AlllDb « JjJjJiUb 3bl735 dbii f J

Reference

MBSIR 83-2797

User's Manual for the Fire Safety

Evaluation System Cost

Minimizer Computer Program

U S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

National Engineering Laboratory

Center for Applied Mathematics

Washington, DC 20234

December 1983

Sponsored by:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

| National Bureau of Standards

National Engineering Laboratory

Center for Fire Research

Washington, DC 20234

and

QC Department of Health and Human Services

2Q0 Washington, DC 20201

. U56

83-2797

1983

NATIONAL BUREAU OF C TAMDARDS I^AHT

NBSIR 83-2797

USER'S MANUAL FOR THE FIRE SAFETY

EVALUATION SYSTEM COST

MINIMIZER COMPUTER PROGRAM

i q ?

7

Robert E. Chapman and William G. Hall

U S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

National Engineering Laboratory

Center for Applied Mathematics

Washington, DC 20234

December 1983

Sponsored by:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

National Engineering Laboratory

Center for Fire Research

Washington, DC 20234

and

Department of Health and Human Services

Washington, DC 20201

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

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler, Director

PREFACE

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

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

Research Division, Center for Applied Mathematics, National Engineering

Laboratory, National Bureau of Standards.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

behavior of institutional and other populations in fire situations.

This study serves as a User's Manual for applying and interpreting the results

of the Fire Safety Evaluation System Cost Minimizer (FSESCM) computer program.

The mathematical optimization techniques which are the core concept of the

FSESCM are used to identify the least-cost means of upgrading health care facilities to compliance with the Life Safety Code. The program uses the

"optimal" solution as a reference point from which 10 to 20 compliance

strategies based on design considerations are generated. The computer program

is intended to be used as a management tool to facilitate the design selection

process by providing both information on relative costs and a chance to match

common compliance strategies across fire zones.

iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

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

Evaluation System as its nucleus, employs mathematical optimization techniques

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

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

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

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

decision makers by determining how combinations of several widely accepted

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

that required by the Life Safety Code.

The economic consequences associated with the use of the Fire Safety

Evaluation System are likely to be great since concern over fire safety in

health care facilities has led to the enactment of legislation tying

certification for participation in the Medicare and Medicaid programs to an ability to comply with the Life Safety Code. Efforts to quantify the cost

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

prescriptive compliance are simplified by noting that each of the building

safety features used in the Fire Safety Evaluation System has a unique value

which corresponds to prescriptive compliance. An in-depth analysis of a typical hospital is used to both illustrate how the Fire Safety Evalution

System Cost Minimizer (FSESCM) computer program would be applied in practice

and to support the claim that use of the FSESCM computer program can result in

savings of 50 percent or more over the cost associated with prescriptive

compliance to the Life Safety Code. Since the Fire Safety Evaluation System

has been formally adopted into the 1981 edition of the Life Safety Code, any

solutions which the FSESCM computer program provides will satisfy both the

certification issue and the requirements of the code. The potential cost

savings associated with this procedure are therefore of particular importance

to those health care facilities which have a strong dependence on revenues from the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

The FSESCM computer program offers a great deal of flexibility to both users

and decision makers since it is usually able to identify from 10 to 20

near-optimal compliance strategies. These compliance strategies are generated

by using the "optimal" solution as a reference point from which near-optimal

solutions can be systematically generated and examined. The objective behind

these solutions is to facilitate the design selection process by providing

information on relative costs and the opportunity to match common retrofit

packages across all parts of the building. The use of a predetermined set of

compliance strategies should therefore result in a considerable saving in time

in defining a comprehensive retrofit strategy for the entire building.

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

potential for reducing code compliance costs without compromising the safety

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

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

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

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

operational characteristics. Since the design places certain constraints on the retrofit process, the data required from the engineer in the field are organized in a manner which explicitly introduces relevant engineering issues

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

procedure should permit the engineernig staff to quickly identify several

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

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

inclusion should simplify the problem of assessing the impacts of non- construction costs on the retrofit decision.

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

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

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

the major programming standard (ANSI X3. 9-1 978) and is executable on any

standard system of adequate size. A companion report, Programmer's Manual for

the Fire Safety Evaluation System Cost Minimizer Computer Program , is

available which gives step-by step instructions for setting up and maintaining

the program.

v
Table of Contents

Page

Preface Ill

Executive Summary lv

List of Exhibits vll

List of Figures vili

List of Tables vili

1. Introduction 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Purpose 2

1.3 Scope and Approach 3

1.4 The Fire Safety Evaluation System 5

2. The Fire Safety Evaluation System Cost Minimizer (FSESCM)

Computer Program 16

2.1 The Basic Methodology Behind FSESCM 16

2.2 Data Requirements, User Options and Restrictions 21

2.3 The Program Output 25

3. Guidelines for Applying the FSESCM Computer Program 29

3.1 An Analysis of a Typical Health Care Facility 29

3.2 How to Collect the Necessary Data 29

3.3 How to Construct an Input Deck 51

4. A Discussion of Program Outputs 91

4.1 Background Information 91

4.2 Reference Data and Solutions 96

4.3 Design Solutions 97

5. Some Comments on Using the FSESCM Computer Program 115

References 122

vi
LIST OF EXHIBITS

Page

1.1 Occupancy Risk Factor Calculation Worksheets 11

1.2 Worksheet for Determining the Values of the Safety Parameters. 12

1.3 Worksheet for Calculating Containment Safety, Extinguishment

Safety, People Movement Safety, and General Safety 13

1.4 Worksheet for Evaluating Fire Zone Safety Equivalency 14

3.1 Sample Worksheet I: Background Information 37

3.2 Sample Worksheet II: Fire Zone Data 37

3.3 Sample Worksheet III: Construction 38

3.4 Sample Worksheet IV: Interior Finish [Corridors and Exits]... 38

3.5 Sample Worksheet V: Interior Finish [Rooms] 39

3.6 Sample Worksheet VI: Corridor Partitions/Walls 40

3.7 Sample Worksheet VII: Doors to Corridor 41

3.8 Sample Worksheet VIII: Zone Dimension 42

3.9 Sample Worksheet IX: Vertical Openings 44

3.10 Sample Worksheet X: Hazardous Areas 45

3.11 Sample Worksheet XI: Smoke Control.. 46

3.12 Sample Worksheet XII: Emergency Movement Routes 47

3.13 Sample Worksheet XIII: Manual Fire Alarm 48

3.14 Sample Worksheet XIV: Smoke Detect and Alarm 49

3.15 Sample Worksheet XV: Automatic Sprinklers 50

3.16 Sample Worksheet XVI: User Options to be Exercised..... 51

3.17 Sample Data File 56

3.18 Completed Worksheet I: Background 59

3.19 Completed Worksheet II: Fire Zone Data 61

3.20 Completed Worksheet III: Construction 62

3.21 Completed Worksheet IV: Interior Finish [Corridors and Exits] 63

3.22 Completed Worksheet V: Interior Finish [Rooms] 64

3.23 Completed Worksheet VI: Corridor Partitions/Walls 65

3.24 Completed Worksheet VII: Doors to Corridor 66

3.25 Completed Worksheet VIII: Zone Dimensions 68

3.26 Completed Worksheet IX; Vertical Openings 70

3.27 Completed Worksheet X: Hazardous Areas 71

3.28 Completed Worksheet XI: Smoke Control 72

3.29 Completed Worksheet XII: Emergency Movement Routes 73

3.30 Completed Worksheet XIII: Manual Fire Alarm 74

3.31 Completed Worksheet XIV: Smoke Detection and Alarm 75

3.32 Completed Worksheet XV: Automatic Sprinklers 76

3.33 Completed Worksheet XVI: User Options to be Exercised 77

4.1 Sample Title Page 92

4.2 Sample FSES Tables 94

4.3 Sample Output Summarizing the Data Input for a Typical Fire

Zone 98

4.4 Sample Output Showing the Estimated Cost for Each Potential

Retrofit for a Typical Fire Zone 100

4.5 Sample Output Showing the Solutions Generated for a Typical Fire Zone 102

vii
4.6 Sample Output Showing the Best Combination of Design

Equivalent Solutions 104

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

Spaces 106

4.8 Sample Output Showing Design Equivalent Solutions Based on Smoke Detection and Alarm in the Total Space.... 108

4.9 Sample Output Showing Design Equivalent Solutions Based on No Dead Ends in Corridors 110

4.10 Sample Output Showing the Details of the Prescriptive

Compliance Solution 112

LIST OF FIGURES

1.1 Delphi Method 6

2.1 Flowchart of the FSESCM Computer Program 18

3.1 Layout of the Patient Room Floors for the Case Study Building... 30

3.2 Organization of a Typical FSESCM Data File 53

4.1 Alternative Retrofit Packages for the Case Study Building 114

LIST OF TABLES

1.1 Values of Safety Parameters Corresponding to Prescriptive

Compliance to the Life Safety Code for Hospitals 9

1.2 Values of Safety Parameters Corresponding to Prescriptive

Compliance to the Life Safety Code for Nursing Homes 10

2.1 Input Data Requirements for the FSESCM Computer Program 23

2.2 User Options Available with the FSESCM Computer Program 24

2.3 Outputs of the FSESCM Computer Program 26

2.4 Design Variable Qualifiers Used in Establishing the 40 Design

Classifications 28

3.1 Summary of Initial Conditions for the Five Patient Risk

Parameters 31

3.2 Summary of Initial Conditions for the Thirteen Building Safety

Features 31

3.3 FSESCM Worksheets 34

3.4 Sequencing for the FSESCM Data File 52

3.5 Mailing Label 80

3.6 Building Qualifiers 80

3.7 Zone Qualifiers 81

3.8 FSES Table 1 Qualifers 81

3.9 FSES Table 4 Qualifers 82

3.10 Construction 82

3.11 Interior Finish [Corridors and Exits] 83

3.12 Interior Finish [Rooms] 83

viii
3.13 Corridors Partitions/Walls 84

3.14 Doors to Corridor 84

3.15 Zone Length Qualifers 85

3.16 Zone Dimensions 85

3.17 Vertical Openings 86

3.18 Deficiency Qualifiers 86

3.19 Hazardous Areas 87

3.20 Smoke Control 87

3.21 Emergency Movement Routes 88

3.22 Manual Fire Alarm , 88

3.23 Smoke Detection and Alarm 89

3.24 Sprinkler Qualifiers 89

3.25 Sprinklers 90

3.26 User Options 90

ix

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 carefully assess the alternative means through

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

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

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

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

resulting 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 3 is a 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,

performance concepts can be explicitly introduced through a provision which

allows for equivalent solutions. In particular, Provision 1-5.1 states:

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

or devices of equivalent or superior quality, strength, fire resistance,

effectiveness, durability, and safety to those prescribed by this Code,

providing technical documentation is submitted to the authority having

jurisdiction to demonstrate equivalency and the system method, or device

is approved for the intended purpose. 3

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

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

Commitment to Safety , 1976.

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

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

3 NFPA 101-1981, op cit .

1
In light of this provision, the National Bureau of Standards’ Center for Fire

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

has developed a system, the Fire Safety Evaluation System (FSES), 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

Life Safety Code.* The FSES equivalency methodology which emerged from this

effort is particularly attractive since it lends itself to computer

optimization techniques. Such optimization techniques should result in

improved fire safety in health care facilities because they will resolve 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.

1.2 PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to present a user-oriented description of

the economic and engineering considerations that went into the development of

a linear programming algorithm which permits the least-cost means of achieving

compliance to the Life Safety Code to be identified.

The Fire Safety Evaluation System Cost Minimlzer (FSESCM) 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 has adopted this equivalency methodology into the Life Safety Code2 , any

solutions from the computer program will be in compliance with the Life Safety

Code. Furthermore, since each of the parameters used in the equivalency

methodology has a unique value which corresponds to prescriptive compliance,

it is possible to quantify the cost savings attributable to a performancebased approach, or equivalency methodology, over that of prescriptive

compliance. Although the procedure is valid for both new and existing

facilities, it is anticipated that its primary use will be in identifying

alternative courses of action open to decision makers faced with retrofitting

existing facilities.

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

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

D.C., 1980.

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

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

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

recommended. James K. Lathrop, editor. Life Safety Code Handbook , National

Fire Protection Association, Quincy, Mass., 1981.

2
The computer program uses as its primary input information collected as an integral part of a thorough fire safety evalution. This information permits

the current state of the health care facility to be unambiguously identified.

The least-cost or optimal combination of retrofits is identified using the

following information:

(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 generates and analyzes a class of alternative

retrofits. The optimal combination of retrofits and any alternatives which

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

tabular form and ranked according to cost. By using this approach, health

care facility decision makers should have greater flexibility in choosing

among retrofit combinations. In particular, by providing alternatives, the

decision maker has the opportunity to assess very effectively the impact that

non-construction costs would have on the choice of the optimal retrofit

combination.

1.3 SCOPE AND APPROACH

The documentation for the FSESCM computer program is divided into two parts,

each of which is designed to be self-contained and hence may be read

independently. The first part, which includes this document, is designed to serve as a User's Manual. The second part is intended for use as a Programmer's Manual. This approach was taken because most users are not

concerned with the internal workings of the program. On the other hand, it is

frequently useful for the programmer, who has the responsibility of both

setting up the program on the host system as well as making changes to the source code which reflect user demands or peculiarities of the operating

system, to have access to the User's Manual so that changes can be made in the

most efficient manner.

The final section of chapter 1 outlines the Fire Safety Evaluation System and

establishes a framework for the development of the FSESCM computer program

discussed in the remainder of the report.

The FSESCM computer program is outlined briefly in Chapter 2. A description

of the philosphy and methodology behind FSESCM is given first, followed by a discussion of the data requirements, the various options available to the

user, as well as some of the limitations of the program. A description of the

program outputs is given in the final section of Chapter 2.

3
Chapter 3 consists of a detailed example in which all inputs to the FESECM

computer program are carefully discussed. The chapter uses the evaluation of

a typical health care facility as a means of exposition. The chapter begins

with a description of the facility. A complete set of FSESCM worksheets are then presented, followed by a discussion of the data collection worksheet

designed especially for the FSESCM computer program. The chapter concludes

with a line-by-line description of the input deck.

The output associated with the example constructed in chapter 3 is rigorously

analyzed in chapter 4. This chapter aims at both illustrating the types of

output reports produced by FSESCM as well as a line-by-line description of

what the output means. Three categories of output reports will be analyzed.

The fifth chapter provides a set of guidelines for making efficient use of the

FSESCM computer program. Topics discussed which are thought to be of interest

to a large group of users include: (1) when and how to use a particular

combination of options; (2) how to batch runs so that more than one facility can be analyzed at any one time; and (3) how to find and correct

input errors.

The companion report^ , which serves as a Programmer's Manual, contains the

documentation for the FSESCM computer program. A mathematical discussion of

the linear programming package serves to introduce the basic philosophy behind

the algorithm. Each routine is then described, focusing on such topics as: (1) purpose; (2) calling sequence, (3) common blocks used, and (4) reports

produced. A series of descriptive tables are used to define all variables and

reports. The report includes a discussion of test results (e.g., run times

experienced, validation activities, and program portability) and provisions

for updating or modifying the source code. The program is written in FORTRAN

and complies with the guidelines set down in the ANSI X3. 9-1978 software

standard.

2

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

Evaluation System Cost Minimizer Computer Program , National Bureau of

Standards, NBSIR 83-2749, Washington, D. C. , 1983.

2 American National Standards Institute, American National Standard Programming

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

4
1.4 THE FIRE SAFETY EVALUATION SYSTEM

The Fire Safety Evaluation System (FSES) is a quantitative evaluation system

for grading fire safety in health care facilities. The primary use of the

FSES is to determine how combinations of widely accepted fire safety equipment

and building construction features may provide a level of safety equivalent to

that required by the Life Safety Code. Three major concepts are basic to the

FSES. They are: 1

(1) Occupancy Risk : the number of people affected by a given fire, the

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

protect themselves.

(2) Building Safety Features : the ability of the building and its fire

protection systems to provide measures of safety commensurate with

the risk.

(3) Safety Redundancy : in-depth protection, through the simultaneous

use of alternative safety methodologies such as Containment,

Extinguishment, and People Movement. The design of the complete

fire safety system is intended to ensure that the failure of a single protection device or method will not result in a major

failure of the entire system.

The concept of safety redundancy is of central importance to the FSES since

Provision 2-1 of the Life Safety Code requires:

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 human or mechanical failure. 2

The task of ensuring that the FSES satisfied Provision 2-1 of the Life Safety

Code was the responsibility of a panel of fire safety experts. The goal of

the panel was to reach consensus on all relevant fire safety issues. To

facilitate this process, a management tool known as the Delphi Method was used. The Delphi Method, as used in developing the FSES, consisted of four

steps. These steps are illustrated in Figure 1.1. Notice that the steps

illustrated in the figure form a closed loop. This is because a certain

amount of recycling of ideas was needed in order to achieve consensus.

1 Definitions are taken from the report by Nelson and Shibe , op cit .

2 NFPA 101-1981, op cit .

5
Figure 1.1 Delphi Method

REASSESS

SELECT

SAFETY

FACTORS

%

IDENTIFY

SAFETY

PARAMETERS

ASSIGN

WEIGHTS TO

PARAMETERS
The first step in the process was to select a set of key safety factors.

These factors were related to the concepts of "occupancy risk" and "building

safety features" mentioned earlier. (For example, occupancy risk includes as

a factor, patient mobility; building safety features includes as a factor,

interior finish in the corridor and exits.) The second step focused upon the

identification of a set of states associated with each factor. (For example,

patient mobility includes as states mobile, limited mobility, not mobile, not

movable. Interior finishes in the corridor and exists includes Class A, Class

B, and Class C flame spread ratings as states.) The third and most critical

step was to assign a weight to each state which best reflects either the

relative risk posed by the state or its net contribution to life safety. More

specifically, negative values reflected greater risks whereas positive values

contributed toward a higher level of safety within the fire zone.* The system

treats a value of zero as "safety" neutral. (The values for the three states

associated with the safety factor interior finish in the corridor and exits

are: Class C, -5 points; Class B, 0 points; and Class A, 3 points.) In the

fourth step, each state value assigned by the panel is reassessed for adequacy

and consistency. In the event that the system which emerged from the panel was shown to be inadequate or inconsistent, the entire four-stage process was repeated. The end result of the panel's work was a series of worksheets which

permitted the relative merits of each state within the FSES to be carefully

assessed. These worksheets are presented as exhibits 1.1 through 1.4.

It is important to point out that the tables illustrated in exhibits 1.1

through 1.4 may differ slightly from those presented in the report by Nelson

and Shibe. The source of the differences relates to changes made by the NFPA

committees charged with incorporating the Fire Safety Evaluation System into

the Life Safety Code. Since Appendix C of NFPA is the official version of the

Fire Safety Evaluation System for measuring equivalence to the 1981 edition of

the Life Safety Code, it was decided to include these tables rather than those

published in the report by Nelson and Shibe.

Since each of the 13 building safety features (see table 1.1 for hospitals and

table 1.2 for nursing homes) has a unique state which corresponds to

prescriptive compliance, it was possible to compute the score, or level of

safety, provided by the Life Safety Code for Extinguishment, Containment and

People Movement Safety. These values were then used as a base which any

alternative to prescriptive compliance to the Life Safety Code had to match or exceed.

^A fire zone is defined as a space separated from all other spaces by floors,

horizontal exits, or smoke barriers.

7
The first worksheets, shown as exhibit 1.1, consist of a brief description of

the fire zone and the means for calculating occupancy risk. Occupancy risk is

calculated by selecting the appropriate value for each of the five factors

shown in the part of exhibit 1.1 corresponding to Table 1 of the FSES. These

values are then entered into the coded spaces in FSES Table 2 (see exhibit

1.1) and multiplied together to get an unadjusted occupancy risk factor. The

resultant is then entered either in FSES Table 3A (see exhibit 1.1) if the

building is new or in FSES Table 3B if the building is existing. * The

occupancy risk factor for the fire zone is then calculated by taking the

product of the weighting factor and the unadjusted occupancy risk factor. The

occupancy risk factor is then used to establish the minimum level of General

Safety which must be provided by the 13 building safety features in order to

be deemed in compliance to the Life Safety Code.

The second worksheet, Table 4 of the FSES, shown as exhibit 1.2, provides the

foundation for the FSESCM computer program. It gives the scores associated

with all possible states within each of the 13 building safety features. To

evaluate each fire zone, it is first necessary to identify the appropriate

value associated with each of the 13 building safety features. The existing

state of the fire zone is then defined by recording (circling, marking, or checking) all of these values on FSES Table 4 (exhibit 1.2). In the

evaluation, it is important to point out that the level of each building

safety feature is determined by the worst-case condition within the fire zone. Referring once again to exhibit 1.2 it can be seen, for each building safety

feature, that those states which have a higher score represent potential

retrofits. For example, if in the current state the flame spread rating on interior finishes in the corridor and exits was Class C, then both Class B and

Class A flame spread ratings would be potential retrofits. More importantly,

by combining the improvement in score with the anticipated retrofit costs, it

is possible to establish a means for upgrading the level of fire safety within

the fire zone in the most cost-effective manner.

The third worksheet, FSES Table 5, is shown in exhibit 1.3. Exhibit 1.3

provides a means for calculating the score associated with the four safety

redundancy requirements. (The four safety redundancy requirements are: (1)

Containment Safety; (2) Extinguishment Safety; (3) People Movement Safety; and

(4) General Safety.) In order to calculate the score for each of the safety

redundancy requirements, it is necessary to enter the state value identified

in Table 4 of the FSES as corresponding to the existing state of the building

safety feature into the appropriate spaces in the coded rows of exhibit 1.3.

(No values are entered in the shaded spaces of exhibit 1.3.) Each of the four

columns is then summed to get an overall score. These scores are labeled Sj

,

S 2 , S3 and Sq in exhibit 1.3.

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

code went into effect.

8
Table 1.1 Values of Safety Parameters Corresponding to Prescriptive

Compliance to the Life Safety Code for Hospitals

Building Safety

Feature

Building Type

New 1-Story

(1)

New More

Than 1-Story

(2)

Existing 1-Story

(3)

Existing More

Than 1-Story

(4)

1. Construction

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

2 4 2 4

2. Interior Finish

[Corr. & Exit]

Class A Class A Class B Class B

3 3 0 0

3. Interior Finish

[ Rooms

]

Class B Class B Class B Class B

1 1 1 1

4. Corridor

Partitions /Walls

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

2 2 1 1

5. Doors to Corridor

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

1 1 1 1

6 . Zone

Dimensions 3

ioo'-iso' 100 ' -1 50

100 '-150

100’-150'

0 0 0 0

7. Vertical

Openings

Not Applicable 2 hr Not Applicable 1-2 hr

0 3 0 2

8. Hazardous

Areas

No Deficiencies No Deficiencies No Deficiencies No Deficiencies

0 0 0 0

9 . Smoke

Control

Smoke Part

.

