA 101-1973, 1973.

5. Federal Fire Safety Requirements Do Not Insure Life Safety in

Nursing Home Fires: Report to Congress , Comptroller General

of the United States, Washington, D.C., June 1978.

6. Freeley, R. , D. C. Walsh, and J. E. Fielding, "Structural Codes

and Patient Safety; Does Strict Compliance Make Sense?" American

Journal of Law and Medicine , Volume 3, Number 4, Winter 1977-78,

pp. 447-454,

7. Krueger, L. J. and R. M. Patton, "More Fire Safety Can Cost Less,"

Hospitals , Volume 51, February 1, 1977, pp. 127-132.

8. Lyons, J. W. , "Fire Research and Fire Safety: A Status Report

on the Situation in the United States," Fire Standards and Safety , American Society of Testing Materials, Special Technical Publication 614, A. F. Robertson, editor, 1977.

9. McConnaughey , J. S., An Economic Analysis of Building Code Impacts:

A Suggested Approach , National Bureau of Standards, NBSIR 78-1528,

October 1978.

10. Mishan, E. J. , Cost-Benefit Analysis: An Introduction , Praeger,

Washington, D.C., 1971.

11. Nelson, H. E. and A. J. Shibe, A System for Fire Safety Evaluation

of Health Care Facilities , National Bureau of Standards, NBSIR 78-

1555, November 1978.

12. Silberberg, E., The Structure of Economics: A Mathematical Analysis , McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1978.

13. Sprague, J. G. , "A Common Sense Approach Needed in Dealing with

Safety," Hospitals , Volume 51, February 1, 1977, pp. 67-75.

14. Tragedy of Multiple Death Nursing Home Fires: The Need for a National Commitment to Safety , Select Committee on Aging, Subcommittee on Long-Term Care, September 1976.

103

NBS-114A (Rev. 9- 76 )

U.S. DEPT. OF COMM. BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET

1. PUBLICATION OR REPORT NO. NBSIR 79-1902

No. Z. Recipient's Accession No.

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF FIRE SAFETY IN HEALTH CARE FACILITIES:

GUIDELINES FOR COST-EFFECTIVE RETROFITS

5. Publication Date November 1979

7. AUTHOR(S)

Robert E. Chapman, Phillip T. Chen, William G. Hall

8. Performing Organ. Report No.

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, DC 20234

11. Contract/Grant No.

12. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (Street. City, state, zip)

Same as if y and

U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare

Washington, D.C. 20201

13. Type of Report & Period Covered Final

1 : 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

I | Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FIPS Software Summary, is attached.

16. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or leas factual summary of most significant information. If document includes a significant bibliography or

literature survey, mention it here.)

This study focuses upon one aspect of the fire safety problem in health care facilities; 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. The Life Safety Code, a voluntary code developed by the

National Fire Protection Association, is currently the most widely used guide for

identifying the minimum level of fire safety in buildings. Using the Fire Safety

Evaluation System as a basis, this study develops a computerized procedure which

permits the least-cost means of achieving compliance to the Life Safety Code in

health care facilities to be identified. Since each of the parameters used in

the Fire Safety Evaluation System has a unique value which corresponds to strict

compliance, it is possible to quantify the cost savings attributable to the use of

the Fire Safety Evaluation System over strict compliance to the Life Safety Code.

Preliminary studies conducted by the National Bureau of Standards of a prototypical

hospital have concluded that the use of this computerized procedure can result in

cost savings of 50 percent or more over those associated with strict compliance

to the Life Safety Code.

17. KEY WORDS (six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only the first letter of the first key word unless a proper name;

separated by semicolons) Applied economics; building codes; building economics; economic analysis; fire

safety; health care facilities; hospitals; life safety; mathematical programming;

nursing homes; renovation.

18. AVAILABILITY £A} Unlimited

I | For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

| | Order From Sup. of Doc., U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC

20402, SD Stock No. SN003-003-

[XJ Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA. 22161

19. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

UNCLASSIFIED

20. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS PAGE)

UNCLASSIFIED

21. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

117

22. Price

$ 6.50

USCOMM-DC
V

'