Smoke Part. Smoke Part. Smoke Part.

0 0 0 0

10. Emergency

Movement Routes

Multiple Routes Multiple Routes Multiple Routes Multiple Routes

0 0 0 0

11. Manual Fire

Alarm

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

2 2 2 2

12. Smoke

Detection & Alarm

None None None None

0 0 0 0

13. Automatic

Sprinklers

None None None None

0 0 0 0

TOTAL VALUE 11 16 7 11

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

9
Table 1.2 Values of Safety Parameters Corresponding to Prescriptive

Compliance to the Life Safety Code for Nursing Homes

Building Safety

Feature

Building Type

New 1-Story

(1)

New More

Than 1-Story

(2)

Existing 1-Story

(3)

Existing More

Than 1-Story

(4)

1. Construction

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

2 4 2 4

2. Interior Finish

[Corr. & Exit]

Class A Class A Class B Class B

3 3 0 0

3. Interior Finish

[ Rooms

]

Class B Class B Class B Class B

1 1 1 1

4. Corridor

Partitions/ Walls

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

2 2 1 1

5. Doors to Corridor

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

1 1 1 1

6 . Zone

Dimensions 3

100 ’-1 50 * 100 '-150100 '-150100 '-150

0 0 0 0

7. Vertical

Openings

Not Applicable 2 hr Not Applicable 1-2 hr

0 3 0 2

8. Hazardous

Areas

No Deficiencies No Deficiencies No Deficiencies No Deficiencies

0 0 0 0

9 . Smoke

Control

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

0 0 0 0

10. Emergency

Movement Routes

Multiple Routes Multiple Routes Multiple Routes Multiple Routes

0 0 0 0

11. Manual Fire

Alarm

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

2 2 2 2

12. Smoke

Detection & Alarm

Corridor Only Corridor Only None None

2 2 0 0

13. Automatic

Sprinklers

None None None None

0 0 0 0

TOTAL VALUE 13 18 7 11

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

10
Exhibit 1.1 Occupancy Risk Factor Calculation Worksheets

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 6TK7TH AND

ABOVE

BASE- MENTS

LOCATION (L) RISK FACTOR 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.6

4. RATIO OF

PATIENTS TO

PATIENTS

ATTENDANT

11

1

3Jj

1

6-10

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 IA] 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

X

D X

L X

T « «

F

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

1.0*

F 1R

0.6

x

F =

R

11
Exhibit 1.2 Worksheet for Determining the Values of the Safety Parameters

Table 4. SAFETY PARAMETERS VALUES

PARAMETERS PARAMETERS VALUES

1. CON

COMBUSTIBLE STRUCTION NON COMBUSTIBLE

WOOD FRAME ORDINARY

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

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

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

4TH l ABOVE -13 -7 -13 -7 -9 -7 4

2. INTER

(Corr

I0R FINISH cuss c CLASS B CLASS A & Exit) -5 0 3

3. INTER

(Roon

I0R FINISH cuss c CLASS 8 CLASS A

IS) -3 1 3

4. CORR

PART

DOR

NONE OR INCOMPLETE

<1/3 HR *1/3 <1.0 HR >1.0 HR.

TIONS/WALLS -10 (0) * 0 1 10|* 2(0)*

5. DOOR

CORR

S TO

NO OOOR <20 MIN.FR >20 MIN. FR >20 MIN. FR t AUTO CLOS. IDOR -10 0 1 (0) +

2 (0) +

OEAO END MORE THAN 100' DEAD END

SO'-IOO' DUD END

30’-50' NO DUO ENDS >30' l ZONE LENGTH IS:

6. ZONE DIMENSIONS

i!50' 100'- 150' <100'

-6 |0| — -4 (0)** -2(0)*

-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. >2 HR. -14 -10 0 2 (0) ++

3 (0] ++

8. HAZARDOUS AREAS

DOUBLE DEFICIENCY SINGLE DEFICIENCY NO DEFICIENCIES

IN ZONE OUTSIDE ZONE IN ZONE IN ADIACENT ZONE

-11 -5 -6 -2 0

9. SMOKE CONTROL

NO CONTROL SMOKE PARTITION MECH. ASSISTED SYSTEMS BY ZONE

3 -5(0)***0

10. EMERGENCY MOVEMENT

ROUTES

<2 ROUTES MULTIPLE ROUTES

-8

DEFICIENT CAPACITY W/O HORIZONTAL

EXT(«) HORIZONTAL EXITUI OIRECT EXITIl) -2 0 3 5

11. MANUAL FIRE ALARM

NO MANUAL FIRE ALARM MANUAL FIRE ALARM

-4

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

1 2

12. SMOKE DETECTION

& ALARM

NONE CORRIDOR ONLY ROOMS ONLY CORRIDOR A

HABIT. SPACE 4

TOTAL SPACE

0 2 3 5

13. AUTOMATIC

SPRINKLERS

NONE CORRIOOR t

HABIT. SPACE

8

TOTAL SPACE

0 10

NOTE: *Ust 10) when item 5 is -10. + Use |0) when item 4 is -10.

• • Use 1 01 when item 10 is -a. ++ Use |0| when item 1 is beset) on first floor zone •••Use (0) in zone with less than 31 patients or 00 ,n unprotected type of construction,

in existing buildings.

12
Exhibit 1.3 Worksheet for Calculating Containment Safety, Extinguishment

Safety, People Movement Safety, and General Safety

Table 5. INDIVIDUAL SAFETY EVALUATIONS

SAFETY

PARAMETERS

CONTAINMENT EXTINGUISHMENT PEOPLE

SAFETY SAFETY MOVEMENT

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

GENERAL

SAFETY

(SG)

1. CONSTRUCTION

2. INTERIOR FINISH

(Corr. & Exit)

3. INTERIOR FINISH [Rooms)

4. CORRIDOR

PARTITIONS/WALLS

5. DOORS TO

6. ZONE

CORRIDOR

DIMENSIONS

i 7. VERTICAL OPENINGS

8. HAZARDOUS AREAS iiiiiiiiip

9. SMOKE CONTROL

.

10. EMERGENCY

11.

MOVEMENT

MANUAL FIRE

ROUTES mtim

12. &

SMOKE

ALARM

ALARM

DETECTION

mm, w 13. AUTOMATIC

SPRINKLERS

•P 2 =

TOTAL VALUE s 1= s

2 = s

3 = s G =

13
Exhibit 1.4 Worksheet for Evaluating Fire Zone Safety Equivalency

Table 6. MANDATORY SAFETY REQUIREMENTS

CONTAINMENT

Sa

EXTINGUISHMENT

Sb

PEOPLE MOVEMENT

Sc

ZONE LOCATION New Exist. New Exist. New Exist.

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

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

* Use values in parentheses [ ) for hospitals

Table 7. ZONE SAFETY EQUIVALENCY EVALUATION YES NO

CONTAINMENT

SAFETY (Si)

less

MANDATORY

CONTAINMENT |S a |

Si Sa C

EXTINGUISHMENT . SAFETY (S 2 )

MANDATORY >Q

EXTINGUISHMENT |Sbl

'

$2 Sb E

PEOPLE

MOVEMENT (c

SAFETY l s

3

less

MANDATORY

PEOPLE >0

MOVEMENT (S c )

S 3 Sc P

GENERAL

SAFETY (S G ) less

OCCUPANCY

RISK (R) "°

Sg R G

14
The last worksheets provide the means for determining whether or not the

fire zone generates a level of fire safety equivalent to that of the Life

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

FSES Table 5 and entering them in the boxes labeled , S2 , S3 and Sq. The

user then selects the values from FSES Table 6 (see exhibit 1.4) 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 Sa , S^, Sc in FSES Table 7 shown in exhibit 1.4. The

occupancy risk factor calculated on the first worksheet is then entered in the

box labeled R. Based on these two sets of numbers, it is possible to test if

the fire zone provides a level of safety equivalent to the Life Safety Code.

This test is performed by determining if the difference between the first set

of numbers, Sj , S2 , S3 , and Sq, and the second set of numbers, Sa , S^, Sc , and

R, in Table 7 of the FSES is greater than or equal to zero.

In the event that the fire zone fails to pass the equivalency test, it will be

necessary to select a retrofit strategy which will ensure that the building

safety features produce scores which match or exceed each of the four safety

redundancy requirements. A systematic means for doing this which explicitly

introduces relative costs into the retrofit decision is the subject of the

remainder of this report.

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

PROGRAM

2.1 THE BASIC METHODOLOGY BEHIND FSESCM

The FSESCM computer program is designed to balance score improvements against

the cost of retrofitting so that the least-cost means of achieving compliance

to the Life Safety Code can be identified. The core concept behind FSESCM is

a mathematical technique known as linear programming. In its usual context

linear programming deals with the problem of allocating limited resources among competing activities in an optimal way. At the foundation of any linear

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

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

functions in the model are linear. The term "program" is used in the general sense 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 Tables 4 and 5 of the FSES. In Table 4,

there is a unique level for each building safety feature possible at any one time. This is due to the requirement that the most-hazardous level associated

with each building safety feature determines its score. In Table 5, the score for each of the four safety redundancy requirements (Containment Safety,

Extinguishment Safety, People Movement Safety, and General Safety) is the sum

of the values of the appropriate parameter identified in Table 4 as either the

existing state or a potential retrofit.

In addition to the least-cost solution, FSESCM contains a procedure for

systematically generating alternative solutions, many of which are close in

cost to the optimum. Two groups of alternative solutions are generated to

facilitate the design selection process. The first group is based on the

input condition of each fire zone. The objective here is to provide an opportunity to force each initial condition to stay in a solution and for each

potential retrofit to be in a solution. The second group of solutions is

based on a prespecified set of design variable qualifiers. The objective here

is to ensure design compatibility across fire zones. Both groups of solutions

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

to produce a series of compliance strategies for the entire building within

which the key design variable qualifiers are held constant. These solutions

are then printed out in ascending order of cost. The added information

provided by the alternative solutions should assist health care facility

administrators and construction specialists to assess better the costs of code

compliance and hence resolve many of the differences of opinion surrounding

the cost impacts of fire safety in general and the Life Safety Code in

particular. In addition, the information conveyed by the alternative

solutions provides an opportunity to introduce the impact that

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

strategy.

The basic methodology behind the FSESCM computer program is summarized in

figure 2.1. This figure is a gross-level flowchart of the computer program;

it consists of two pages of diagrams. In the discussion which follows, it

will be assumed that data on several buildings are being run in a batch mode.

16
The computations begin with the circular symbol labeled as FSESCM. Prior to

the analysis of any data, however, all key variables are first initialized.

Background information which includes the facility name and location, the

contact person, the type of facility, and a set of cost multipliers is then

read in. If the facility type or cost multipliers are out of range, an error message is written and the defective variable is reset to its default value.

These errors are not treated as fatal (i.e., they do not cause the run for

this building to abort) since it was rationalized that users would benefit

more from diagnostics received later on (most of which are associated with

fatal errors) if the program were allowed to continue screening their data.

Thus although it is possible that the incorrect problem could be solved, due

to a default setting, it is more likely that other errors will be encountered

later on whose diagnostics will give the user a better idea of where the

problem is incorrectly formulated than if the run for the building were aborted after the first block of cards was read. The background information

as input or after modification is then printed out for reference and as an aid

for comparing the results of different sets of runs for the same building.

The fire zone inputs are then read. This information includes: the location

of the fire zone; the number of patients; the risk parameter numbers; the

building safety feature numbers; and the critical element counts. If an error

is encountered at this time, the logic flow is transferred to statement label

C on the second page of the flowchart. Immediately after entering the section

of logic which begins with statement label C, the program writes an error message which should enable the user to locate the problem. The model then

reads over the remaining data for this building, printing out the information

on the cards (up to 20) following the one where the error occurred. If this was not the last building in the batch, then the program is transferred back

to the logic flow which follows statement label A, where the program attempts

to read the background information on the next building. If this was the last

building in the batch, then the program stops. If no error was encountered

when the fire zone inputs were read, then an input summary is printed out as well as the estimated costs for each retrofit state in Table 4 of the FSES

which was deemed feasible.

The control card(s) for the fire zone are then read within the section of

logic which follows statement label D on the first page of the flowchart. If an error is encountered on a control card, the logic flow is transferred to

statement label C and the operations discussed above are performed. If no error was encountered, then the program will check if a solution is desired.

If so, the logic flow is transferred to statement label E on the second page

of the flowchart.

17
Figure 2.1 Flowchart of the FSESCM Computer Program

18
Figure 2.1 Flowchart of the FSESCM Computer Program (continued)

19
The logic associated with the four processing symbols (shown below statement

label E) is as follows. First, the linear programming relaxation^ is solved

and stored as a bounding solution and an advanced starting point^ for all

future solutions for this fire zone. The two classes of solutions discussed

earlier are then generated based on the input values for each of the 13

building safety features. A class of design equivalent solutions for use in

matching common retrofit strategies across fire zones is then generated. The

program then classifies and sorts all solutions. Once all four processes have

been completed, a Fire Zone Summary Report is printed out. This report

includes data on the fire zone location and a set of information on each

solution generated (the post-retrofit state name for each building safety

feature, any surplus over the safety requirement (i.e., Sa , S^, Sc , and R) , and the cost to comply). The logic flow is then returned to statement label D

where the next control card is read.

Following the logic flow down to the second decision block beneath statement

label D and assuming no solution is desired, the program checks if a modification is required. If so, the modification is read and checked for

correctness. If an error is encountered, the logic flow is transferred to

statement label C where the operations described earlier are carried out. If no error was encountered, then the logic flow is returned to statement label D

where the next control card is read.

Returning to statement label D, following the logic flow down to the third

decision block and assuming no modifications are required, the program checks

if all fire zones for this building have been analyzed. If more fire zones are

to be analyzed, the logic flow is transferred to statement label B, where data on the next fire zone are read. The program then checks if the testing option

has been exercised for this building. The testing option permits users to

check their input data for consistency without incurring the costs of

generating the various classes of solutions for the first fire zones and then

encountering a fatal error on one of the last fire zones. 3 if the testing

option for the building has been exercised, then the logic flow skips down to

statement label F where the program checks if this is the last building in the

batch. If so, the program stops.

^The formulation associated with the FSES is actually a 0-1 integer

programming problem. FSESCM uses a heuristic post-processor to ensure integrality. Those readers wishing a detailed discussion of the algorithm

are referred to the Programmer's Manual.

^The advanced starting point permits all other solutions to be generated with

only a fraction of the iterations which would otherwise have been required.

^The solutions from a previous batch run for a particular building are not

stored, so it would be necessary to rerun the entire building.

20
If the testing option has not been exercised, then this is the last fire zone for the building under consideration, then the Total Building Summary Report

is output. This report is divided into two parts. The first part shows for

each design classification: the design variable qualifiers; the total cost

for the building; and the cost of prescriptive compliance for the building.

The second part shows for each fire zone: the fire zone location; the postretrofit name for each building safety feature; any surplus over the safety

requirement; and the cost to comply for that fire zone. The program then

checks if this is the last building in the batch. If it is not, then the

logic flow is transferred to statement label A where the program attempts to

read the background information on the next building. If this is the last

building in the batch, then all buildings have been analyzed and the program

stops.

2.2 DATA REQUIREMENTS, USER OPTIONS AND RESTRICTIONS

All data used as inputs to the FSESCM computer program are designed so that

they can be easily and reliably collected at the same time as the facility is

evaluated. The inputs are tied closely to the various tables of the FSES.

Particular emphasis is placed on tying the computer program to Table 4 of the

FSES since it occupies a central position in the optimization problem. Once

each fire zone has been evaluated (i.e., a complete set of FSES worksheets

have been filled out) , it will be necessary to identify a set of potential

retrofits. At this stage, engineering judgment should be used to preclude any

retofits which are technically infeasible. It is important to include as many

retrofits as possible, however, so that the solution to the optimization

problem is not predetermined.

There are two basic types of information required to run the FSESCM computer

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

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

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

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

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

the optimization problem; they are also summarized in table 2.1. In addition,

the user has available a set of options which affect the optimization problem

in a variety of ways. Each option and its effect on the solution is

described in table 2.2.

Once a set of potential retrofits has been identified, it becomes necessary to

count the number of elements which must be retofitted in order to move to a higher state. The elements are designed to capture all possible state

transitions within Table 4 of the FSES. Since some states within Table 4 are not associated with a single element; it was necessary to develop a worksheet

which lists those building components which must be retrofitted in order to

move from one state within a building safety feature to another. This

worksheet as well as the retrofit measures which the data from the worksheet

21
permit the program to consider are discussed in detail in chapter 3. Data on the critical elements (e.g., the number of elements associated with all of the

"no door" charges within the fire zone that would have to be retrofitted) are read into an "element count matrix". The total cost of each potential

retrofit is then calculated by multiplying the element count matrix by its

appropriate element cost matrix. It is important to point out that the user

has the option to modify both the cost of a particular retrofit and the score required to pass.

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

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

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

combinations of the fire safety measures defined in FSES Table 4.

Consequently, any costs which are not construction related (e.g., lost

revenues, future operation and maintenance costs and insurance differentials)

are not included. If these costs are deemed sufficiently important, a lifecycle cost analysis of the alternatives which result from this procedure

should be performed. The accuracy of the costs presented by the model should

be sufficient to discriminate among alternative solutions; however, they

should not be used as a firm figure for actually carrying out the work.

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

mechanically assisted smoke control systems. Thus, if a transition to a mechanically assisted system is desired, users must input their own cost

estimates via the CHANGE option (see table 2.2). A similar limitation exists

for the direct exit state for emergency movement routes. Users can,

however, input their own cost estimate using the CHANGE option. There are two

states listed in FSES Table 4 which FSESCM treats as impossible; these are cases where a hazardous area has either a double or single deficiency outside

the fire zone. These states are precluded because the entire cost of

upgrading the deficiency is allocated to the fire zone where the deficiency

occurs. If a building enters with such a set of deficiencies which can not be

removed, then the user must preclude all states but the one input for each

hazardous area. Since this will affect the set of solutions based on a prespecified set of design variable qualifiers, its use is not recommended .

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

designs for the entire facility, imposes a limitation of 10 fire zones for any one building. This limitation can be relaxed however, by merely increasing

one set of storage capacity statements. Finally, the way in which alternative

solutions are generated may not provide enough flexibility for some specific

uses. In such a case, modifications to the source code will be required.

Guidelines for modifying the way in which the alternative solutions are generated are given in the Programmer’s Manual.

1 In the event that hazardous areas in some fire zones can be upgraded and

others can not, it will be necessary for the user to identify all adjacent

fire zones where no upgrades can occur. The worst deficiency in the adjacent

fire zone will then determine the score for the fire zone under

consideration.

22
Table

2.1

Input

Data

Requirements

for

the

FSESOM

Computer

Program o

Li 41

05 L. 41 05

X

05X 05 e bo 41

03 • •H 03 Li CO X 05

03 0 L • a 41 03 41 CM • 3 • CM

03

X

X 05 cn • • bC • •H 41 X CM >% C 4_i Li •H c 41 •H c 41 5 41 o 05 05 c 05 41 03 •H pH Lh

05 E 03 03 3 41X 03

a 05 Li E U 03 C/3

X o • L * 05 05 41

05

C Li *H 41 41

X 03 41 S 03 rH 05 3 05 05 u 05 c

•pH 0) 41 C7 Li E •H o; 05 05 41 Li O 05 05 03 03 X 05 C/3 E O •H E L 03 Li C/3 05

Li

X 41 03 03 > • 0) 03 • L Ch >* Li a 03 • O * > —

•K 05 CO 41 3 41 • 41 ]T~ C/5 O CO > a 05 O 05 c 05 X

CD

C CD Lh Li 03 05

L 05 05

C/3

X **H C/3 T3 iH 03 o E 3 C pH

b- 41 b.C o CO PHX 05 41a • 5 05 03 L pH 41 pH CO Li o • C 05 O rH 05 41 pH 03 05 05 O 05 c o X Li 03 X C c 03 o Lh Lh CL 3 •H 41 bC *rH 41 O o Li Li 41 H

Li 1-1 41 •H

u QJ

O c >N .X

X

03 Lh 41C Li 41

C lh 03 QJ 41

O c

<vx E O 05 35

O

U 05 0}C •H 05 o CO 05 0) Li O L. 3 -X c3 03 c (J Lh pH 0 X O v£> U 0) vO L o 05 •H *H 03 41 Q. 05 Li <4h 41 E 05 L 41 Lh 03 Li c U H c 05 Li Lh 05 03 05 X o a 05 o 05 3 c •pH pH O *H pH C 41 o 0 X be E

CL TH

X Lh 03XO 05 • 03 c o X Uh 0) 03 03 u X Lh CO Li Lh • •H X 03 L H 03 05 H 41 O CD 41 *H O V X •H

0)

O 41

U Lh COC Lh 41 o 3 X E Lh 05 *H Lh O Lh CJ la- 05 O Li 03 TH 41 bC

41

O

O

LOO 3 Li

L 05 41 3 C

L

aa 05 pH 05 Li 41

X 03

X 41 •H

Li

O 05 3 05 05 03X 3 05 E 03 41 0 <4i C 11 H O Li L> > 41 C5 L 3 Li X X X

Ln E > 03

U o o C 05

u 5 CD o 3 *H C o u 01 Lh 05 05 X 03

i-H 4-1 1—1 41 o 05 00 03

X

OX

X • £ bC 05 £ p

0)O 03 *HX 41 41 41 Li 3 •H 03 41 X) o h be 41 05 05 PH 05 £ X Li Li c f0

rH 05 OiXX 03 03 03X •H o b0 05 rH 03 05 Li Jh • 05 41 41 05 05 05 C E c <0 Lh O E

41 0) rH 05

C pHC •H 3 *H Li

C

be •H 05

L 03 •H 05 CO •H

X •H 03

C E o X

a •H c O Lh 41 O •H Li 41 41 s 03 E L 41 05 CO •H i-i tH 05 Lh L *H U CJ C H Li 41 05 03 L 03 41 pH C5 3 0) U 05 05 0) 05 03 41 2 05 05 pH c

•H o 05 •«-) T3 41 05 Lh Lh 41 05 41

C COO > 41 pH o

CO Cl TZC 03 CL Lh Lh 05 05 05 o 41X o c 05 o 2 5 C/3 < 03 E C/3 < < Q CO Q d 03 C/3 E ID ELiO

Lh

03 4JC

05E

05Li *H3

Li cr

05 05 X Li E3 03 2 Li 41

05 05

05

X Lh c E 03

C 0 3 03 o X 2

•rl c.

iJ 05 05 Li

03 pH (h

O

u 0) 3 41 o H 41 CO X «0 X x C 05 05 c X c c 41 b* 03 c <0 03 H c E E CO Li 41 05 03

a; c 05 03 •H Li 41 CO 05 41 05 o 05 *H U 41 05 05 41 X t—

£ 05 Q. pH

.3

03

H Lh c 41

05M ^ CL a. 05 CO 3 2 0) H *H E C/3 O 03 a. 41 05 Lh 03 CJ 05 >> bC pH C O lH be C

41u

C 3 o 03 c 41 03 •pH

•Pi

u •rH Z CM

L CL •H c C Lh

rH 03 XI 05

X 05 o 05

*p4 4i rH 41 05

X -X pH E X

u

C •H 0) Li E 05 *H 05 41

03 o 3 0 •H 3 •H 3 rH

a CO

b- o CO

U b- 2 CD CC ID o CDCO

b05 X41 Lh c O o

•pH c X 1-1 0

be 03 •H 05 c £ 41 pH

••H Li 03

X

X o 6 CO

03 L-i (h

H

1) c o *

HZ HH LhC

Li

x

H o c

•«—

3 a

<0

O •H 2: L Lh

bO •H * U o 05

03 Q.

cc CO

23
Table 2.2 User Options Available with the FSESCM Computer Program

Option Purpose

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

retrofit strategies which satisfy all of

the requirements of the Life Safety Code as well as several building design criteria is

also generated.

CHANGE Adjusts the state transition cost to the

value specified by the user.

REQUIR Increases a safety requirement by a percentage specified by the user.

NEXT Tells the program to look for data on the

next fire zone or the next building.

LAST Signals that all data for the building

under study has been analyzed and that the

solutions for the total building should be

output

.

TEST Checks all input data for consistency.

FINAL Tells the program to stop; all data for

the run have been input.

24
2.3 THE PROGRAM OUTPUT

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

major output classifications, which are summarized in table 2.3. Each output

classification is described briefly in the text which follows. A detailed

description based on a case application is presented in chapter 4.

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

and Tables 1, 6 and 4 of the FSES. The title page also serves as a mailing

label and identifies the appropriate staff member to contact in the event that

a problem is encountered in analyzing the facility. The three tables from the

FSES are included in order to show how the occupancy risk factors are used to

calculate the General Safety requirement, what values for Containment,

Extinguishment and People Movement Safety are required for equivalence, and

the full range of state values which contribute toward fire zone safety.

The second class consists of reference data and solutions. This class is output for each fire zone. These outputs consist of a summary of all data input

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

potential retrofit, and all distinct solutions generated for the fire zone. The Input Summary Report provides the user with a concise statement of the

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

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

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

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

13 building safety features are then printed out. The costs of moving from

the input state to all potential retrofits are then presented. The Summary of

Estimated Retrofit Costs Report includes the location of the fire zone and

three types of contruction cost modifiers. The data show the input and

prescriptive state and the estimated cost of going to each potential retrofit.

The cost of prescriptive compliance for the fire zone is also shown as a basic

reference point. The Fire Zone Summary Report is then output. This report

shows each distinct solution generated as a line of output. In order to

easily identify a particular solution and for ease in differentiating among

solutions, the state name is printed beneath each of the 13 building safety

feature column headings. The state names closely resemble and hence can be

easily matched to the labels in Table 4 of the FSES. The order in which the

solutions are output is based on the 40 design classifications listed in table

2.4.1 All solutions are ranked from least costly to most costly within a design classification; so if more than one solution was generated, the least

costly is printed first followed by the second, until all solutions for that

design classification are output.

lln interpreting the information presented in table 2.4, readers should

recognize that the term "INPUT" under the smoke detection and alarm and

automatic sprinklers headings refers to the initial condition of that

building safety feature rather than a specific state. If more than one fire zone is to be evaluated, it is possible for differences to exist in the level

of protection provided by smoke detectors and/or sprinklers. More reasonable

solutions can therefore be expected by working with the input conditions then

the two "none" states.

25
Table

2.3

Outputs

of

the

FSESCM

Computer

Program

u

04 • CO

r • X z«\ Li Li C 04 a «k Li 04 CO O Li 4h 3 04 H O -H 3 O Z CO X UH CJ Li Li <HH LI a tH <0 CO

04 c 3 rH 4)

U 0> >> e 04 Z CO CJ O Cl rH oX a

04 04 * X >> <§

C

X

C0 Q.e a Li U CO •» cj Li • TH 04 Li 0

04 •H CO

u c co 04 04 rH

C 04 CJ rH 3 L> • o OB bo W KH 04 rH a. o cm

04 CT C/3 /r-s rH Li •rH <0

C

X £ N <0 0

E- 04 N-' OB

L (0 CO Li c/3 o CO

O C/3 Li CL L4 •r-i o 04 O

O. «L|

tsj •rH CJ 04 * —

c *3 u X L bC Li c >* 3 c CJ 04 <0 04 rl C CO "O o X 04 O Z c >% 04 CO Li > > Cl -n o

04 CO 04 rH CJ 0 X

B

u •H tH

w T3 CJ 4rnt Li Uh X L rH C0 Cl c Li rH u 04 CO co LI CO u C Z Li be O. 04 tH r o CL C/3 E-* c o tH O 04 LI tH tH C 3 Li a • 04 CJ CO tH Qj > co CO Li o 00 c

04

X

r E c Li Li o X 04 CJ csj 04 00 u X CO L4 0/ H CO 3 CO Li a CO X E

CO 04 c rH ct3 Li rH Li CO s»/ 04 04 CJ 04 c u 04 Li 3 W c E- O C/3 3 Li Li Li CO L o c rH 3 O o C/3 rH O c CL n U tH M o X LJ CJ «* tH •» • Li a 4h o Cl 3

LI CJ CO CO 04 be 04 Li

X -rH

X TH • Li cr

<0

H 04 Li > 04 > CO CJ <Li 3 >H LI be

x o 04

a * Cl c •H CL *ri

O COO C/3 rH COC CJ 'hh CL

C CO • 04 Li \ Li o CO Li

au tH CO o CD /-N >% tH a 04 CL Li r a T3 W 04 >,

'Ll 04 J*C Li LJ TH e tH 04 Li 0) 04 o UH rH £ Li c Li CO 04 CO L **H X U O CL Li o •fH •H Li co 04

L-« *3 tH Lh CL

uH CJ c Cl | 3 CO 3 O Z

T3 a: co CO 'JO co Li Li o CO PC Cl <0 < C/3 r 04 * 04 tH r CO CO LJ co 04 C/3 Sk c Li C L rH C 0 04 rH 04 r 4J *3 u bo 0 CL o CL Q. O Oh Cl Li CJ X CO X C c c tH -rH E tH CO Li bO L» u •

CO CO tH Li * LI • C LI >> 0 c c C/3 CO rs

CL T3 CO Li CO Li CJ CO

C L> CJ bC Lh tH CxJ 04

04 3 rH CJ 3 CJ 3 cj o 04 tH

O T) LiC

a CJ tH

O CL

Q CL 04

O TH L. « CO 4h

H

H Li o

(0a 3 rJ c X c > rJ Li CO Li 04 tH UH 04

N z o CO HH LH co C/3 c O LI 3 O >

V-/ v—

04 L- 04 L> 04 CJ 04 CO PQ Lh 6 04 C c CL C TH be a X O Li Li Li — <r o <r o tH o 'Ll c 04 CJ CJ 04 04 CO tH

•H Cs3L

N -rH tH Li CO

X CL 3 Cl

f—

04 04 04 04

u 03 TD •Hw rH LI | rH

tH rH rH 04 rH 04 r—

CO 04 CO rH 3 CO Lia Li

CJ

X

X Li

XXX 04 Li CO tH c

Li Li Li CO

L CO

CO CO CO •H CO •M CO

X tH rH 3 04

OO 0 o 3 X Cl. H H Cl H Cl H CL Cl CJ X PCS Cl h CL C/3 H

CD LI

CO0

CJ

Li tH

UhO

Li Li

04

04 Pi a Li n *3 «0 z 04 a

Li

a

CO 3 u E Li C/3 0 tH CO CL Li a be

04 CO

a c

cl Li

w 3 tH

CO CO C/3 T3

04 04

a Uh rH

be rH

a o 04 •H

C0

X 3 C 3

Cu CO C/3 >> o ca E- Li NJ

04 Li CO rH

rH 00 3 E 04 CO X u a E Li Li •H C/3 c 3 H O

Er* Cl

M CO Cl

H c CO o e

tH o

•H

<0 Li u 3 c rH

Uh 0 o

•H CO

7)M

CO <0 T3

03

a

C

rH

C CO CO cj o c

Uh CO o

li

a Li hH 3 M Li a Q 3

4J *3 *-H 3 C 04 0 O 3 CJ C/3 O C U 04 C

bC Li bo

04 •H o UH CO

CO 04 04 CO oc Q

26
The program then outputs the solution(s) for the next design classification

for which at least one solution was generated until the list is exhausted.

The prescriptive compliance solution is then output. Three other groups of

solutions are also output. They are: (1) solutions which have no deficiencies in hazardous areas but do not belong to one of the design

classifications; (2) solutions which have a single deficiency in a hazardous

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

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

classification for the entire building. The design classification solutions

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

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

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

Summary Report is generated. This report gives the design variable

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

classification and the total cost of prescriptive compliance for the building

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

The design classification solutions are printed out in ascending order of

estimated retrofit cost for the entire building to facilitate comparison among

competing design alternatives. In order to facilitate the identification of

each solution, the state names for each of the 13 building safety features are printed out as are the surpluses and retrofit cost for each fire zone. Each

fire zone takes up one line in the printout. If one or more fire zones did

not contain this design class, no printout for the entire building is

generated. Should the user wish such a retrofit, it would be necessary to

synthesize it from the individual fire zone printouts.

27
Table 2.4 Design Variable Qualifiers Used in Establishing the 40

Design Classifications

Hazardous

Areas Construction

Zone

Dimensions

Emergency

Movement

Routes

Smoke

Detection

and Alarm

Automatic

Sprinklers

NO DEF RESIST NO DED HOR*EX INPUT INPUT

NO DEF PROTECT NO DED HOR*EX INPUT INPUT

NO DEF RESIST DED*30 HOR*EX INPUT INPUT

NO DEF PROTECT DED*30 HOR*EX INPUT INPUT

NO DEF RESIST NO DED NO H*E INPUT INPUT

NO DEF PROTECT NO DED NO H*E INPUT INPUT

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

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

NO DEF RESIST NO DED HOR*EX CORHAB INPUT

NO DEF PROTECT NO DED HOR*EX CORHAB INPUT

NO DEF RESIST DED*30 HOR*EX CORHAB INPUT

NO DEF PROTECT DED*30 HOR*EX CORHAB INPUT

NO DEF RESIST NO DED NO H*E CORHAB INPUT

NO DEF PROTECT NO DED NO H*E CORHAB INPUT

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

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

NO DEF RESIST NO DED HOR*EX INPUT CORHAB

NO DEF PROTECT NO DED HOR*EX INPUT CORHAB

NO DEF RESIST DED*30 HOR*EX INPUT CORHAB

NO DEF PROTECT DED*30 HOR*EX INPUT CORHAB

NO DEF RESIST NO DED NO H*E INPUT CORHAB

NO DEF PROTECT NO DED NO H*E INPUT CORHAB

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

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

NO DEF RESIST NO DED HOR*EX TTLZON INPUT

NO DEF PROTECT NO DED HOR*EX TTLZON INPUT

NO DEF RESIST DED*30 HOR*EX TTLZON INPUT

NO DEF PROTECT DED*30 HOR*EX TTLZON INPUT

NO DEF RESIST NO DED NO H*E TTLZON INPUT

NO DEF PROTECT NO DED NO H*E TTLZON INPUT

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

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

NO DEF RESIST NO DED HOR*EX INPUT TTLBLD

NO DEF PROTECT NO DED HOR*EX INPUT TTLBLD

NO DEF RESIST DED*30 HOR*EX INPUT TTLBLD

NO DEF PROTECT DED*30 HOR*EX INPUT TTLBLD

NO DEF RESIST NO DED NO H*E INPUT TTLBLD

NO DEF PROTECT NO DED NO H*E INPUT TTLBLD

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

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

28
3. GUIDELINES FOR APPLYING THE FSESCM COMPUTER PROGRAM

3.1 AN ANALYSIS OF A TYPICAL HEALTH CARE FACILITY

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

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

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

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

patient room floors is shown in figure 3.1; the patient room floors are treated as a single fire zone. The overall length of the fire zone is

approximately 180 feet. The exterior bearing walls of the original structure

do, however, provide an excellent opportunity for installing a horizontal exit

to reduce the overall dimensions of the fire zone. Each patient room floor of

the facility contains 22 patient rooms and covers a total floor area of 11,000

square feet.

The hospital as constructed has structural steel framing, reinforced concrete

floors, fixed windows, and masonary exterior walls. Since all steel columns

are bricked, concreted, and/or plastered to provide fire resistance,

negligible differences are believed to exist between steel and reinforced

concrete framing for the purposes of this study. The facility is modeled as having four fire zones. These zones include: (1) the basement which houses

most of the facility’s mechanical equipment; (2) the first floor which houses

the emergency room and outpatient services; (3) the second floor which

consists mainly of laboratories and offices; and (4) the third through ninth

floors which are the patient room floors.

An assessment of the facility based on the FSES as described in Appendix C of

the Life Safety Code indicated that all fire zones required retrofittng in

order to be deemed equivalent. The initial condition for each of the 5

patient risk parameters is summarized in table 3.1. The initial condition for

each of the 13 building safety features is summarized in table 3.2. From this

information a series of retorfit strategies were hypothesized. The type and

nature of each retrofit are presented in the next section, along with the

worksheets used to record the critical element counts. A detailed discussion

of the critical elements counts for the typical hospital are discussed in

section 4.1. The solutions, their interpretation and implications, for this

building are described in sections 4.2 and 4.3.

3.2 HOW TO COLLECT THE NECESSARY DATA

As mentioned in section 2.2, the data inputs closely parallel the Tables 1 and

4 of the FSES. This was done both for ease of collection and so that critical

elements would neither be omitted nor double counted. In addition, the

strategy for data collection closely adheres to the guidelines given in

Appendix C of the Life Safety Code.

The remainder of this section is divided into two parts. The first discusses

the guidelines given in Appendix C of the Life Safety Code regarding the

29
Figure 3. 1 Layout of the Patient Room Floors for the Case Study Building

30
CO

COd

cu x

cu§d

CO OhPi

CO ad

cu X

4-1 CO Ph

CU>X

Pm

CU 4=

•H"Odo

<j

>>d

COic/3

co

<u i—

42

CO H

O

XX

CJ

X

a

<u

d CJ cu

<U

d o COd

B > X

X CQd o X o X cO o

CO

q

XX

X o CJ

d Ph CO CO

XX o CU d X cu d

X • o CU > X O CO d d Q CO d Q I—

X o d O cu < cj 3 d 3 Ph cu • Pm X X cu X pi o O O CU X Pm 0

CO CO

m

X Pm CO CO PC o XX (U CJ > X X CU CO CO Q bO Pi X

X cu CU o o O 03 CM V co co d co CO r-H r-H d o X X G d Q £ CO d 1 cu CO Ph X X X O Pm X B cu X O o P

X

/\ co rH 3

<Ud

Pm CJ CJ

A 2 QV C/3 C/3 P3 2 2 2

4-1 o X

V 3 d 2 X rH X

C

4)

d cO o X 01 CU X 4-1 > Pm X

cO 01 CJ CJ Ph C/3 t^ G d cu X CU <u o d

CU > X

X

d

X

X CJ

X o

co

X •HX CJ

03 CO

X

XX CO 03 d X Pd CU d cu • bo d O CO d Q d « co X Q d o O CU < CJ 3 d 2 3 Ph 3 • d •H u X Pi o O O CU o Pm O cu 03 cu Pm CO CO X O O PC X (U Pi O X m X C/3 cu CO CO Q m bO Pi X CU CU i—

X X X CU d CO CO fH rH rH d o CM X d d

Pm cO o 03

V 3 d

XX

XOX E X o o > CO d 0) PQ o Pm CJ CJ A 2 A V C/3 C/3 V 2 2 2

03 o 1 o CN bC CM d £ cj | < d O pH 01 rH V cu CU O X 03 r-H cu d

d

CU o X •H o

C/3 2 d Pm

X

X tnX

CJ CJ

H

d

d cu

CU cu o d

cu > X

X

d

XX CJ

X o X X X X CJ

d

X

d COX

XX CO

O ind CO

O

X Pd cu

d (U • O 0) X O d O CO d Q d Q co X Q

iH

X

X

V • X

X

X <u < <: 3 d £2 3 Ph 3 • Pm X LO CO CM 01 0) Pm Pm Pi O O — O CU q X 1 d 1 3 d CO CO CO X o O 2 X CU Pi

4-1

O t—H

X

H o d CU CO CO

Qm bo PiX <u cu

CO £ Pm

V

N o d co CO rHH r-H

d

O CM

X

d

d

d rH

X

XXX

O

X

B

X o o

•H 01

X Pm CJ CJ

A 2 AV C/3 C/3V 2 2 2

Pm

d

X

X 03d CU o CJ

<U CJ

d co

X o a X X •H C/3 CO X d X CJ X

4-1

X in

X

X CO

d CU

X

d 01d

X

XX

X cu cu o d JQ

0/ iH cu

V

X

d

d > X •rH

d CO S X in 0 CN 0) X X CU X CJ X o X

01

X 1 01 i bp 5 B

X

d

X CJ

CO

O CO rH <1

X cu CO

X cu

X CO

cO £ co

V

d o co

X PdXd (U • PQ PQ rH o co CO d d CJ CO X Q

d

•H PQ a> <1 < 3 d § 3 X Ph 3 • O X d Pi O O — O X q

PH -o

X CO CO CD

X

OO

X cu CU oi

X

03 E cu CO COQmQ Pi rC cu

d

d e d CO co iH r-H r-H

O CM 4-)

d

d o 3 X 1—

X O o B •H o O

CJ 03 Pm CJ CJ

A 2 A

V 2 C/3V 2 2 CJ

co cu 0) X CO CM d CO • 1—

E

co CJ 03 CO CO

d

X to 03 01 1 1—

s X co •H X d bO X 0) Pd o X a

CO

XX

d <u cO CO

X o COd

X CO o X

dd

X CJ Pi 2 X <U

X

d

XX <U o CO 1—

1—

d

dB ^3X o 0) X < > & H bO CO O bO cu c Pi

d £ Q co <

CO

d tn <U 4=

X

d T3 CO

d CO

B cO

G

d

0)

O o •H

X

d CO CO o Xd

X CO cu

a

O

X

4-1

X

X o X

X 03 cu 3 X

X

X

d o d <u i—1 > Xd

CU

d

d

X

d

d

XXX

ddd

X

d

X cu

d o o X (X S 0) cu o 0) o X co cO o X X X O CD PX < d £ CU CJ C/3 cO •H •H 0) X X 3 03 cu X Pm Pm X CJ d O X d cu d X X d X X 03 PQ Pm X d CU CO d •H X o

cO CO CO o co CO CU CJ

d

d cO o B

X 3 0 a Pm <u

X

Pd Pd Pd CM Pd Ph CO 3 o o Ph

X •rH cO

O CJ c a

X

CO

dXXQ o "3 a)

X CO PQ X d d • CO X d cu bC CO (U S

CO CO cu cud

d (UX cO Pi

d 3 Pi o d X X d o d d N o 0) d o X o d d O o o <u cO S 0 cO B 3

CJXX CJ

Q CM > X C/3 PQ £ C/3 <

01 ,C

4dX

X)Go0

01

CO

CO01 X

C

CO PQ dO 03 3 CO

cu

CO

Q

4-1 0)

0) oUO

03G

CO OCOd

0)cu&x

<u 42

03C

03 PQ03

CO

CU Q

CO

03

CUCO

CO PQ

CO ,

PQ 0LO1 oCO

pqQ

CJ

31
selection of fire zones for analysis. The second presents a set of sample

worksheets. These worksheets are discussed in detail in this and the next

section, where they are related to the input file.

Selection of Fire Zone to be Evaluated *

Obviously, the most comprehensive means of approaching this problem would be

to rigorously analyze each and every fire zone in the building. In most cases however, this approach would not be necessary. From a more pragmatic

viewpoint, most health care facilites have repetitive arrangements so that a complete picture can be developed by evaluating typical zones until all

combinations are evaluated. If several basic criteria are followed, this task

becomes relatively straightforward. First, when aggregating zones, the

"worst-case condition" within the aggregation must be adhered to strictly. If one or more fire zones are in a much more hazardous condition than others

within the aggregation, then consideration should be given to analyzing them

separately. If minor differences exist, then they can be easily handled

through the critical element counts on the worksheets. Second, consideration

should be given to how the post-retrofit building safety features will be

maintained. Since the FSESCM model focuses on the initial costs of

retrofitting the facility, an inadequate maintenance policy could seriously

limit the usefulness of the options provided by the model. The Life Safety

Code is quite explicit on this point; Appendix C states that:

Any protection system, requirements, or arrangement which is

not maintained in a dependable operating condition or is used

in such a manner that the intended fire safety function or hazard constraint is impaired should be considered as defective

and receive no credit in the evaluation.

Finally, the data required to exercise the model must be based on information

provided by qualified engineering staff. Ideally, such individuals could have

undergone some formal training on the FSES so that familiarity with the

terminology and grading system can be assumed.

In terms of which fire zones should be evaluated, the guidelines given in

Appendix C of the Life Safety Code are quite explicit. The zones selected

should include:

(1) each type of patient zone having a different type of mobility,

density, or attendant ratio as classified in FSES Table 1;

(2) each zone that represents a significantly different type of

construction, finish or protection system; and

(3) each zone that contains special medical treatment or support

activities (operating suites, intensive care units, laboratories).

^This section draws heavily on the relevant sections of Appendix C of the Life

Safety Code.

32
A fourth criterion concerns zones not involving housing, treatment, or customary access for patients. Under these circumstances the two following

points should be considered. First, any zone, whether used for patient

egress or not, may be evaluated on the same basis as a patient use zone. In

such case the value of F (unadjusted occupancy risk) in FSES Table 2 shall be

assigned the value of L (fire zone location) in FSES Table 1. In such cases,

building safety feature 10 (emergency movement routes) shall be graded

"deficient capacity" if the exit capacity is less than that prescribed for

the actual occupancy of the space as "< 2 routes" if less than 75 percent of

the prescribed exit capacity is present. Second, if the zone is separated

from all patient use zones by 2-hour fire resistive construction (including

any members that bear the load of a patient zone and with Class B fire doors on any communicating openings) , it may be excluded from evaluation. In such

case, that space shall conform with the portion of the Life Safety Code

appropriate to its use. In addition, appropriate charges under building

safety feature 8 (hazardous areas) in FSES Table 4 shall be charged against

other zones in the facility.

FSESCM Worksheets

As mentioned earlier, the data required to exercise the FSESCM computer

program follows closely the guidelines given in Appendix C of the Life Safety

Code regarding the use of the Fire Safety Evaluation System. This

relationship is formalized in a set of 16 worksheets. These worksheets may

be divided into four distinct categories. The four categories are:

(1) background information on the building (Worksheet I); (2) background

information on the fire zone (Worksheet II); (3) specific information on each

building safety feature (Worksheets III through XV); and (4) control options

to be exercised (Worksheet XVI). Table 3.3 provides a brief summary of each

FSESCM Worksheet which should serve as a convenient reference point in the

discussion which follows.

In responding to the questions posed on each worksheet, users should keep in

mind that the sequence with which the information is recorded is crucial. For

example, question 1 of Worksheet I requests six pieces of information. This

is because the model expects to read information on the: (1) facility name;

(2) building name; (3) contact person; (4) address; (5) city, state, zip code;

and (6) telephone number of the contact. Consequently, when entering the

information into the data file, it is necessary to code in six lines (card

images) of data. If six lines of data are not coded in, then the input deck

will be out of sequence and the run will abort for the building under

analysis. Since element counts are expected for each retrofit, those states

which are above the input but are not feasible should have a value of minus

one (-1) coded into each space where data on a critical element is requested.

If a potential retrofit is feasible, but for some reason one or more of its

critical elements do not exist within the fire zone under study, then a value

of zero (0) should be entered in the space where data on that critical element

is requested.

33
Table 3.3 FSESCM Worksheets

Worksheet

Number

Worksheet

Title Purpose

I Background Information Mailing label; building type;

building qualifier; construction

cost modifiers.

II Fire Zone Data Zone location; current states for

FSES Tables 1 and 4.

III Construction Potential retrofits and critical

element counts for the first

building safety feature.

IV Interior Finish [Corridors

and Exits]

Potential retrofits and critical

element counts for the second

building safety feature.

V Interior Finish [Rooms] Potential retrofits and critical

element counts for the third

building safety feature.

VI Corridor Partitions/

Walls

Potential retrofits and critical

elements counts for the fourth

building safety feature.

VII Doors to Corridor Potential retrofits and critical

element counts for the fifth

building safety feature.

VIII Zone Dimensions Potential retorfits and critical

element counts for the sixth

building safety feature.

IX Vertical Openings Potential retrofits and critical

element counts for the seventh

building safety feature.

X Hazardous Areas Potential retrofits and critical

element counts for the eighth

building safety feature.

XI Smoke Control Potential retrofits and critical

element counts for the ninth

building safety feature.

XII Emergency Movement

Routes

Potential retrofits and critical

element counts for the tenth

building safety feature.

XIII Manual Fire Alarm Potential retrofits and critical

element counts for the eleventh

building safety feature.

XIV Smoke Detection

and Alarm

Potential retrofits and critical

element counts for the twelfth

building safety feature.

XV Automatic Sprinklers Potential retrofits and critical

element counts for the thirteenth

building safety feature.

XVI User Options to be

Exercised

Major control options, minor

control options, sequencing.

34
Worksheet I requests four types of information. The first, a set of six

responses, was discussed previously and serves as a mailing label for the run. The second and third designate whether the building under analysis is a hospital or nursing home and its age classification. These responses serve to

define the values from FSES Table 6 which are used as mandatory safety

requirements and govern the calculation of the occupancy risk factor. The

last bit of information is concerned with a set of three factors which are used to adjust for cost growth over time and differences in the labor and

materials markets due to local effects. Recall that all costs stored within

FSESCM are based on data from the Washington, D.C. area during the summer of

1981. There are numerous sources of information for the values of each of the

three factors.

Worksheet II requests background information on the fire zone to be analyzed.

Information on the location of the fire zone and the number of patients is

entered under question 1. These data are used to recompute certain state

values within FSES Table 4 and as a means of controlling the output when a building has more than one fire zone. Next, information on the current FSES

Table 1 states is entered under question 2. These data are used to compute

the occupancy risk factor for the fire zone. The appropriate value is

determined by counting rightward within the appropriate row of FSES Table 1 until the current state is reached. For example, within the row of FSES Table

1 which corresponds to patient mobility, not movable is the fourth state.

Finally, information on the current FSES Table 4 states is entered under

question 3. These data define lower limits on DO loops through which

information on all critical element counts are read in. They signal to the

model that data on all states which lie to the right of the current FSES Table

4 state are to be read in. The appropriate value is determined by counting

rightward within the appropriate row of FSES Table 4 until the current state

is reached. For example, within the first building safety feature,

construction, fire resistive non-combustible is the seventh state. (Recall

that only one of the four construction rows is appropriate at any one time.)

Worksheet III is the first of the 13 building safety feature worksheets. It

deals with construction type. Directions should be followed carefully when

completing this worksheet. The model treats information on construction type

in a special purpose routine. If the building was initially classified as combustible-wood frame, then no transitions to either the combustible - ordinary or non-combustible states is possible. If, however, the building

entered in an unprotected-wood frame state, then a transition to the

protected-wood frame state is possible. If the building was originally

classified as in a combustible - ordinary state, then no transitions to the

non-combustible states is possible. Once again, if the building entered in

the unprotected-ordinary state, then a transition to the protected-ordinary

state is possible. For those buildings which were initially in a non- combustible state, transition to either the protected or fire resistive states

is possible. When preparing the data for input, consideration should be given

to sequencing if the building was classified as being in one of the four

combustible states.

35
Worksheets IV and V record information on interior finishes. All information

requested on these worksheets is self explanatory with perhaps one exception.

This exception relates to the installation of drywall. This retrofit should

be considered only if the zone contains Class C or worse paneling.

Worksheet VI records information on corridor partitions/walls. As indicated

earlier, most information required is self explanatory. If the zone was initially classified as in the none or incomplete state, in order to avoid

double counting, the answers to questions l.g, l.h, and 2.h, should be

recorded as zero. Similarly, if the zone was initially classified as in the

less than 1/3 hour state, the answers to question 2.h should be recorded as zero.

Worksheet VII, doors to corridor, requires special care when being completed.

This is due to the ways in which closing devices are evaluated. First, if it can be established that the doors are constantly kept in the normally closed

position except when persons are actually passing through the opening, a self

closing device shall be considered as equal to an automatic closing device and

credited accordingly. Second, if a self closing door is blocked open, it

shall be classified as "no door" and the -10 charge invoked.

Worksheet VIII is divided into two parts. The first part requests information

on the overall zone length and whether or not a smoke partition can be

installed to reduce the zone length. If a smoke partition can be installed,

then the model will calculate how many are needed in order to reduce the

length of the fire zone to the 100-150 feet and less than 100 feet states.

The second part includes space for all critical element counts.

Worksheet IX records information on vertical openings. All entries on this

worksheet are self explantory.

Worksheet X is divided into three parts. This approach was taken because

hazardous areas within a fire zone may contain one or more: (1) double

deficiency areas; (2) single deficiency non-sprinklered areas; or (3) single

deficiency sprinklered areas. Within each of the three parts, the user must

aggregate information on all such areas within the fire zone. For purposes of

sequencing when constructing the input deck, users should keep in mind that

FSESCM treats transitions to the double and single deficiency states outside

the fire zone as impossible. This subject will be discussed in detail in the

section which follows.

Worksheet XI records information on smoke control. Since the mechanically

assisted by zone state requires special costing not included in the model, the

only element counts possible are those associated with the installation of a smoke partition.

Worksheet XII records information on emergency movement routes. As pointed

out earlier, the direct exits state requires special costing not included

within the FSESCM model. The element counts associated with transitions to

all other states are self explanatory.

36
Worksheet XIII records information on manual fire alarms. The element counts

associated with transitions to all states within this building safety feature are self explanatory.

Worksheets XIV and XV record information on smoke detection and alarm and

automatic sprinklers, respectively. Both worksheets are designed around

special costing subroutines. A series of cost estimating relationships within

each subroutine is used to compute the state transition costs. For automatic

sprinklers, the user must specify both the type of sprinkler system and

whether or not the water supply is adequate.

Worksheet XVI defines the sequence with which the user options are to be

exercised. The responses are divided into two types: major options and minor

options. Whereas a major option may be used only once for each fire zone, a minor option may be used repeatedly. The influence on problem structure

associated with repeated use of minor options is, however, cumulative.

Exhibit 3.1 Sample Worksheet I: Background Information

(1) Mailing label:

(i) Facility name: ; (ii) Building name: ; (iii) Contact: ; (iv) Address: ; (v) City, state, zipcode: ; and

(vi) Telephone number: .

(2) Building type designation: ; (i) Hospital: Designation = 1; and

(ii) Nursing Home: Designation =2.

(3) Building qualifier: ; (i) New single story: Designation = 1;

(ii) New multi story: Designation = 2;

(iii) Existing single story: Designation = 3; and

(iv) Existing multi story: Designation = 4.

(4) Construction cost modifiers:

(i) Cost growth factor: ; (ii) Labor cost differential: ; (iii) Material cost differential: ;

37
Exhibit 3.2 Sample Worksheet II: Fire Zone Data

(1) General information:

(i) Floor number:

(ii) Zone number: and

(iii) Number of patients:

(2) FSES Table 1: (i) Patient mobility:

(ii) Patient density:

(iii) Zone location: ; (iv) Ratio of patients to attendants:

(v) Patient average age: ,

and

(3) FSES Table 4:

(i)

(ii)

(iii)

(iv)

(v)

(vi)

( vii)

( viii)

(ix)

(x)

(xi)

(xii)

(xiii)

Construction: ; Interior finish (corridor and exits):

Interior finish (rooms): ; Corridor partitions/walls : Doors to corridor: ; Zone dimensions: ; Vertical openings: ; Hazardous areas: ; Smoke control : ; Emergency movement routes:

Manual fire alarms:

Smoke detection and alarm:

Automatic sprinklers:

and

Exhibit 3.3 Sample Worksheet III: Construction (BSF=1)

Current state: . Note: Do not complete this form if already in the fire resistive state.

Potential retrofits:

(a) Resheath bearing walls and partitions: square feet;

(b) Protect columns: linear feet;

(c) Protect beams: linear feet; and

(d) Protect decking: square feet.

(1) Element counts to move to protected state:

(a) Square feet of bearing walls and partitions:

(b) Linear feet of columns: ; (c) Linear feet of beams: ; and

(d) Square feet of decking: .

(2) Element counts to move to fire resistive state*:

(a) Square feet of bearing walls and partitions:

(b) Linear feet of columns: ; (c) Linear feet of beams: ; and

(d) Square feet of decking: .

*Complete this portion of the worksheet only if the building was classified

as non-combustible.

38
Exhibit 3.4 Sample Worksheet IV: Interior Finish [Corridors and Exits]

( BSF=2

)

Current state: . Note: Do not complete this form if already in the Class A state.

Potential retrofits

(a) Install drywall: square feet;*

(b) Coat walls with retardant: square feet;

(c) Coat ceilings with retardant: square feet; and

(d) Install carpet: square feet.

(1) Element counts to move to Class B: (a) * Square feet of paneling: ; (b) Square feet of walls: ; (c) Square feet of ceilings: ; and

(d) Square feet of carpet: .

(2) Element counts to move to Class A:

(a) * Square feet of paneling: ; (b) Square feet of walls: ; (c) Square feet of ceilings: ; and

(d) Square feet of carpet: .

* To be installed only if the zone contains Class C (or worse) paneling.

Exhibit 3.5 Sample Worksheet V: Interior Finish [Rooms] (BSF=3)

Current state: . Note: Do not complete this form if already in the Class A state.

Potential retrofits:

(a) Install drywall: square feet;*

(b) Coat walls with retardant: square feet; and

(c) Coat ceilings with retardant: square feet.

(1) Element counts to move to Class B: (a) * Square feet of paneling: ; (b) Square feet of walls: ; and

(c) Square feet of ceilings: .

(2) Element counts to move to Class A:

(a) * Square feet of paneling: : (b) Square feet of walls: ; and

(c) Square feet of ceilings: .

*To be installed only if the zone contains Class C (or worse) paneling.

39
Exhibit 3.6 Sample Worksheet VI: Corridor Partitions/Walls (BSF=4)

Current state: . Note: Do not complete this form if alredy in the > 1 hour state.

Potential retrofits:

(a) Install partition slab-to-slab: linear feet;

(b) Extend existing partition to slab: linear feet;

(c) Replace windows (glass only): number;

(d) Replace windows (glass only): area (in^);

(e) Replace windows (glass and frames): number;

(f) Replace windows (glass and frames): area (in^);

(g) Sheath existing (< 1/3 hour) partition: linear feet; and

(h) Sheath existing (1/3-1 hour) partition: linear feet.

(1) Element counts to move to < 1/3 hour state:

(a) Linear feet of partition: 9 (b) Linear feet of extension: 9 (c) Number of windows (glass only)

:

9 (d) Square inches of windows (glass only)

:

9 (e) Number of windows (glass and frames)

:

9 (f) Square inches of windows (glass and frames)

:

9 (g) Linear feet of sheathing « 1/3 hour)

:

9 and

(h) Linear feet of sheathing (1/3-1 hour)

:

•

Element counts to move to 1/3-1 hour state:

(a) Linear feet of partition: 9 (b) Linear feet of extension: 9 (c) Number of windows (glass only)

:

9 (d) Square inches of windows (glass only)

:

•9 (e) Number of windows (glass and frames) :

9 (f) Square inches of windows (glass and frames) : (g) Linear feet of sheathing « 1/3 hour)

:

9 and

(h) Linear feet of sheathing (1/3-1 hour) : •

Element counts to move to > 1 hour state

:

(a) Linear feet of partition: 9 (b) Linear feet of extension: 9 (c) Number of windows (glass only)

:

9 (d) Square inches of windows (glass only) : 9 (e) Number of windows (glass and frames)

:

9 (f) Square inches of windows (glass and frames) : ! (g) Linear feet of sheathing « 1/3 hour)

:

9 and

(h) Linear feet of sheathing (1/3-1 hour)

:

•

40
Exhibit 3.7 Sample Worksheet VII: Doors to Corridor (BSF=5)

Current state: . Note: Do not complete this form if already in the > 20 minute and automatic

closers state.

Potential retrofits:

(a) Replace doors and frames (single): number;

(b) Replace doors and frames (double): number;

(c) Replace doors (single): number;

(d) Replace doors (double): number;

(e) Replace latch: number;

(f) Replace view panel: number;

(g) Install closers (normal): number; and

(h) Install closers (automatic): number.

(1) Element counts to move to < 20 minute fire rating state:

(a) Number of doors and frames (single): ; (b) Number of doors and frames (double): ; (c) Number of doors (single): ; (d) Number of doors (double): ; (e) Number of latches: ; (f) Number of view panels: ; (g) Number of closers (normal): ; and

(h) Number of closers (automatic): .

(2) Element counts to move to > 20 minute fire rating state:

(a) Number of doors and frames (single)

! (b) Number of doors and frames (double)

! (c) Number of doors (single): J (d) Number of doors (double)

5 (e) Number of latches

9 (f) Number of view panels: 9 (g) Number of closers (normal)

; and

(h) Number of closers (automatic): .

(3) Element counts to move to > 20 minute fire rating with automatic

closers state:

(a) Number of doors and frames (single)

(b) Number of doors and frames (double)

(c) Number of doors (single)

(d) Number of doors (double)

(e) Number of latches

9 (f) Number of view panels

9 (g) Number of closers (normal)

(h) Number of closers (automatic)

41
Exhibit 3.8 Sample Worksheet VIII: Zone Dimensions (BSF=6)

Current state: . Note: Do not complete this form if already in the no dead ends state with a zone length less than 100 feet.

Potential retrofits:

(a) Create a cross connection to a parallel corridor: linear feet;

(b) Install interior stairway: number;

(c) Install exterior stairway: number;

(d) Install smoke partition: number;

(e) Install partition slab-to-slab: linear feet;

(f) Extend existing partition to slab: linear feet; and

(g) Install smoke dampers: number.

(1) Design qualifiers

(i) What is the total length in feet of all zones currently being

analyzed? . (ii) Can a new smoke partition be installed to reduce the length of the

fire zone? (0 implies no, 1 implies yes)

(2) Element counts to move to 50-100 feet Dead End state:

(a) Linear feet of cross connection: ; (b) Number of interior stairways: ; (c) Number of exterior stairways: ; (d) Number of smoke partitions: ; (e) Linear feet of partition: ; (f) Linear feet of extension: ; and

(g) Number of smoke dampers: .

(3) Element counts to move to 30-50 foot dead end state:

(a) Linear feet of cross connection: ; (b) Number of interior stairways: ; (c) Number of exterior stairways: ; (d) Number of smoke partitions: ; (e) Linear feet of partition: ; (f) Linear feet of extension: ; and

(g) Number of smoke dampers: .

(4) Element counts to move to no dead end and a zone length greater than

150 feet state:

(a) Linear feet of cross connection: ; (b) Number of interior stairways: ; (c) Number of exterior stairways: ; (d) Number of smoke partitions: ; (e) Linear feet of partition: ; (f) Linear feet of extension: ; and

(g) Number of smoke dampers: .

42
Exhibit 3.8 Sample Worksheet VIII: Zone Dimensions (Continued)

(5) Element counts to move to no dead ends and a zone length between 100-150

feet state:

(a) Linear feet of cross connection: ; (b) Number of interior stairways: ; (c) Number of exterior stairways: ; (d) Number of smoke partitions: ; (e) Linear feet of partition: ; (f) Linear feet of extension: ; and

(g) Number of smoke dampers: .

(6) Element counts to move to no dead ends and a zone length of less than

100 feet state:

(a) Linear feet of cross connection: ; (b) Number of interior stairways: ; (c) Number of exterior stairways: ; (d) Number of smoke partitions: ; (e) Linear feet of partition: ; (f) Linear feet of extension: ; and

(g) Number of smoke dampers: .

43
Exhibit 3.9 Sample Worksheet IX: Vertical Openings (BSF=7)

Current state: . Do not complete this form if already in the > 2 hour state.

Potential retrofits:

(a) Frame and sheath enclosure: square feet;

(b) Sheath existing enclosure: square feet;

(c) Install doors and frames: number; and

(d) Install doors: number.

(1)

Element counts to move to the open 2 or 3 floors state:

(a) Square feet of enclosure: ; (b) Square feet of sheathing: ; (c) Number of doors and frames: ; and

(d) Number of doors: .

(2)

Element counts to move to enclosed with less than 1 hour fire rating

state:

(a) Square feet of enclosure: ; (b) Square feet of sheathing: ; (c) Number of doors and frames: ; and

(d) Number of doors: .

(3)

Element counts to move to enclosed with a 1 to 2 hour fire rating state

(a) Square feet of enclosure: ; (b) Square feet of sheathing: ; (c) Number of doors and frames: ; and

(d) Number of doors:

(4)

Element counts to move to enclosed with at least a 2 hour fire rating

state

(a) Square feet of enclosure: ; (b) Square feet of sheathing: ; (c) Number of doors and frames: ; and

(d) Number of doors:

44
Exhibit 3.10 Sample Worksheet X: Hazardous Areas (BSF=8)

Current state: . Note: Do not complete this form if already in no deficiencies state.

Potential retrofits:

(a) Upgrade enclosure: square feet;

(b) Install door: Number; and

(c) Install sprinklers: area in square feet.

Complete this section for all high hazard areas.

(1)

Element counts to move to the single deficiency state:

(a) Square feet of enclosure: ; (b) Number of doors: ; and

(c) Square feet of high hazard areas: .

(2)

Element counts to move to the no deficiency state:

(a) Square feet of enclosure: ; (b) Number of doors: ; and

(c) Square feet of high hazard areas: .

Complete this section for all non-sprinklered single deficiency areas.

(3) Element counts to move to no deficiency state:

(a) Square feet of enclosure: ; (b) Number of doors: ; and

(c) Square feet of all hazardous areas of this type: .

Complete this section for all sprinklered single deficiency areas.

(4) Element counts to move to no deficiency state:

(a) Square feet of enclosure: ; (b) Number of doors: ; and

(c) Square feet of all hazardous areas of this type: .

Note: FSESCM treats transitions to the double deficiency and single

deficiency outside the fire zone states as impossible. Three values of

minus one (-1) should therefore be used as the relevant element

counts

.

45
Exhibit 3.11 Sample Worksheet XI: Smoke Control (BSF=9)

Current state: . Note: Do not complete this form if already in the smoke partition state.*

Potential retrofits:

(a) Install smoke partition: number;

(b) Install partition slab-to-slab : linear feet;

(c) Extend existing partition to slab: linear feet; and

(d) Install smoke dampers: number.

(1) Element counts to move to smoke partition state:

(a) Number of smoke partitions: ; (b) Linear feet of partition: ; (c) Linear feet of extension: ; and

(d) Number of smoke dampers: .

*The mechanically assisted by zone state requires special costing not included

within the FSESCM model. Four values of minus one (-1) should therefore be

used as the relevant element counts.

46
Exhibit 3.12 Sample Worksheet XII: Emergency Movement Routes (BSF=10)

Current state: . Note: Do not complete this form if already in the horizontal exit state.*

Potential retrofits:

(a) Install interior stairway: number;

(b) Install exterior stairway: number;

(c) Install emergency light: number;

(d) Install horizontal exit: number;

(e) Install partition slab-to-slab: linear feet;

(f) Extend existing partition to slab: linear feet; and

(g) Install smoke dampers: number;

(1)

Element counts to move to deficient capacity state:

(a) Number of interior stairways: ; (b) Number of exterior stairways: ; (c) Number of emergency lights: ; (d) Number of horizontal exits: ; (e) Linear feet of partition: ; (f) Linear feet of extension: ; (g) Number of smoke dampers: .

(2)

Element counts to move to no horizontal exit state:

(a) Number of interior stairways: ; (b) Number of exterior stairways: ; (c) Number of emergency lights: ; (d) Number of horizontal exits: ; (e) Linear feet of partition: ; (f) Linear feet of extension: ; (g) Number of smoke dampers: .

(3)

Element counts to move to horizontal exit state:

(a) Number of interior stairways: ; (b) Number of exterior stairways: ; (c) Number of emergency lights: ; (d) Number of horizontal exits: ; (e) Linear feet of partition: ; (f) Linear feet of extension: ; (g) Number of smoke dampers: .

*The direct exits state requires special costing not included within the

FSESCM model. Seven values of minus one (-1) should therefore be used as the relevant element counts.

47
Exhibit 3.13 Sample Worksheet XIII: Manual Fire Alarm (BSF=11)

Current state: . Note: Do not complete this form if already in the fire department connection

state.

Potential retrofits:

(a) Install control panel: Number;

(b) Install pull station: Number; and

(c) Connect zone(s) with fire department: Number.

(1) Element counts to move to no fire department connection state:

(a) Number of control panels: ; (b) Number of pull stations: ; and

(c) Number of connections: .

(2) Element counts to move to fire department connection state:

(a) Number of control panels: J (b) Number of pull stations: ; and

(c) Number of connections

:

•

48
Exhibit 3.14 Sample Worksheet XIV: Smoke Detection and Alarm (BSF=12)

Current state: . Note: Do not complete this form if already in the total space state.

Potential retrofit:

(a) Install smoke detectors: number.

(1)

Element counts to move to corridor only state:

(i) Linear feet of corridors: ; (ii) Number of patient rooms: ; (iii) Square feet of common areas: ; (iv) Number of non-patient rooms: ; and

(v) Number of bathrooms and closets: .

(2)

Element counts to move to rooms only state:

(i) Linear feet of corridors: ; (ii) Number of patient rooms: ; (iii) Square feet of common areas: ; (iv) Number of non-patient rooms: ; and

(v) Number of bathrooms and closets: .

(3)

Element counts to move to corridor and habitable space state:

(i) Linear feet of corridors: ; (ii) Number of patient rooms: ; (iii) Square feet of common areas: ; (iv) Number of non-patient rooms: ; and

(v) Number of bathrooms and closets: .

(4)

Element counts to move to total space state:

(i) Linear feet of corridors: ; (ii) Number of patient rooms: ; (iii) Square feet of common areas: ; (iv) Number of non-patient rooms: ; and

(v) Number of bathrooms and closets: .

49
Exhibit 3.15 Sample Worksheet XV: Automatic Sprinklers (BSF=13)

Current state: . Note: Do not complete this form if already in the total space state.

(1) Potential retrofit designation: ; (a) Wet exposed: Designation = 1; (b) Wet concealed: Designation = 2;

(c) Dry exposed: Designation = 3; and

(d) Dry concealed: Designation = 4.

(2) Water supply qualifier: ; (i) Adequate: Designation = 1; (ii) Not Adequate: Designation = 2; and

(iii) Unknown: Designation = 3.

(3) Element counts to move to corridor and habitable space state:

(i) Linear feet of corridors: ; (ii) Number of rooms (< 200 square feet): ; (iii) Number of rooms (200-400 square feet): ; (iv) Number of rooms (400-600 square feet): ; (v) Floor area of common spaces and wards (> 600 square feet):

(vi) Square feet of floor area analyzed (total): ; and

(vii) Number of bathrooms and closets: .

(4) Element counts to move to total space state:

(i)

(ii)

(iii)

(iv)

(v)

(vi)

(vii)

Linear feet of corridors: ; Number of rooms (< 200 square feet) : ; Number of rooms (200-400 square feet) : ; Number of rooms (400-600 square feet): ; Floor area of common spaces and wards (> 600 square feet)

Square feet of floor area analyzed (total) : ; and

Number of bathrooms and closets:

50
Exhibit 3.16 Sample Worksheet XVI: User Options to be Exercised

Enter the sequence within the control packet for this fire zone beside each

option to be exercised.

( 1 ) Maj or control options*

(i) NEXT: J (ii) LAST: • (iii) TEST: ; and

(iv) FINAL: •

(2) Minor control options**

(i) SOLVE

•) (ii) CHANGE: y (a) Building safety feature number:

(b) State number: ; and

(c) Transition cost: . (iii) REQUIR: ; (a) Number of safety requirement: ; and

(b) Percent change desired: .

*May be used only once for each fire zone.

**May be used several times or in combination for each fire zone. The

influence on problem structure is cumulative.

3.3 HOW TO CONSTRUCT AN INPUT DECK

The worksheets discussed in the previous section were designed to facilitate

the process of setting up a data file to critically analyze a building. The

relationship between the worksheets and the data file is summarized in Table

3.4. The relationship is then illustrated schematically in figure 3.2. Table

3.4 provides a crosswalk between the worksheets and the data file. Figure 3.2 on the other hand consists of an exploded deck of cards* which are labeled so as to highlight the organization of a typical FSESCM data file. The deck

shown in figure 3.2 is constructed so that more than one building can be

analyzed in a single run. The discussion in this section will focus on how to

set up a data file for a single building. The generalization to two or more buildings batched together in a single run can then be understood as little

more than replicating the process for a single building. Guidelines for

batching two or more buildings are given in chapter 5.

*The term card image can be used without any loss of meaning if one were talking about a mass storage file.

51
Table 3.4 Sequencing for the FSESCM Data File

Type of

Data

Cross Reference to

Figure 3.2

Singleton or Group

1 Mailing Label Group

1 Building Qualifiers Singleton

2 Zone Qualifiers Singleton

2 FSES Table 1 Qualifiers Singleton

2 FSES Table 4 Qualifiers Singleton

3 Construction Group

3 Interior Finish [Corridors & Exits] Group

3 Interior Finish [Rooms] Group

3 Corridor Parttions/Walls Group

3 Doors to Corridor Group

3 Zone Length Qualifiers Singleton

3 Zone Dimensions Group

3 Vertical Openings Group

3 Deficiency Qualifiers Singleton

3 Hazardous Areas Group

3 Smoke Control Group

3 Emergency Movement Routes Group

3 Manual Fire Alarm Group

3 Smoke Detection & Alarm Group

3 Sprinkler Qualifiers Singleton

3 Sprinklers Group

4 User Options Group

52
Figure 3.2 Organization of a Typical FSESCM Data File

\SV CARO

SPRINKLERS

SPRINKLER QUALIFIERS CARO SMOKE DETECTION A ALARM MANUAL FIRE ALARM

EMERGENCY MOVEMENT ROUTES

"FINAL* CARO

SMOKE CONTROL

HAZAROOUS AREAS

DEFICIENCY QUALIFIERS CARD

V- VERTICAL OPENINGS

ZONE DIMENSIONS ZONE LENGTH QUALIFIERS CARD

• DOORS TO CORRIDOR

CORRIDOR PARTITIONS/WALLS

• INTERIOR FINISH: ROOMS

> INTERIOR FINISH: CORRIDORS A EXITS

-CONSTRUCTION — FSES TABLE 4 QUALIFIERS (Initial Conditions)

<— FSES TABLE 1 QUALIFIERS (Initial Conditions) •—ZONE QUALIFIERS

- BUILDING QUALIFIERS

• MAILING LABEL

53
Two important points can easily be understood through reference to figure 3.2.

First, all cards appear as either singletons or groups. Groups of cards are shown as a block to differentiate them from singletons. Second, cards for a particular building, just as the worksheets, are divided into four basic

types^ (see table 3.4).

The first type records background information on the building. These data are listed as "Mailing Label” and "Building Qualifiers" in table 3.4 and figure

3.2. This information remains constant during the course of the analysis

irregardless of the number of fire zones in the building.

The second type records background information on a specific fire zone. These

data are listed as "Zone Qualifiers", "FSES Table 1 Qualifiers", and "FSES

Table 4 Qualifiers" in table 3.4 and figure 3.2. This information governs

both the initial conditions within the fire zone and the structure of the

application problem. Care should be exercised in setting up the values on these cards because recording errors on either the FSES Table 1 or 4 cards

could render the interpretation of the problem meaningless or result in a termination of the analysis of the building under study. Techniques for

finding and correcting input errors are discussed in detail in chapter 5.

The third type contains the critical element counts for the fire zone. These

data are listed between the titles "Construction" and "Sprinklers" in table

3.4 and figure 3.2. They appear below the label "Critical Element Counts" on figure 3.2. The critical element counts define the feasibility of each

retrofit as well as the means of estimating each transition cost.

The fourth type contains the user options. These cards are labeled as "User

Options" in table 3.4 and figure 3.2. This control packet permits the user to

redefine the problem structure by exercising the CHANGE and REQUIR options or

to analyze the application problem by exercising the SOLVE option. Any

combination of the three minor options just mentioned may be used within a particular fire zone. Users should note, however, that structural

modifications are cumulative. Similarly, if modifications are made and the

SOLVE option is used after each modification or groups of modifications, users should recognize that the output under the Total Building Summary Report will

be based on the results of the analysis generated the first time the SOLVE

option is exercised for each fire zone. Since each time the SOLVE option is

exercised the model will generate a Fire Zone Summary Report, substitutions

based on one of the subsequent uses of the SOLVE option could be made easily

within the Total Building Summary Report. The last card of the user options

group must be either NEXT, LAST or FINAL. If more fire zones are to be

evaluated for the building under study, then the NEXT card should be used. If

this is the last card for the building under study and a Total Building

^Type 1 data correspond to information recorded on FSESCM Worksheet I. Type 2 data correspond to information recorded on FSESCM Worksheet II. Type 3 data

correspond to information recorded on FSESCM Worksheets III through XV. Type

4 data correspond to information recorded on FSESCM Worksheet XVI.

54
Summary Report is desired and one or more buildings follow, then the LAST card

should be used. If this is the last card for the building under study and the

user is performing data consistency checks, then the TEST card should be used.

If the TEST option is exercised and one or more buildings are to be analyzed,

then it should be followed by a NEXT card. In this case, the run will

continue but the Total Building Summary Report will not be generated. If the

TEST options is exercised and no more buildings are to be analyzed, then it

should be followed by the FINAL card. In this case, the run will stop without

generating the Total Building Summary Report. If this is the last card for

the building under analysis and a Total Building Summary Report is desired and no other buildings follow, then the FINAL card should be used. The FINAL card

will cause the Total Building Summary Report to be generated. The run will

then stop.

The concepts just discussed are illustrated for a specific example in exhibit

3.17. This exhibit is a sample data file for the hospital discussed in

section 3.1. The data file consists of four fire zones and 139 lines of

input

.

Two levels of descriptive detail will be used to systematically lay out the

inputs of the model. The first level consists of a walk through of exhibit

3.17, relating each section of the file to a worksheet. This task will make

use of a completed set of worksheets for the patient room floors of the

building described in section 3.1. The format which governs the way in which

the data file is read will then be discussed. The second level focuses on the

input format for each singleton or group of cards.

A cursory review of exhibit 3.17 reveals a sequence of numbers going down the

left hand side of the page. These line numbers show the position of each type

of data within the file. The first six lines serve as a mailing label. They

are the responses to questions l.i through l.vi on Worksheet I. The seventh

line contains the responses to Worksheet I questions 2, 3, A.i, 4.ii and

A.iii, respectively. Exhibit 3.18 presents the completed Worksheet I which

corresponds to the entries on lines 1 through 7 of the data file.

Data on individual fire zones begin on line 8. The basement contains one fire zone and involves no patients. Its values are therefore recorded on line 8 as -1 (floor number) 1 (zone number) 0 (number of patients). The basement

fire zone occupies lines 8 through 38 of the data file. The first floor also

contains a single fire zone and involves no patients. This fire zone occupies

lines 39 through 71 of the data file. The second floor consists of a single

fire zone with 30 patients; it occupies lines 72 through 105 of the data file.

The last group of data aggregates all fire zones on floors three through nine.

It is treated as a single fire zone. Exhibits 3.19 through 3.33 contain

completed worksheets which correspond to the entries on lines 106 through 139.

55
Exhibit 3.17 Sample Data File

1 NORTH-WEST GENERAL HOSPITAL

2 MAIN BUILDING

3 ATTN: ROBERT E. CHAPMAN

4 101 RESEARCH BLVD.

5 MONTGOMERY. MARYLAND 20000

6 TEL: (301 )

921 -3855

7 1 4 1.15 1 . 00 1 .00

8 -

1 0

9 1 1 5 1 1 10 7 3 3 4 1 4 3 5 2 1 3 1 2

1 1 1

1 2 2 13 3 14 4 15 5 0 0 0 0 10 10

16 5 4 0 0 0 10 10

17 5 4 0 0 0 10 10

18 6 155 1 19 6 0 0 0 1 0 0

20 6 0 0 0 1 0 0

21 7 0 0 1 1 22 7 0 0 1 1 23 8 0 0 0

24 8 25 9 -1 - 1 -1 -1 26 10 -1 - 1 -1 -1 -

-

27 10 0 0 0 1 0 0

28 10 0 0 0 1 40 0

29 10 -1 - 1 -1 -

-1 -1 30 1 1 31 12 155 0 3000 15 4 32 12 155 0 3000 15 4 33 12 155 0 3000 15 4 34 12 155 0 3000 15 4

35 13 1 1 36 13 0 1 0 0 0 8300

37 SOLVE

38 NEXT

39 1 1 0

40 1 1 1 1 1 41 7 3 3 4 1 4 3 3 2 1 3 1 1 42 1 43 2 44 3

45 4 46 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 47 5 10 1 0 0 0 2 48 5 10 .1 0 0 0 2 49 6 160 1 50 6 0 0 0 1 0 0

51 6 0 0 0 1 0 0

52 7 0 0 1 3

53 7 0 0 1 3

54 8 0 1 0

55 8 -1 • 1 -1 56 8 0 1 100

57 9 -1 •1 -1 -

56

ooooo

.t*

-*

00

-*

ooooo
58

59

60

6162

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

7172

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

8182

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

9192

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111 112

113

114

115

Exhibit 3.17 Sample Data File (Continued)

10 -1 *1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 10 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

10 0 0 0 1 40 0 0

10 -1 -1 • 1 -1 -

-1 -1

1

12 160 0 1200 25 16

12 160 0 1 2 C 0 25 16

12 160 0 1200 25 16

12 160 0 1200 25 16

13 1 1 13 160 0 25 0 1200 10000 16

13

SOLVE

NEXT

160 0 25 0 1200 10000 16

2 1 30

4 3 2 . 1 1 7

12

3 1 4 1 4 3 3 2 1 3 1 1

3 0 0 ICO

3 0 0 100

4

5 0 0 0 0 19 0 0

5 8 1 0 0 19 0 0

5 8 1 0 0 19 0 0

6 200 1 6 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

6 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

7 0 0 1 2

7 0 0 1 2 8 0 1 0

8 -1 -1 -1 8 0 1 100

9 -1 -1 i -1 10 -1 -1 -

-1 -1 -1 - -1 10 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

10 0 0 0 1 40 0 0

10 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1

1 1 12 200 14 1000 12 30

12 200 14 1000 12 30

12 200 14 1000 12 30

12 200 14 1000 12 30

13 1 1 13 200 5 21 0 1000 10000 30

13 200 5 21 0 1000 10000 30

SOLVE

NEXT

3 1 280

4 4 4 1 1 7

12

3 1 4 1 3 3 3 2 2 3 1 1

3 0 0 700

3 0 0 700

45 0 c 0 0 28 49 0

5 49 0 0 0 28 49 0

57
Exhibit 3.17 Sample Data File (Continued)

116 5 49 0 0 0 28 49 0

1 1 7 6 210 1 118 6 0 0 9 0 0 0 0

119 6 0 0 9 7 0 0 0

120 6 0 0 9 7 0 0 0

121 7 0 0 7 0

122 7 0 0 7 0

123 8 0 1 0

124 8 -1 -1 - 1 125 8 0 7 700

126 9 -1 -

- 1 - 1 127 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

128 10 0 0 0 7 280 0 0

129 10 -

•1 -

-* 1 -1 -1 130 1 1 131 12 1 540 154 7000 21 420

132 12 1 540 154 7000 21 420

133 12 1 540 154 7000 21 420

134 12 1 540 154 7000 21 420

135 13 1 1 136 13 1 540 0 168 7 7000 77000 420

137 13 1540 0 168 7 7000 77000 420

138 SOLVE

139 FINAL

0

58
Exhibit 3.18 Completed Worksheet I: Background Information

(1) Mailing label:

(i) Facility name: North-West General Hospital ; (ii) Building name: Main Building ; (iii) Contact: Robert E. Chapman ; (iv) Address: 101 Research Blvd .; (v) City, state, zip code: Montgomery, Maryland 20000 ; and

(vi) Telephone number: (301 )—921—3855 .

(2) Building type designation: 1 ; (i) Hosptal: Designation = 1; and

(ii) Nursing Home: Designation = 2.

(3) Building qualifier: 4 ; (i) New single story: Designation = 1; (ii) New multi story: Designation = 2;

(iii) Existing single story: Designation = 3; and

(iv) Existing multi story: Designation = 4.

(4) Construction cost modifiers:

(i) Cost growth factor: 1.15

(ii) Labor cost differential: 1.00 ; and

(iii) Material cost differential: 1.00.

59
The entries on line 106 correspond to the information recorded on Worksheet II

(see exhibit 3.19) questions l.i through l.iii. The entries on lines 107 and

108 correspond to the information recorded on Worksheet II questions 2.i

through 2.v and 3.i through 3.xiii, respectively. As mentioned earlier, these

data serve to define the scope of the application problem.

Lines 109 through 137 of the data file contain the critical element counts for

each building safety feature. The building safety feature number (see the

entries at the top of Worksheets III through XV) is used to check sequencing.

Data on all building safety features must begin with 1 and run through 13 with

no gaps. If the building safety feature is already in the highest state, as is the one for construction (see line 109 and exhibit 3.20), the only entry on the card should be the building safety feature number. The next card would

then contain critical element counts for the first retrofit state for the

building safety feature which follows. If this building safety feature is

also in the highest state (see line 110 and exhibit 3.21), then the only entry

on the card should be the building safety feature number. There is no limit on how many building safety features can be entered in the highest state. If

potential retrofits are possible, then the building safety feature number is

followed by the critical element counts. For example interior finish [rooms] was in the "Class C" state implying retrofits to either "Class B" or "Class A" were possible. The entries on lines 111 and 112 contain the responses to

Worksheet V (see exhibit 3.22) questions l.a through l.c and 2.1 through 2.c.

In this case, both retrofits were deemed feasible.

Exhibit 3.23 indicates that the fourth building safety feature, corridor

partitions/walls , is already in the highest state so no entry other than 4,

the building safety feature number, is required on line 113.

Since doors to the corridor were listed as being in the "no door" state, three

retrofit states are possible. The responses to Worksheet VII (see exhibit

3.24) questions 1, 2 and 3 indicate that retrofitting to the less than 20

minute fire rating state, greater than or equal to 20 minute fire rating state

and greater than or equal to 20 minute fire rating with automatic closers

state are feasible. In this case, normal closers are treated as being

equivalent to automatic closers (see the discussion in section 3.2).

The entries on line 117 correspond to the answers to question l.i and l.ii on Worksheet VIII (see exhibit 3.25). In this case, the overall length of the

fire zone is 210 feet and it is permissible to install a smoke partition to

reduce the length of the fire zone. Lines 118, 119, and 120 correspond to the answers to questions 4.1 through 4.g, 5. a through 5.g, and 6. a through 6.g,

respectively. Notice that since the fire zone was input in the third state,

it was not necessary to respond to the entries under questions 2 and 3. Lines

121 and 122 correspond to the answers to questions 3.1 through 3.d and 4.

a

through 4.d on the vertical openings worksheet (see exhibit 3.26).

60
Exhibit 3.19 Completed Worksheet II: Fire Zone Data

(1) General Information:

(i) Floor number: 3 ; (ii) Zone number: 1 ; and

( iii) Number of patients: 280.

FSES Table 1: (i) Patient mobility: 4 ; (ii) Patient density: 4 ; (iii) Zone location: 4 9 (iv) Ratio of Patients to attendants : l ; (v) Patient average age: 1 .

FSES Table 4:

(i) Construction: 7 5 (ii) Interior finish [corridor and exits]

(iii) Interior finish [rooms]: 1 9 (iv) Corridor partitions/walls: 4 ; (v) Doors to corridor: i ; (vi) Zone dimensions: 3 9 (vii) Vertical openings: 3 ; ( viii) Hazardous areas: 3 ; (ix) Smoke control : 2 9 (x) Emergency movement routes: 2 ; (xi) Manual fire alarm: 3 ; ( xii) Smoke detection and alarm: 1 ; and

(xiii) Automatic sprinklers 1 .

61
Exhibit 3.20 Completed Worksheet III: Construction (BSF=1)

Current state: Fire resistive .

Note: Do not complete this form if already in the fire resistive state.

Potential retrofits:

(a) Resheath bearing walls and partitions: square feet;

(b) Protect columns: linear feet;

(c) Protect beams: linear feet; and

(d) Protect decking: square feet.

(1) Element counts to move to protected state:

(a) Square feet of bearing walls and partitions: ; (b) Linear feet of columns: ; (c) Linear feet of beams: ; and

(d) Square feet of decking: ;

(2) Element counts to move to fire resistive state*:

(a) Square feet of bearing walls and partitions: ; (b) Linear feet of columns: ; (c) Linear feet of beams: ; and

(d) Square feet of decking: ; *Complete this portion of the worksheet only if the building was classified as non-combustible.

62
Exhibit 3.21 Completed Worksheet IV: Interior Finish [Corridors and Exit]

( BSF=2)

Current state: Class A. Note: Do not complete this form if already in the Class A state.

Potential retrofits

(a) Install drywall: square feet;*

(b) Coat walls with retardant: square feet;

(c) Coat ceilings with retardant: square feet; and

(d) Install carpet: square feet.

(1) Element counts to move to Class B: (a) * Square feet of paneling: ; (b) Square feet of walls: ; (c) Square feet of ceilings: ; and

(d) Square feet of carpet: .

(2) Element counts to move to Class A: (a) * Square feet of paneling: ; (b) Square feet of walls: ; (c) Square feet of ceilings: ; and

(d) Square feet of carpet: .

*To be installed only if the zone contains Class C (or worse) paneling.

63
Exhibit 3.22 Completed Worksheet V: Interior Finish [Rooms] (BSF-3)

Current state: Class C . Note: Do not complete this form if already in the Class A state.

Potential retorfits:

(a) Install drywall: square feet;*

(b) Coat walls with retardant: square feet; and

(c) Coat ceilings with retardant: square feet.

(1) Element counts to move to Class B: (a) * Square feet of paneling: 0 ; (b) Square feet of walls: 0 ; and

(c) Square feet of ceilings: 700 .

(2) Element counts to move to Class A:

(a) * Square feet of paneling: 0 ; (b) Square feet of walls: 0 ; and

(c) Square feet of ceilings: 700 .

*To be installed only if the zone contains Class C (or worse) paneling.

64
Exhibit 3.23 Completed Worksheet VI: Corridor Partitions/Walls (BSF=4)

Current state: * 1 hour . Note: Do not complete this form if already in the > 1 hour state.

Potential retrofits:

(a) Install partition slab-to-slab: linear feet;

(b) Extend existing partition to slab: linear feet;

(c) Replace windows (glass only): number;

(d) Replace windows (glass only): are (in^);

(e) Replace windows (glass and frames): number;

(f) Replace windows (glass and frames): area (in^);

(g) Sheath existing (< 1/3 hour) partition: linear feet; and

(h) Sheath existing (1/3-1 hour) partition: linear feet.

(1) Element counts to move to < 1/3 hour state:

(a) Linear feet of partition: J (b) Linear feet of extensiton : ) (c) Number of windows (glass only)

5 (d) Square inches of windows (glass only)

> (e) Number of windows (glass and frames): •> (f) Square inches of windows (glass and frames)

> (g) Linear feet of sheathing 01/3 hour)

> and

(h) Linear feet of sheathing (1/3-1 hour)•

Element counts to move to 1/3-1 hour state:

(a) Linear feet of partition:

(b) Linear feet of extension: ) (c) Number of windows (glass only)

! (d) Square inches of windows (glass only)

> (e) Number of windows (glass and frames): ! (f) Square inches of windows (glass and frames)

(g) Linear feet of sheathing « 1/3 hour)

> and

(h) Linear feet of sheathing (1/3-1 hour)

•

Element counts to move to > 1 hour state:

(a) Linear feet of partition: ! (b) Linear feet of extension: 5 (c) Number of windows (glass only)

! (d) Square inches of windows (glass only)

j (e) Number of windows (glass and frames) :

5 (f) Square inches of windows (glass and frames): > (g) Linear feet of sheathing « 1/3 hour)

! and

(h) Linear feet of sheathing (1/3-1 hour)•

65
Exhibit 3.24 Completed Worksheet VII: Doors to Corridor (BSF-5)

Current state: No door . Note: Do not complete this form if already in the > 20 minute and automatic

closers state.

Potential retrofits:

(a) Replace doors and frames (single): number;

(b) Replace doors and frames (double): number;

(c) Replace doors (single): number;

(d) Replace doors (double): number;

(e) Replace latch: number;

(f) Replace view panel: number;

(g) Install closers (normal): number; and

(h) Install closers (automatic): number.

(1)

Element counts to move to < 20 minute fire rating state:

(a) Number of doors and frames (single): 0 ; (b) Number of doors and frames (double): 0 ; (c) Number of doors (single): 0 ; (d) Number of doors (double): 0 ; (e) Number of latches: 28 ; (f) Number of view panels: 49 ; (g) Number of closers (normal): 0 ; and

(h) Number of closers (automatic): 0

(2)

Element counts to move to > 20 minute fire rating state:

(a) Number of doors and frames (single): 49 ; (b) Number of doors and frames (double): 0 ; (c) Number of doors (single): 0 ; (d) Number of doors (double): 0 ; (e) Number of latches: 28 ; (f) Number of view panels: 49 ; (g) Number of closers (normal): 0 ; and

(h) Number of closers (automatic): 0 .

(3)

Element counts to move to > 20 minute fire rating with automatic closers

state:

(a) Number of doors and frames (single): 49 ; (b) Number of doors and frames (double): 0 ; (c) Number of doors (single): 0 ; (d) Number of doors (double): 0 ; (e) Number of latches: 28 ; (f) Number of view panels: 49 ; (g) Number of closers (normal): 0 ; and

(h) Number of closers (automatic): 0

66
Line 123 contains information on how the critical element counts for hazardous

areas are to be aggregated. The three entries after the building safety

feature number tell whether or not data on high hazard areas, single

deficiency non-sprinklered areas, and single deficiency sprinklered areas are

to be read in. A value of 0 implies that no data for that type of hazardous

area are to be read; a value of 1 implies that element counts which represent

the sum total for all hazardous areas of that type are to read in. Since the

fire zone under consideration was initially in the single deficiency within

the zone state, the only feasible retrofit was to go to the no deficiencies

state. Since the model treats transitions to the single deficiency out of zone state as impossible, three values of -1 are recorded on line 124. Line

125 contains the responses to question 3 of Worksheet X (see exhibit 3.27).

No other parts of this worksheet were completed because all single deficiency

hazardous areas were of the non-sprinklered type.

Line 126 indicates that no transition to the smoke control by zone state is

feasible (see exhibit 3.28). Recall that the mechanically assisted by zone state requires special costing not included within the FSESCM computer

program. Values can be input, however, by exercising the CHANGE option.

Data on emergency movement routes are recorded on lines 127 through 129.

These data correspond to the responses to questions 2.1 through 2.g and 3.

a

through 3.g on Worksheet XII (see exhibit 3.29). Since the direct exit state

requires special costing, the critical element count entries on line 129 are coded as -1. The single entry on line 130 indicates that manual fire alarms are already in the highest state (see exhibit 3.30).

The entries on lines 131 through 134 correspond to the responses to Worksheet

XIV (see exhibit 3.31) questions l.i through l.v, 2.i through 2.v, 3.i through

3.v, and 4.i through 4.v, respectively. These critical element counts are applied to a set of cost estimating relationships within subroutine CSMOKE.

Just as for the other building safety features, if one or more of the

retrofit states is infeasible, a value of -1 should be entered in the

appropriate spaces on Worksheet XIV.

Lines 135 through 137 are concerned with automatic sprinklers. The two

entries after the building safety feature number on line 135 correspond to the

potential retrofit designation, Worksheet XV question 1 (see exhibit 3.32),

and the water supply qualifier. Worksheet XV question 2. Lines 136 and 137

record the responses to questions 3.i through 3.vii and 4.i through 4.vii on Worksheet XV. As was the case for smoke detection and alarm retrofit states,

if one or the other of the automatic sprinker retrofits is infeasible, a value

of -1 should be coded into the spaces provided for the critical element

counts

.

The last two cards correspond to the sequences of each option within the

control packet to be exercised for this fire zone. The sequence is declared

on Worksheet XVI (see exhibit 3.33).

67
Exhibit 3.25 Completed Worksheet VIII: Zone Dimensions (BSF=6)

Current state: Dead end 30-50* . Note: Do not complete this form if already in the no dead ends state with a zone length less than 100 feet.

Potential retrofits:

(a) Create a cross connection to a parallel corridor: linear feet;

(b) Install interior stairway: number;

(c) Install exterior stairway: number;

(d) Install smoke partition: number;

(e) Install partition slab-to-slab: linear feet;

(f) Extend existing partition to slab: linear feet; and

(g) Install smoke dampers: number.

(1) Design qualifiers

(i) What is the total length in feet of all zones currently being

analyzed? 210

(ii) Can a new smoke partition be installed to reduce the length of the

fire zone? 1 (0 implies no, 1 implies yes)

(2) Element counts to move to 50-100 feet Dead End state:

(a) Linear feet of cross connection: ; (b) Number of interior stairways: ; (c) Number of exterior stairways: ; (d) Number of smoke partitions: ; (e) Linear feet of partition: ; (f) Linear feet of extension: ; and

(g) Number of smoke dampers: .

(3) Element counts to mvoe to 30-50 foot dead end state:

(a) Linear feet of cross connection: ; (b) Number of interior stairways: ; (c) Number of exterior stairways: ; (d) Number of smoke partitions: ; (e) Linear feet of partition: ; (f) Linear feet of extension: ; and

(g) Number of smoke dampers: .

(A) Element counts to move to no dead ends and a zone length greater than

150 feet state:

(a) Linear feet of cross connection: 0 ; (b) Number of interior stairways: 0 ; (c) Number of exterior stairways: 9 ; (d) Number of smoke partitions: 0 ; (e) Linear feet of partition: 0 ; (f) Linear feet of extension: 0 ; and

(g) Number of smoke dampers: 0

68
Exhibit 3.25 Completed Worksheet VIII: Zone Dimensions (Continued)

(5) Element counts to move to no dead ends and a zone length between 100-150

feet state:

(a) Linear feet of cross connection: 0 ; (b) Number of interior stairways: 0 ; (c) Number of exterior stairways: 9 ; (d) Number of smoke partitions: 7 ; (e) Linear feet of partition: 0 ; (f) Linear feet of extension: 0 ; and

(g) Number of smoke dampers: 0

(6) Element counts to move to no dead ends and a zone length of less than 100

feet state:

(a) Linear feet of cross connection: 0 ; (b) Number of interior stairways: 0 ; (c) Number of exterior stairways: 9 ; (d) Number of smoke partitions: 7 ; (e) Linear feet of partition: 0 ; (f) Linear feet of extension: 0 ; and

(g) Number of smoke dampers: 0 .

69
Exhibit 3.26 Completed Worksheet IX: Vertical Openings (BSF-7)

Current state: < 1 hour . Note: Do not complete this form if already in the > 2 hour state.

Potential retrofits:

(a) Frame and sheath enclosure: square feet;

(b) Sheath existing enclosure: square feet;

(c) Install doors and frames: number; and

(d) Install doors: number.

(1)

Element counts to move to the open 2 or 3 floors state:

(a) Square feet of enclosure: ; (b) Square feet of sheathing: ; (c) Number of doors and frames: ; and

(d) Number of doors: .

(2)

Element counts to move to enclosed with less than 1 hour fire rating

state:

(a) Square feet of enclosure: ; (b) Square feet of sheathing: ; (c) Number of doors and frames: ; and

(d) Number of doors: .

(3)

Element counts to move to enclosed with 1 to 2 hour fire rating state:

(a) Square feet of enclosure: 0 ; (b) Square feet of sheathing: 0 ; (c) Number of doors and frames: 7 ; and

(d) Number of doors: 0

(4)

Element counts to move to enclosed with at least a 2 hour fire rating

state:

(a) Square feet of enclosure: 0 ; (b) Square feet of sheathing: 0 ; (c) Number of doors and frames: 7 ; and

(d) Number of doors: 0 .

70
Exhibit 3.27 Completed Worksheet X: Hazardous Areas (BSF=8)

Current state: Single deficiency in zone . Note: Do not complete this form if already in the no deficiencies state.

Potential retrofits:

(a) Upgrade enclosure: square feet;

(b) Install door: number; and

(c) Install sprinklers: area in square feet.

Complete this section for all high hazard areas.

(1) Element counts to move to the single deficiency state:

(a) Square feet of enclosure: ; (b) Number of doors: ; and

(c) Square feet of high hazard areas: .

(2) Element counts to move to the no deficiency state:

(a) Square feet of enclosure: ; (b) Number of doors: ; and

(c) Square feet of high hazard areas: .

Complete this section for all non-sprinklered single deficiency areas.

(3) Element counts to move to no deficiency state:

(a) Square feet of enclosure: 0 ; (b) Number of doors: 7 ; and

(c) Square feet of all hazardous areas of this type: 700

Complete this section for all sprinklered single deficiency areas.

(4) Element counts to move to no deficiency state

(a) Square feet of enclosure: ; (b) Number of doors: ; and

(c) Square feet of all hazardous areas of this type: .

Note: FSESCM treats transitions to the double deficiency and single

deficiency outside the fire zone as impossible. Three values of minus

one (-1) should therefore be used as the relevant element counts.

71
Exhibit 3.28 Completed Worksheet XI: Smoke Control (BSF-9)

Current state: Smoke partition . Note: Do not complete this form if already in the smoke partition state.*

Potential retrofits:

(a) Install smoke partition: number;

(b) Install partition slab-to-slab: linear feet;

(c) Extend existing partition to slab: feet; and

(d) Install smoke dampers: number.

(1) Element counts to move to smoke partition state:

(a) Number of smoke partitions: ; (b) Linear feet of partition: ; (c) Linear feet of extension: ; and

(d) Number of smoke dampers: .

*The mechanically assisted by zone state requiers special costing not included

within the FSESCM model. Four values of minus one (-1) should therefore be

used as the relevant element counts.

72
Exhibit 3.29 Completed Worksheet XII: Emergency Movement Routes (BSF=10)

Current state: Deficient capacity . Note: Do not complete this form if already in the horizontal exit state.*

Potential retrofits:

(a) Install interior stairway: number;

(b) Install exterior stairway: number;

(c) Install emergency light: number;

(d) Install horizontal exist: number;

(e) Install partition slab-to-slab: linear feet;

(f) Extend existing partition to slab: linear feet; and

(g) Install smoke dampers: number.

(1)

Element counts to move to deficient capacity state:

(a) Number of interior stairways: _;

(b) Number of exterior stairways: ; (c) Number of emergency lights: ; (d) Number of horizontal exits: ; (e) Linear feet of partition: ; (f) Linear feet of extension:

(g) Number of smoke dampers: .

(2)

Element counts to move to no horizontal exit state:

(a) Number of interior stairways: 0 ; (b) Number of exterior stairways: 0 ; (c) Number of emergency lights: 0 ; (d) Number of horizontal exits: 0 ; (e) Linear feet of partition: 0 ; (f) Linear feet of extension: 0 ; (g) Number of smoke dampers: 0

(3)

Element counts to move to horizontal exit state:

(a) Number of interior stairways: 0 ; (b) Number of exterior stairways: 0 ; (c) Number of emergency lights: 0 ; (d) Number of horizontal exits: 7 ; (e) Linear feet of partition: 280 ; (f) Linear feet of extension: 0 ; (g) Number of smoke dampers: 0

*The direct exits state requires special costing not included with the FSESCM

model. Seven values of minus one (-1) should therefore be used as the

relevant element counts.

73
Exhibit 3.30 Completed Worksheet XIII: Manual Fire Alarm (BSF-11)

Current state: Fire department connection . Note: Do not complete this form if already in the fire department connection

state.

Potential retrofits:

(a) Install control panel: number;

(b) Install pull station: number; and

(c) Connect zone(s) with fire department: number.

(1) Element counts to move to no fire department connection state:

(a) Number of control panels: ; (b) Number of pull stations: ; and

(c) Number of connections: .

(2) Element counts to move to fire department connection state:

(a) Number of control panels: 5 (b) Number of pull stations: ; and

(c) Number of connections

:

•

74
Exhibit 3.31 Completed Worksheet XIV: Smoke Detection and Alarm (BSF=12)

Current state: None . Note: Do not complete this form if already in the total space state.

Potential retrofit:

(a) Install smoke detectors: number.

(1)

Element counts to move to corridor only state:

(i) Linear feet of corridors: 1540 ; (ii) Number of patient rooms: 154 ; (iii) Square feet of common areas: 7000 ; (iv) Number of non-patient rooms: 21 ; and

(v) Number of bathrooms and closets: 420 .

(2) Element counts to move to rooms only state:

(i) Linear feet of corridors: 1540 ; (ii) Number of patient rooms: 154 ; (iii) Square feet of common areas: 7000 ; (iv) Number of non-patient rooms: 21 ; and

(v) Number of bathrooms and closets: 420 .

(3) Element counts to move to corridor and habitable space state:

(i) Linear feet of corridors: 1540 ; (ii) Number of patient rooms: 154 ; (iii) Square feet of common areas: 7000 ; (iv) Number of non-patient rooms: 21 ; and

(v) Number of bathrooms and closets: 420 .

(4)

Element counts to move to total space state:

(i) Linear feet of corridors: 1540 ; (ii) Number of patient rooms: 154 ; (iii) Square feet of common areas: 7000 ; (iv) Number of non-patient rooms: 21 ; and

(v) Number of bathrooms and closets: 420 .

75
Exhibit 3.32 Completed Worksheet XV: Automatic Sprinklers (BSF"13)

Current state: None . Note: Do not complete this form if already in the total space state.

(1) Potential retrofit designation: 1 ; (a) Wet exposed: Designation = 1; (b) Wet concealed: Designation = 2;

(c) Dry exposed: Designation = 3; and

(d) Dry concealed: Designation = 4.

(2) Water supply qualifier: 1

; (i) Adequate: Designation = 1; (ii) Not Adequate: Designation = 2; and

(iii) Unknown: Designation = 3.

(3) Element counts to move to corridor and habitable space state:

(i) Linear feet of corridors: 15400 ; (ii) Number of rooms (< 200 square feet): 0 ; (iii) Number of rooms (200-400 square feet): 168 ; (iv) Number of rooms (400-600 square feet): 7 ; (v) Floor area of common spaces and wards (> 600 square feet):

(vi) Square feet of floor area analyzed (total): 77000 ; and

(vii) Number of bathrooms and closets: 420 .

(4)

Element counts to move to total space state:

(i) Linear feet of corridors: 1540 ; (ii) Number of rooms (< 200 square feet): 0 ; (iii) Number of rooms (200-400 square feet): 168 ; (iv) Number of rooms (400-600 square feet): 7 ; (v) Floor area of common spaces and wards (> 600 square feet):

(vi) Square feet of floor area analyzed (total): 77000 ; and

(vii) Number of bathrooms and closets: 420

7000 ;

7000 ;

76
Exhibit 3.33 Completed Worksheet XVI: User Options to be Exercised

Enter the sequence within the control packet for this fire zone beside each

option to be exercised.

Major control options*

(i) NEXT:

(ii) LAST:

(iii) TEST:

(iv) FINAL : 2 and

(2) Minor control options**:

(i) SOLVE: 1 ; (ii) CHANGE: ; (a) Building safety feature number: ; (b) State number: ; and

(c) Transition cost: . ( iii) REQUIR: ; (a) Number of safety requirement: ; and

(b) Percent change desired: .

*May be used only once for each fire zone.

**May be used several times or in combination for each fire zone. The

influence on problem structure is however cumulative.

77
The remainder of this section consists of a set of tables. These tables

summarize the input format for each singleton or group of cards. Cross

reference to the FSESCM Worksheet is given as well as a description of the

associated routines. Within the tables, reference to each input variable is

handled in five ways. First, the critical element will be named. Second, the

variable will be tied to a specific response on the worksheet. Third, the

type of variable will be declared. Fourth, the first column available for

recording information on the targeted input variable will be given. Finally,

the name of the internal variable used to store the input data for this

variable will be given. This step is necessary to simplify reference to the

relevant sections of the Programmer’s Manual where technical issues are discussed (e.g., modifications to the source code due to pecularities of the

operating system). The titles of the tables are cross referenced to the

entries in figure 3.2. The information presented in tables 3.5 through 3.26

is therefore in the same sequence as in figure 3.2.

The column number of the table which has "Section of Worksheet" as its title

refers to the question number - subsection number of the appropriate FSESCM

Worksheet. The worksheet number is given beneath the table number. Thus l.i

refers to subsection i of question 1 of the previously declared worksheet. If

several different questions are relevant due to the existence of two or more retrofit states, then all possibilities will be listed. For example, if the

fire zone were initially in the "no door" state and we were recording the

number of single-width doors and frames which would require replacement to

move to a higher state, the entries would be l.a, 2. a, 3. a.

FSESCM uses integer, single precisison real, and character variables as inputs. All variables which appear in tables 3.5 through 3.26 are defined as: (1) In, refers to an n-digit integer; (2) Fj.k, refers to a j-digit single

precision real number with k digits to the right of the decimal point; and (3)

Ap, refers to a character string of p characters. Two points should be kept

in mind when examining the tables which follow. First, all integer variables

must be right justified (i.e., the units digit must be in the right-most

column of the field). Second, if a decimal is not entered in an F field, it

is implied by the value of k, and occupies no space in the field. If a decimal point is entered in an F field, it is used as entered (overriding the

value of k) but it occupies one space in the field. Since the position of the

decimal overrides the specification declared on the read statement, there is no need to right justify real variables if a decimal point is entered.

Regardless of the type of variable to be entered, the user should exercise

some care to insure that all columns are properly aligned. It is important to

note that the variable specifications shown in tables 3.5 through 3.26 do not

include "fillers". Thus if a FORMAT statement within the program contains an nX entry which corresponds to a filler, the first column specification is

shifted n spaces to the right. Similarly, if a variable has a maximum value

less than 100 and is read according to an 13 specification, it is listed as 12

with the first column shifted one space to the right. This approach was taken

in order to focus attention on the relationship between the file and the

worksheets rather than on technical details.

78
Two points should be understood when attempting to interpret the information

given under the "Internal Variable” heading. First, some internal variables

are arrays. In this case, one of the array dimensions may correspond to the

state number whereas the other corresponds to a specific critical element. In

order to differentiate the state number from the critical element, the

following convention is used: critical elements will be numbered sequentially

whereas state numbers will be denoted by asterisks (*). It is worth noting

that the maximum state number is equal to the number of entries on the

appropriate row of FSES Table 4. This value is recorded internally in the

vector IT4M(I), 1=1,13. Second, the number of critical elements associated

with each building safety feature read within the MAIN program is determined

by the entries in the vector LCV(I), 1=1,13. (LCV refers to the length of the

cost vector.) Thus although the INELT arry is referenced frequently in the

tables which follow, data on the Ith building safety feature are read into it

according to the entries in IT4M(I) and LCV(I). The number of critical

elements is determined within the appropriate special purpose subroutine for

building safety features 1, 6, 8, and 12 and 13.

79
Table 3.5 Mailing Label

Routine: MAIN Worksheet: I Card classification: Group

Examples within exhibit 3.17: Lines 1 through 6.

Note: Each row of the table refers to a single card.

Variable

Name

Section of

Worksheet

Variable

Type

First

Column

Internal

Variable

Facility l.i A40 1 HBLDG(l)

Building l.ii A40 1 HBLDG(2)

Contact l.iii A40 1 HBLDG(3)

Address 1 . iv A40 1 HBLDG(4)

City, State, Zip 1 .V A40 1 HBLDG(5)

Telephone 1 . vi A40 1 HBLDG(6)

Table 3.6 Building Qualifiers

Routine: MAIN Worksheet: I Card classification: Singleton

Examples within exhibit 3.17: Line 7

Variable Section of Variable First Internal

Name Worksheet Type Column Variable

Building Type 2 11 3 ITYPE

Building Age 3 11 6 IBLDG

Cost Growth 4 . i F5.2 7 CMODT

Labor Factor 4.ii F5.2 12 CMODL

Material Factor 4.iii F5.2 17 CMODM

80
Table 3.7 Zone Qualifiers

Routine: MAIN Worksheet: I Card classification: Singleton

Examples within exhibit 3.17: Lines 8, 39, 72 and 106.

Variable

Name

Section of

Worksheet

Variable

Type

First

Column

Internal

Variable

Floor Number l.i 12 3 IFLOR

Zone Number 1 .ii 12 7 IZONE

Number of Patients l.iii 14 9 IPATS

Table 3.8 FSES Table 1 Qualifiers

Routine: MAIN Worksheet: II

Card classification: Singleton

Examples within exhibit 3.17: Lines 9, 40, 73 and 107.

Variable Section of Variable First Internal

Name Worksheet Type Column Variable

Patient Mobility 2.i 11 3 IT1X(1)

Patient Density 2.ii 11 6 IT1X(2)

Zone Location 2.iii 11 9 IT1X(3)

Patients/ Attendants 2 .iv 11 12 IT1X(4)

Average Age 2.v 11 15 IT1X(5)

81
Table 3.9 FSES Table 4 Qualifiers

Routine: MAIN Worksheet: II

Card classification: Singleton

Examples within exhibit 3.17: Lines 10, 41, 74 and 108.

Variable

Name

Section of

Worksheet

Variable

Type

First

Column

Internal

Variable

Construction 3.i 11 3 IT4X(1)

Interior Finish [Corridor] 3.ii 11 6 IT4X(2)

Interior Finish [Rooms] 3.iii 11 9 IT4X(3)

Corridor Partitions/Walls 3.iv 11 12 IT4X(4)

Doors to Corridor 3.v 11 15 IT4X(5)

Zone Dimensions 3.vi 11 18 IT4X(6)

Vertical Openings 3.vii 11 21 IT4X(7)

Hazardous Areas 3.viii 11 24 IT4X(8)

Smoke Control 3.ix 11 27 IT4X(9)

Emergency Movement 3.x 11 30 IT4X( 10)

Manual Fire Alarms 3.xi 11 33 IT4X(11)

Smoke Detection 3.xii 11 36 IT4X( 12)

Sprinklers 3.xiii 11 39 IT4X( 13)

Table 3.10 Construction

Routine: CCONST Worksheet: III

Building safety feature: 1 Card classification: Group

Examples within exhibit 3.17: Lines 11 , 42, 75 and 109.

Variable Section of Variable First Internal

Name Worksheet Type Column Variable

BSF Number Title 12 2 K

Walls and Partitions 1 • cl ) 2 • Q. 16 4 IECC0N(1 ,*)

Columns l.b,2.b 16 10 IECC0N(2 ,*)

Beams 1 • c } 2 • c 16 16 IECC0N(3 ,*)

Decking l.d,2.d 16 22 IECC0N(4 ,*)

82
Table 3.11 Interior Finish [Corridors and Exits]

Routine: MAIN Worksheet: IV

Building safety feature: 2 Card classification: Group

Examples within exhibit 3.17: Lines 12, 43, 76 and 110.

Variable

Name

Section of

Worksheet

Variable

Type

First

Column

Internal

Variable

BSF Number Title 12 2 J

Drywall 1 .q ,2.q 16 4 INELT ( * , 1

)

Walls l.b,2.b 16 10 INELT (* ,2

)

Ceiling 1 .c ,2 .c 16 16 INELT(* ,3

)

Carpet l.d,2.d 16 22 INELT(* ,4

)

Table 3.12 Interior Finish [Rooms]

Routine: MAIN Worksheet: V

Building safety feature: 3

Card classification: Group

Examples within exhibit 3.17: Lines 13, 44, 77, 78, 111 and 112.

Variable Section of Variable First Internal

Name Worksheet Type Column Variable

BSF Number Title 12 2 J

Drywall 1 • q ,2 . q 16 4 INELT (* ,1

)

Walls l.b,2.b 16 10 INELT(* ,2)

Ceiling l.c,2.c 16 16 INELT (* ,3

)

83
Table 3.13 Corridor Partitions/Walls

Routine: MAIN Worksheet: VI

Building safety feature: 4

Card classification: Group

Examples within exhibit 3.17: Lines 14, 45, 79 and 113.

Variable

Name

Section of

Worksheet

Variable

Type

First

Column

Internal

Variable

BSF Number Title 12 2 J

Install Partition l«£L,2*cl,3«cl 16 4 INELT(* ,1

)

Extend Partition l.b,2.b,3.b 16 10 INELT(* ,2)

Replace Glass: Number 1 .c ,2 .c ,3*c 16 16 INELT(* ,3)

Replace Glass: Area l.d,2.d,3.d 16 22 INELT(* ,4)

Replace Window: Number 1 .e,2.e,3.e 16 28 INELT(* ,5)

Replace Window: Area l.f ,2.f ,3.f 16 34 INELT(* ,6)

Sheath (< 1/3 Hour) l.g,2.g,3.g 16 40 INELT(* ,6)

Sheath (1/3-1 Hour) 1 .h,2.h,3.h 16 46 INELT(* ,8)

Table 3.14 Doors to Corridor

Routine: MAIN Worksheet: VII

Building safety feature: 5

Card classification: Group

Examples within exhibit 3.17: Lines 15, 16, 17, 46, 47, 48, 80, 81, 82, 114,

115 and 116.

Variable

Name

Section of

Worksheet

Variable

Type

First

Column

Internal

Variable

BSF Number Title 12 2 J

Doors & Frames (Single) 1 • 3 y 2. • 3 y 3 • 3 16 4 INELT(*,1)

Doors & Frames (Double) l.b,2.b,3.b 16 10 INELT(* ,2)

Doors (Single) 1 •c,2.c,3.c 16 16 INELT(* ,3)

Doors (Double) 1 .d ,2 .d ,3.d 16 22 INELT(* ,4)

Latch l.e,2.e,3.e 16 28 INELT(* ,5)

View Panel l.f ,2.f ,3.f 16 34 INELT(* ,6)

Closers (Normal) l.g,2.g,3.g 16 40 INELT(* ,6)

Closers (Automatic) 1 .h,2.h,3.h 16 46 INELT(* ,8)

84
Table 3.15 Zone Length Qualifiers

Routine: CZODIM Worksheet: VIII

Building safety feature: 6

Card classification: Singleton

Examples within exhibit 3.17: Lines 18, 49, 83 and 117.

Variable

Name

Section of

Worksheet

Variable

Type

First

Column

Internal

Variable

BSF Number Title 12 2 K

Zone Length l.i 16 4 LZONE

Partition Qualifier l.ii 11 15 IPART

Table 3.16 Zone Dimensions

Routine: CZODIM Worksheet: VIII

Building safety feature: 6

Card classification: Group

Examples within exhibit 3.17: Lines 19, 20, 50, 51, 84, 85, 118, 119 and 120.

Variable Section of Variable First Internal

Name Worksheet Type Column Variable

BSF Number Title 12 2 K

Cross Connection 16 4 IECZDMU ,*)

Interior Stairwell 2.b,3.b,4.b,5.b,6.b 16 10 IECZDM(2 ,*)

Exterior Stairwell 2.c,3.c,4.c,5.c,6oC 16 16 IECZDM(3 ,*)

Smoke Partition 2.d,3.d,4.d,5.d,6.d 16 22 IECZDM(4 ,*)

Install Partition 2.e,3.e,4.e,5.e,6.e 16 28 IECZDM(5 ,*)

Extend Partition 2.f ,3.f ,4.f ,5.f ,6.f 16 34 IECZDM(6 ,*)

Smoke Dampers 2.g,3.g,4.g,5.g,6.g 16 40 IECZDM(7 ,*)

85
Table 3.17 Vertical Openings

Routine: MAIN Worksheet: IX

Building safety feature: 7 Card classification: Group

Examples within exhibit 3.17: Lines 21, 22, 52, 53, 86, 87, 121, and 122.

Variable Section of Variable First Internal

Name Worksheet Type Column Variable

BSF Number Title 12 2 J

Frame and Sheath 16 4 INELT(* , 1

)

Sheath 1 .b,2.b,3.b,4.b 16 10 INELT(* ,2)

Doors and Frames 1 .c,2.c,3.c,4.c 16 16 INELT(* ,3)

Doors l.d,2.d,3.d,4.d 16 22 INELT(* ,4)

Table 3.18 Deficiency Qualifiers

Routine: CHAZAR Worksheet: X

Building safety feature: 8

Card classification: Singleton

Examples within exhibit 3.17: Lines 23 , 54, 88, and 123.

Variable Section of Variable First Internal

Name Worksheet Type Column Variable

BSF Number Title 12 2 K

Double Deficiency Qualifier 1,2 11 6 K1

Single Deficiency (Non Sprinklered) 3 11 9 K2

Single Deficiency (Sprinklered) 4 11 12 K3

86
Table 3.19 Hazardous Areas

Routine: CHAZAR Worksheet: X

Building safety feature: 8

Card classification: Group

Examples within exhibit 3.17: Lines 24 , 55, 56, 89, 90, 124 , and 125.

Variable Section of Variable First Internal

Name Worksheet Type Column Variable

BSF Number Title 12 2 K

Enclosure 1 16 4 see footnote 1 Doors 1 .b,2.b,3.b,4.b 16 10 see footnote 1 Area a •C}2*Cy3«C)A»c 16 16 see footnote 1

^The appropriate internal variable is as follows, where J=1 implies

enclosures, J=2 implies doors and J=3 implies area:

(i) IECDBL( J

,*) if the data is for a high hazard area;

(ii) IECNOS(J,*) if the data is for a single deficiency non-sprinklered

area; and

(iii) IECYES(J ,*) if the data is for a single deficiency sprinklered area.

Table 3.20 Smoke Control

Routine: MAIN Worksheet

XI

Building safety feature: 9

Card classification: Group

Examples within exhibit 3.17: Lines 25 , 57, 91 and 126.

Variable Section of Variable First Internal

Name Worksheet Type Column Variable

BSF Number Title 12 2 J

Smoke Partition 1 .a 16 4 INELT(* , 1

)

Install Partition l.b 16 10 INELT(* ,2)

Extend Partition 1 .c 16 16 INELT(* ,3)

Smoke Dampers l.d 16 22 INELT(* ,4)

87
Table 3.21 Emergency Movement Routes

Routine: MAIN Worksheet: XII

Building safety feature: 10

Card classification: Group

Examples within exhibit 3.17: Lines 26, 27, 28, 29, 58, 59, 60, 61, 92, 93,

94, 95, 127, 128, and 129.

Variable

Name

Section of

Worksheet

Variable

Type

First

Column

Internal

Variable

BSF Number Title 12 2 J

Interior Stair 1 • ci 9 2«cij3«ci 16 4 INELT(* , 1

)

Exterior Stair l.b,2.b,3.b 16 10 INELT(* ,2)

Emergency Light l.c,2.c,3.c 16 16 INELT(* ,3)

Horizontal Exit l.d,2.d,3.d 16 22 INELT(* ,4)

Install Partition 1 .e ,2«e,3.e 16 28 INELT(* ,5)

Extend Partition l.f ,2.f ,3.f 16 34 INELT(* ,6)

Smoke Dampers l.g,2.g,3.g 16 40 INELT(* ,7

)

Table 3.22 Manual Fire Alarm

Routine: MAIN Worksheet: XIII

Building safety feature : 11

Card classification: Group

Examples within exhibit 3.17: Lines 30, 62 , 96, and 130.

Variable Section of Variable First Internal

Name Worksheet Type Column Variable

BSF Number Title 12 2 3

Panel 1 • 3. y 2 • Cl 16 4 INELT(* , 1

)

Pull Station l.b,2.b 16 10 INELT(* ,2)

Connection 1 • C y 2 • C 16 16 INELT(* ,3)

88
Table 3.23 Smoke Detection and Alarm

Routine: CSMOKE Worksheet: XIV

Building safety feature: 12

Card classification: Group

Examples within exhibit 3.17: Lines 31, 32, 33, 34, 63, 64, 65, 66, 97, 98,

99, 100, 131, 132, 133 and 134.

Variable Section of Variable First Internal

Name Worksheet Type Column Variable

BSF Number Title 12 2 K

Corridors l.i,2.i,3.i,4.i ' 16 4 IECSM0(1 ,*)

Patient Rooms l.ii,2.ii,3.ii,4.ii 16 10 IECSM0(2 ,*)

Common Areas 1 .iii ,2.iii,3.iii ,4. iii 16 16 IECSM0(3 ,*)

Non-Patient Rooms 1 . iv , 2 . iv , 3 . iv , 4 . iv 16 22 IECSM0(4 ,*)

Bathrooms & Closets l.v,2.v,3.v,4.v 16 28 IECSM0(5 ,*)

Table 3.24 Sprinkler Qualifiers

Routine: CSPRNK Worksheet: XV

Building safety feature: 13

Card classification: Singleton

Examples within exhibit 3.17: Lines 35, 67, 101 and 135.

Variable Section of Variable First Internal

Name Worksheet Type Column Variable

BSF Number Title 12 2 K

Sprinkler Type 1 11 6 12

Water Supply 2 11 9 13

89
Table 3.25 Sprinklers

Routine: CSPRNK Worksheet: XV

Building safety feature: 13

Card classification: Group

Examples within exhibit 3.17: Lines 36, 68, 69, 102, 103, 136 and 137.

Variable

Name

Section of

Worksheet

Variable

Type

First

Column

Internal

Variable

BSF number Title 12 2 K

Corridors 3.i,4.i 16 4 IECSPRd ,*)

Rooms (<200 ft^) 3.ii,4.ii 16 10 IECSPR(2 ,*)

Rooms (200-400 ft^) 3.iii ,4.iii 16 16 IECSPR(3 ,*)

Rooms (400-600 ft^) 3.iv,4.iv 16 22 IECSPR(4 ,*)

Common Areas & Wards 3.v,4.v 16 28 IECSPR(5 ,*)

Total Floor Area 3.vi,4.vi 16 34 IECSPR(6 ,*)

Bathrooms & Closets 3.vii ,4.vii 16 40 IECSPR(7 ,*)

Table 3.26

Routine: MAIN Worksheet: XVI

Card classification: Group

Examples within exhibit 3.17: Lines 37

Note: Entries between dashed lines (

User Options

, 38, 70, 71,

-) refer to a 104, 105, 138,

single card.

and 139.

Variable

Name

Section of

Worksheet

Variable

Type

First

Column

Internal

Variable

NEXT l.i A6 1 HIN

LAST l.ii A6 1 HIN

TEST l.iii A6 1 HIN

FINAL 1 .iv A6 1 HIN

SOLVE 2.i A6 1 HIN

CHANGE 2.ii A6 1 HIN

BSF Number 2.ii.a 12 8 11

State Number 2.ii.b 11 12 12

Cost N5 • H* H*i O 17 13 13

REQUIR 2.iii A6 1 HIN

Safety Requirement 2.iii.a 11 9 11

Percent Change 2.iii.b 13 10 12

90
4. A DISCUSSION OF PROGRAM OUTPUTS

The model’s output reports can be classified into three basic categories.

These output reports contain background information, reference data and

solutions for each fire zone, and design solutions which specify the best

post-retrofit strategies for the entire building. All output reports

described in this chapter will be based on the example presented in chapter 3.

For easy reference, each of the ten exhibits shown in this chapter is divided

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

the information provided by the model. The descriptions given throughout this

chapter are aimed at analyzing each output report on an item-by-item basis.

It is important for users to recognize that some interpretation and

qualification is necessary when analyzing the solutions produced by the model.

The description presented in this chapter will attempt to address these issues

for the case example. Readers should treat this as illustrative but not limit

the interpretation of their own studies to the topics discussed in this

chapter. In order to provide guidance for analyzing the solutions produced by

the model in a general setting, the next chapter will establish criteria based on experience in model building and consultation among user groups for setting

up and critiquing the model’s results. It is important to point out that the

data on the first three fire zones are not summarized in this chapter.

Consequently, if the user were to run the case study from chapter 3, reports

on the first three fire zones would be output. Similarly, in order to

conserve on space, several of the Total Building Summary Reports have been

omitted. Since the tape which contains the FSESCM source code also contains

the chapter 3 data file and a complete set of output reports, it is not

expected that the omission of several output reports will result in confusion

or misinterpretation of the part of users. The file containing the model's

output reports is provided both for user convenience and as a check of

software portability across operating systems. Users are encouraged to run this case prior to conducting any analytical studies of their own.

4.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The two exhibits contained in this section serve as a separator among

buildings under analysis, a mailing label for the completed analysis, and a summary of the relevant information from FSES Tables 1, 6 and 4. The

information presented as exhibit 4.1 is based on the responses to question 1 of Worksheet I (exhibit 3.1). These responses correspond to the first six

lines of the data file _or the first six lines for the data on each building if

more than one facility is to be analyzed. This output report is produced

through a call to a subroutine once the mailing label has been read into a character array. Information on the building type designation, building

qualifier and construction cost modifiers are then read in (questions 2, 3 and

4 of Worksheet I) . The building type designator determines whether the

facility under analysis is a hospital or nursing home (i.e, it specifies the

appropriate values of FSES Table 6). In this case, the facility is a hospital. The building qualifier specifies the appropriate entries in FSES

Table 6 which are then used as performance requirements. The outputs of FSES

Tables 1, 6 and 4 are based on internally stored arrays (both character and

real)

.

91
Exhibit 4.1 Sample Title Page

Part A: Printout

< o - o

o

a z o (/) < CN o s

X a a

< z tn

-1 x • < in < UQ-Jffi a > > O

UJ • ja • z UJ 03 < *~ UJ O 2 Oi o z h- I o — tr-o •

(/) -J CD < CE ol - o UJ UJ O JDiuijn • CD UJ O ^

x •• « o

z z K

a - - z -i OO-OOUJ 2S<-S

92
Exhibit 4.1 Sample Title Page

Part B: Discussion

The title page is produced through a call to subroutine PRTBAC. The character

array HBLDG is passed as an argument. The subroutine prints the contents of

HBLDG (i.e., the mailing label and the contact person). The carriage returns

within subroutine PRTBAC also serve as a separator between runs for different

facilities. Subroutine PRTBAC is called immediately after it has read into

HBLDG the facility ID, name of the contact person and facility address.

93
Exhibit 4.2 Sample FSES Tables

Part A: Printout

OCCUPANCY RISK FACTORS

1

PATIENT MOBILITY 1.0 1.6 3.2 4.5

2. PATIENT DENSITY 1 .0 1 .

1.5 2.0

3. ZONE LOCATION 1.1 1 .2 1 .4 1.6 1 .6

4. RATIO OF

PT TO AT 1 .0 1.1 1.2 1.5 4.0

5. AVERAGE

AGE 1.0 1 .2

MANDATORY safety requirements for hospitals

CONTAINMENT EXTINGUISHMENT PEOPLE MOVEMENT

SA SB SC

ZONE LOCATION NEW EXIST NEW EXIST NEW EXIST FIRST FLOOR 9.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 ABOVE 1ST FLOOR 14.0 9.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 3.0

PARAMETER VALUES

1 . CONSTRUCTION

FIRST FLOOR •2.0 .0 •2.0 .0 .0 2.0 SECOND FLOOR •7.0 •2.0 •4.0 •2.0 •2.0 2.0 THIRD FLOOR •9.0 •7.0 •9.0 •7.0 •7.0 2.0

4TH 4 ABOVE •13.0 •7.0 •13.0 •7.0 •9.0 •7.0

2. INTERIOR FINISH CORR AND EXIT •5.0 .0 3.0

3. INTERIOR FINISH ROOMS •3.0 1.0 3.0

4. CORRIDOR PARTITIONS AND WALLS •10.0 .0 1 .0 2.0

S. DOORS TO CORRIDOR •10.0 .0 1 .0 2.0

6. ZONE DIMENSIONS •6.0 •4.0 -2.0 •2.0 .0 1.0

7. VERTICAL OPENINGS •14.0 •10.0 .0 2.0 3.0

e. HAZARDOUS AREAS •11.0 •5.0 •6.0 •2.0 .0 9. SMOKE CONTROL •5.0 .0 3.0

10. EMERGENCY movement ROUTES -8.0 •2.0 .0 3.0 5.0

1. MANUAL FIRE ALARM •4.0 1.0 2.0

12. SMOKE DETECTION AND ALARM .0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

13. AUTOMATIC SPRINKLERS .0 8.10.0

0

0

0

0

94
Exhibit 4.2 Sample FSES Tables

Part B: Discussion

This report is generated by the MAIN program. The labels for FSES Table 1 stored In the character array HT1 are first printed followed by the occupancy

risk factors stored in the T1 array. Next, depending on the value of ITYPE,

the mandatory safety requirements for the problem under analysis are output.

The value of ITYPE determines whether this is a hospital (T6A) or a nursing

home (T6B). FSES Table 4 is then printed out; it consists of three parts.

First, the labels stored in the character array HPAR are printed out. Next,

the state values for the four rows associated with the construction building

safety feature stored in array T4A are printed out. Finally, the state values

associated with the remaining 12 building safety features, which are stored in

the G array, are printed out.

95
4.2 REFERENCE DATA AND SOLUTIONS

As mentioned earlier, the data from the FSESCM Worksheets for each fire zone (exhibit 3.2) and each building safety feature (exhibits 3.3 through 3.15) are pieced together until they roughly resemble the retrofits specified at the top

of each building safety feature worksheet. The data are then used to set up

the problem for solution by the FSESCM computer program. Three types of

output information are shown as as exhibits 4.3 through 4.5. The Input

Summary Report (exhibit 4.3) provides the user with a concise statement of the

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

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

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

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

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

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

order to move to a higher state.

The summary of Estimated Retrofit Costs Report (exhibit 4.4) is then

presented. This report includes the location of the fire zone and three types

of construction cost modifiers. The modifiers are needed because all costs

used within the FSESCM computer program reflect the cost of installing a particular retrofit in the Washington, D.C. area during the summer of 1981.

Thus it is not only necessary to adjust for regional price differences in the

markets for labor services and building materials, but also to adjust for cost

growth over time. All three of these cost factors are readily available from

construction industry publications. Each of the 13 building safety features

is then output. The data show the input and prescriptive state and the

estimated cost of going to each potential retrofit. The cost of prescriptive

compliance for the fire zone is also shown as a basic reference point.

The Fire Zone Summary Report (exhibit 4.5) is then output. This report shows

each distinct solution generated as a line of output. In order to easily

identify a particular solution and for ease in differentiating among

solutions, the state name is printed beneath each of the 13 building safety

feature solumn headings. The order in which the solutions are output is based on the 40 design classifications listed in table 2.4. All solutions are ranked from least costly to most costly within a design classification; so if

more than one solution was generated, the least costly is printed first

followed by the second, until all solutions for that design classification are output. The program then outputs the solution(s) for the next design

classification for which at least one solution was generated until the list

is exhausted. The prescriptive compliance solution is then output. Three

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

have no deficiencies in hazardous areas but do not belong to one of the design

classifications; (2) solutions which have a single deficiency in a hazardous

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

96
It is important to point out that exhibits 4.3 through 4.5 are samples

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

complete output for the building being analyzed. For example, exhibits 4.3

through 4.5 are the outputs associated with the patient room floors (floors 3

through 9) and hence do not contain laboratories, heavy equipment areas, or other areas which may call for special treatment.

4.3 DESIGN SOLUTIONS

For purposes of illustration, the Total Building Summary Reports presented as exhibits 4.6 throgh 4.10 will be analyzed in some detail. The relative costs,

as a percentage of the prescriptive compliance costs, are shown in figure 4.1.

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

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

of the prescriptive compliance solution. The solutions shown in figure 4.1

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

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

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

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

the procedure upgrades the building safety features not constrained by the

design variable qualifiers. There are circumstances under which the

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

For example, the best solution for the building, presented as exhibit 4.6 (bar

A on figure 4.1), costs slightly over $30,000. If we now require smoke

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

design variable qualifiers constant, and let the remaining building safety

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

building rises to around $110,000 (see exhibit 4.7 and bar B on figure 4.1).

In this case, the additional cost of compliance is due almost entirely to the

installation of smoke detection and alarm equipment. Requiring smoke

detection and alarm in the total space (see exhibit 4.8 and bar C on figure

4.1) has a similar effect. This implies some care should be exercised in

deciding on whether to cover corridors and habitable spaces only or to go for

covering the total space. A similar conclusion results if automatic sprinkler

systems are considered. In exhibit 4.9 (bar D in figure 4.1), the dead end

corridor charge on floors 3 through 9 is removed through the installation of an exit stairwell. In this case, the cost of compliance is $215,000 or approximately 30 percent less expensive than the prescriptive compliance

solution (compare exhibits 4.9 and 4.10 and bars D and E on figure 4.1).

Another important factor concerns the surpluses over the four safety

requirements. In almost all cases the fire zones within a design

classification exceed the requirements by several points. The surpluses

therefore serve both as a buffer against future changes in safety requirements

and provide information which may be useful in choosing among retrofit

packages which are close in cost to each other.

97
INPUT

SUMMARY

Exhibit 4.3 Sample Output Summarizing the Data Input for a Typical Fire Zone

Part A: Printout

a o

#go

z

CL • oooa>f~ooo • * o

z » o • ft o • o

z z 3 * OOOCIfOOO x o o r* o

• » o 04 z * ** o * + O

o * o z

z z UJ

a. * cr o U 0)ooooaioo 0000)0000 x o o t- o

• • i < <T 04 <T CO 04

CT * o o 04 + O

ft « UJ UJ o z o o a z UJ

<T 3 * o o o o X » ZOIOOOS9IOO oooooooo X o o o o

• ft < « o V • O <T 04 <7 CO

cr • < < f* • * 04 » • o * < < CO o o

• < < \ ft UJ UJ z

o ** o o UJ

a. » • o o o I * zoooocoaioo Oftftftftftft* CO • * *

co t • CD * CD O CO o 04 <r lAftftftftftftft 1 ft ft ft ft UJ u. * CD « cd o* s * 04 • ftftftftftftft 04 • * O S * CD • CO • Q. ...... • * CD * CD ft- * ft- UJftftftftftft* d. • • * * Q o -J -J o o

Z 3 * • o o o z * CCOOOOOOOO Oftftftftftft* <T • * * *

* .U o o Oft****** UJ *

u. * u * o Nft o *>««««•«« O • ft ft ft in 3 » u * o Z a a....... -J ft ft o u o o UJftftftftftft* Q. * » ft *

CD u z z a o

<

ft- DC X z o z u • CD CD o o 04 CO z CD CD • 04 * UJ o CO CD co O

cr u CD CD \ UJ o z

O a. z a z UJ

CD04

cr cr cr o z

CO ft- * < O X o CO

ft- 3 z < u V- o * 1 z a. o < o a a a

UJ z o < o UJ o UJ z

•—

« z o z a UJ

ft- <:a

ft- CO

-J X -J UJ <

3 o

UJ z Q

cr < Z

UJ 3 CO < z ft- cr s o < a: o CO

fvj UJ O o z

u. o cr o cr CO

*-4 O o

> I Z ft- o CO z

co ft- CO CO (—4 z H

UJ •-« ft- cr o z

u. z z z cr cr UJ < o < O co a

tz CO u. u. a CJ z o

o ft- UJ o a a cr cr cr o z -J

-J z 3 o o o ft- *-< <

u. a M M a a u

o - CL cr CO M

_J (O UJ UJ CL ae UJ ft- z »— ft— CL o z cr 3 o Z z O o o UJ CD o *"* u a INI >

04 CO <T in (D

98
Exhibit 4.3 Sample Output Summarizing the Data Input for a Typical Fire Zone

Part B: Description

The purpose of the Input Summary Report is to characterize the data used in

setting up the problem for solution. It is also useful in distinguishing

among runs when a sensitivity analysis is performed. The first descriptive

line shows the location of the fire zone, the number of patients and the state

numbers for Table 1 of the FSES. In this case the zone aggregates data on floors 3 through 9 of the facility. Each of the 13 building safety features

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

name show the input and prescriptive states. Up to 7 columns are then used to

show the number of elements which must be upgraded in order to move to a higher state. The actual element counts consist of from 1 to 8 rows depending

on the building safety feature and its condition. If the building safety

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

in rooms correspond to the square feet of walls and ceilings which would have

to be coated with retardant in order to move to Class B or Class A flame

spread ratings. In interpreting the values, it is necessary to note that the

symbol ****** indicates that the state whose name appears above it not a permissible retrofit. This may result because the state is below the input

and hence would result in a regression in score (e.g., construction is already

in the highest state) or it is precluded on engineering grounds. The states

which are permissible have either a value of zero or some positive integer

recorded. For example, 0 square feet of walls and 700 square feet of ceilings

must be coated with retardant in order to move to either the Class B or Class

A flame spread rating for interior finishes in rooms. The second page of the

printout consists of data on building safety features 8 through 13. These

data are not reproduced since their interpretation is the same as given

above.

99
FLOOR

3

ZONE

1

COST

GROWTH

FACTOR

1.15

LOCATION

MODIFIERS:

LABOR

1.00

MATERIALS

Exhibit

O

O

4.4 Sample Output Showing the Estimated Cost for Each Potential

Retrofit for a Typical Fire Zone

Part A: Printout

a o

2

Ou

z

CL O o

* O CD 2 * CM o • • t** (J • O o

z * z CM 3 ft o o z o

• * o CD CM 2 * V CM ft V

O * O CO O • o o z

z • z CM UJ a * CL o CJ CD o o z in * * I < <y in o CM CD

CL • o o CD • co O • cc 0) + (0 o m

* • Ui UJ CD o CD z o • o o z •* UJ 3 o <T z ft 2 CD o O z o

• • < < V ft o CD *— cc * < < CO t ft CM O ft 1 O • < < co * 0> Q cj * < < V * UJ CD UJ z o • —* ft O Q UJ a * ft <T I ft 2 CD O • CD *

• CO ft CD O CD * O CD in « • ft u. CD ft CD CO \ CM CM • « CM *

* CD ft CD ft (A o ft ft ft * • co * CO fr— ft fr- UJ a. * u • • -J ft -J Q • O * 3 • • o Z ft cr O O » ft * • O ft o ft O O ft UJ ft u. * o * u s * O v- ft C

2 * o * o Z ft Q Q ft ft * • o * u O ft O UJ « a. « U * ft Z ft z a • o * o CL z 2 o Z

to » CD co O o CM

UJ 2 CO CO « CM «— • cr O CD CD CD + O

CL u CD CO N UJ o z

z ** a z UJ

h~ cc cr cr o z 3 ft < u z O CD *>• a 2 < u «» o + • z o < u a o o

o < V UJ o UJ Z

z O z a UJ

fr- in

•H -j X -j UJ < O

UJ fr- z fr- h- o »- - »- fr— cc co < m in Z co co in m

3 o o in o < o o o o

fr- <J cr u 2 o (J o a o

< cr O in

UJ fr- O H- o h- Z fr- ; - >- fr- u. 1—4 u -• cr 4—4 o ~ cr —

4—4 in —

u. u. u. —• u. O u. u. O u. > o z o z O »- o O O cn o z o

fr— cr in cr CO cr — cr *-* cr z cr — cr UJ fr- *- 4—4 fr- fr- >— cr fr- O fr- z *-

LL z UJ Z UJ z ill CL UJ CL UJ —• UJ UJ UJ < o CC cr cr < cr O cr in cr a oc to u. u. a CJ z O

fr- a Q a o a UJ Q a o o UJ cr uj cr UJ cr uj O uj 2 UJ -J UJ z 3 1— O »- O »- o *- »- •— fr- < »-

cr < < < a < < Q < o < o »- 2 cr 2 cr 2 - 2 in 2 2 - 2

-1 CO 4—4 UJ —

UJ —

cr — cr — uj —

fr— 4-4

1—4 z fr- fr- fr— »— fr- cr b- o fr- Z H cr >- 3 o in z <n z in o co O CO O in uj m

CO u UJ —• UJ UJ o uj O uj M UJ > uj

u. o ft- # z in

UJ CJ ft O r- CM Q (O UJ ft m in CM

cr » -J CM O •— » fr- CM V

z O ft fr- — in

CM

fr- ft ft- (O co m

3 * — o < —

O * X — X 10 in

-j « uj o cr <y H

O ft ft V O (O m * z u UJZo

z o Z ft uj O z o <r Q CD M

O * ft O m o -J V

NJ z CJ 2 m 00 CD UJ —

U ft o O CM -J CM cr a UJ ft \ o o * »- CM M

CO 2 ft 3 u. cr fr- CM u.m »- ft z o a o z * cr go as cd H

3 * »- < o o <o < CM Z

o * fr- u CJ ft a — Z CD »-

ft cr U. o * cr cr r*

CD » < UJ N * O - O CD cr a « CL o 3 ft u o - ou. Z ft -J ft m cr « o o UJ

ft- * - » mJ ft UJ UJ u

CJ * (r * < * z z z -j

ft CM ft o o <

CD ft o * fr- • o * z z O ft z « -J ft z * -ja2O u. z UJ z u UJ ft- ft o UI UJ O ft- z CJ z z UJ

cr o o o >

O < \ Q z z M

z a 2 u. fr- a. z z CL z a M fr- < o UJ UJ u

i- U CJ z z m -J er u. o o UJ o < UJ o z z cr in CL o U. a.

U.o

fr- m

in 2 o UI a u - fr- fr- fr- »- »- fr- co in 3 in m -i in 10 UI o o o o o < O o Z u o cr o u (j in a fr- a a

»- »- »- Z fr- UI fr4-^ z — 2 - < — -J 4-4 u. u. UJ u. cr u. u. 2T u. in o o 2 O < O Z O z o

< cr cr uj a -j cr o cr *-« (T UJ fr- -j - > »- < fr- »— cr >-

cr uj O uj O uj Ul fr- UJ 0l UJ < cr cr a: 2 cr uj cr o cr in cr - cr UJ

in a z o > Q ^ o *- a <j a

3 uj O uj <J UJ u. UJ UJ UJ 4-4 UJ O »- U ft- Z fr- fr- Q fr- fr- fr- O < < UJ < -J < < < <

cr 2 UJ 2 O 2 < 2 UJ 2 2 2

< — 2T — a — 3 ~ — O —

<SJ fr- O ft- UJ fr- z »- O »- - fr- < CO 2 in 2 m < CO 2 <n 3 CO Z UJ m uj UJ UJ 2 uj in uj < UJ

cm n m in co Oi

100
Exhibit 4.4 Sample Output Showing the Estimated Cost for Each Potential

Retrofit for a Typical Fire Zone

Part B: Description

This Summary of Estimated Retrofit Costs Report presents the estimated costs

for all potential retrofits. The first descriptive line shows the zone location and the values of each of the three construction cost modifiers. For

this case, costs have increased 15 percent over those experienced during the summer of 1981 in the Washington, D.C. area. Each of the 13 building safety

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

feature name show the input and prescriptive states. Up to 7 columns are then

used as labels for each possible state within a building safety feature. The

line immediately beneath the building safety feature name bears the title

"Estimated Retrofit Cost"; it lists the estimated cost for each potential

retrofit. In interpreting the values, it is necessary to note that the symbol ****** indicates that the state whose name appears above is not a permissible

retrofit; it is assigned an arbitrarily high cost to prevent its occurrence.

This may result because the state is below the input and hence would result in

a regression in score (e.g., construction is already in the highest state) or

it is precluded on engineering grounds (e.g., mechanically assisted smoke

control by zone) . Those states which are permissible have either a value of zero of some positive integer recorded. In each case, the cost of remaining

in the input state is recorded as zero. If desired, this assumption can be

modified through use of the CHANGE option. It may also be possible to move to

a higher state for zero cost if the change is not construction related. The

remainder of the costs are based on the expected cost of upgrading all

critical elements recorded in the previous exhibit. The bottom line of the

printout is the estimated cost of prescriptive compliance. Since some states

may already exceed their prescriptive level, no cost is incurred for that

building safety feature. For all other cases, the cost is the sum of the

costs of the prescriptive compliance state listed under the heading "PRESC".

101
FIRE

ZONE

SUMMARY

REPORT

Exhibit 4.5 Sample Output Showing the Solutions Generated for a Typical

Fire Zone

Part A: Printout

l/) O CL O f- 5

<j 3

o

z o

uj (A O

iov<nnvr)u>ovco^, nof^h‘Ocovnin(n^-coGor<or^^h‘»n^toa»<*)i^

to > CO co o o «- o o V* V- O p* in CM CM in CM CM GO (D CO co GO to <0 co CO O «- 3

-J O to

• a

DC F- CM o o 0 0 o o o o o o o <r < < <T GO GO GO GO in in m in O o o o O CM CM co 3 X to •*— </> UJz - - CO - - CO o <T CO <T CO CO CO CO m in in <n co CO co co < co < CO O to u

*z

crCLW

z

UJ -J x < O <* s f- to UJa

< 2

3 a z < < -j s <

co co cq cd aaao co co co UJUJUJUJUJUJUJUJUJUJUJUJUJLJUJ<<<<UJUJUJUJ-J.-J-J —IUJUJUJUJ<<< ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZXXXXZZZZffiCDCDCOZZZZXXX ooooooooooooooocrcrcrcroooo-J-J-J-ioooocrcrcr ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZOOOOZZZZf-f-f-f-ZZZZOOO uuo u f- f- f- f- u uu

cd to cd co ZZZZ cr cr co a: UJUJUUJUJUJUJUJUJUJUJ<<<<UJLJUJUJOOOOUJUJUJUJUJOOl/)<LJO ZZZZZZZZZZZXXXXZZZZNJNIMfMZZZZZQQSXZO oooooooooooaccrcrcroooo-j-j-j-jooooocrcrocrocr ZZZZZZZZZZZOOOOZZZZF-f-»-f-ZZZZZOOOOZO uuuu f- f- f- f- uuau o ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo uuuuuuuuuuacjuuuuuuuuuucjouuuuoououo QQQQOQOQOQQOQOQQQQQQQQOQQQQQQQQQQQ U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.

UJ F— o z

cr 2

UJ >

2 O

HHUJUJUJUJUJUJUJUJI « t- # * XXXXXXXXXXIXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXOXXXXX uJiuOOOOOOOOOuiuJOOuJuJOOuJuiOOuJUjaooOitOujOOO NNSNSWNN* * \N# * N\* * SS# * NNSSUJN# \NN XX23332123SZZ23XZ33ZZ33ZX23)2Q2Z3I2I

-J z z z z z z z Z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z

uj O F- I- F— F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F“ F- F- F— F- F- F- F“ F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- * a F- F— F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- O F- cr cc CC cr cr cr cr cr cr cc cr cr cr a cr cr cr CC cr cr cr cr cr cr cr cr cr 2 z < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < <

UJ2

to o

o

a a a a cl a. a a CL cl cl a a CL a. CL a a a CL CL CL a cl a a a

< Q u. u_ u. u. u. u. u. u. U- u. u. u. u. U. u_ U. U. u. U- U. u. U. U. u. u. u. u. z a to UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ

UJ < < M UJ O O O o Q O Q O O a a o o o o o a a a o a O a a o o o

cr < cr o O O o O O O o O o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o O o o

3

H* X < z z z z z z Z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z

<

UJ o o X I X z 1

X X X X X X X X X X X X X z X z X X X X X

U. — z *— CM — CM CM CM CM — CM *— r» w—

F- z 1 t • « t i 1 + + 1 1 1 « • • t 1 1 • f 1 1 • 1 1 t 1 > a uj o o o o o o <J U U <J CJ <J u u o u <J <J u <J a u <-) <J u <J o

F— uj a. z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z

UJ

U. > o UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ <

1/) to o o o o o o O O o o o o o o o o O o o O o o o o o O o

uj Z o co in o O <0 CO CO CO CO CO o <o in CO o CO in CO O CO in CO O CO in CO O Z uj z o 2 + a + + • o a o a o a + a + o + Q + o + a F Q *F o •F o

IN — o UJ o o O uj UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ O uj o UJ o UJ o UJ O UJ o UJ O UJ O UJ o

-J o z Q z z z o a Q a a a Z Q z o z O z o z a z Q Z a z Q

3 to cc 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 o s 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

CQ cr o o o o o o o O o o < o o o o o o o o o O o o O O o o o

o o o

CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM O CM

CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM

: to (A to

o

crcrcecrcectcrQccrircrcrcrcrcrcrcrcrcrcrcrirQccrcrcrcrcrcrcrcccrttircr

X x

to UJ

-• «0 Z cr ~ O

u- u <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

cc cracraactcrtraaaccctcrccacEcctracrccccriracraacracacrQ:

to 55225252525225255222222222222522S55 z ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo O OOOOOOOOOCJ<JCJUOOOOU<JOO<J<JOO<JOOOOOOOOO o zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

102

FD

CON

NONE

TTLBLD

5435

228177
Exhibit 4.5 Sample Output Showing the Solutions Generated for a Typical Fire Zone

Part B: Description

The Fire Zone Summary Report records all of the distinct solutions generated

for the fire zone under study. The first descriptive line shows the fire zone location. Each of the 13 building safety features are then listed followed by

the 4 safety requirements. The estimated cost to comply is presented in the

last column. The name of the post-retrofit state for each of the 13 building

safety features are listed beneath the appropriate column heading. Each

solution takes up one line of the output. The surpluses over the required score for Containment, Extinguishment, People Movement and General Safety are then recorded. The order in which the solutions are output is based on the 40

design classifications. The following buildng safety features are used to

define the design classifications: (1) construction; (2) zone dimensions; (3)

hazardous areas; (4) emergency movement routes; (5) smoke detection and alarm;

and (6) automatic sprinklers. All solutions are ranked and printed out in

ascending order of cost. The program then outputs the solution(s) for the

next design classification for which at least one solution was generated until

the list is exhausted. The prescriptive solution is then output. Note that

in this case, the prescriptive solution shows surplus scores on all 4 safety

requirements; the estimated cost of prescriptive compliance is $275,052. The

score surpluses are due to some of the input states already exceeding their

prescriptive values. Solutions which do not fit a design classification are then ranked and printed out according to whether they have no deficiencies, a single deficiency, or a double deficiency in hazardous areas.

103
Exhibit 4.6 Sample Output Showing the Best Combination of Design

Equivalent Solutions

Part A: Printout

i/)oa OKS u oo

Pi OMT 7

(OionN

ro o> o

m v k co

z o 0> 9 7 3 o <n *- COD > CO CM 0 0 0

-J s in a

QC X CM CO 0 0 0

3 uj to

CO z - *- in co n

<j m *• 0> Cl oc CO a> _j < UJ UJ UJ o * X Z Z Z

<0 z cr o o o

rr O z z z

o. CJ in

rCM z

in UJ -J UJ UJ UJ UJ

•• CM * < z z z z

CO O o o o o o

-• n Z K z z z z

«n uj z o

K < z o o o o

< •• 3 cr uuuu m u co z < 3 < —

J

0 0 3 0 o u. S < u. u. u. u. mJ •- O

-J a CO Z O -» K in ~ UJ K UJ UJ UJ UJ

u. x 3 < o o z * • • • z a -j -j a S X X X X

in cr z CJ UJ > o o o o

< a. ~ 3 z o NNSN m Z CD UJ Z 2 3 3 3

UJ O

cc 2 CO < UJ J K CO •J Z Z Z Z

* < D UJ Z uj O

tO O + CL a k x a K K K K

CO 2 K Z O K oc cr oc cr < in a — co cr z z < < < <

-J — o CO O Cl Cl o. cl U Z u. CJ m o z * ~ on 2 X I uj > -ZOO UJ s z

cro

U. IO O ujzh

co z uj a o s o

UJ N *h l

cr o

O z

u. < G

Z Q. S O

-J U

3 UJ

a

a to < < M Ul < OC Z <

< u o

z ~ z H Z

uj a uj

UJ UJ UJ UJ o o o o

o o o o

z z z z

Z I X I

(M Q Q CD > cr uj a. z z z z Q u. 3 > O UJ UJ Ul UJ

—1 UJ K K

*—

«

-J cr k X a < 3 < K to K *-• UJ to o o o o

(D 3 co —

«

cr Ul UJ Z in in in co a Z to O CJ Z UJ ^ ^ ^ «

-J O uj z in >02 + + +o < UJ cj cr — Ul »- fM — O O O UJ K -j K CC UJ Q z z z o o GO K Q. u. K < Q co u. M <

cr < uj u. u. to co cr z z z z

cr < uj a O O oc O o o o o

< m oc cr a O cj CM <M CM CM > < < o b- K z o

x z uj m - o.o K K K K

z cr o O K -J -J -J -1

to O -j 3 cr to cr tr cr <r UJ < CD O -» X X X X

o K K O 3

CO O cr +

UJ O K O K UJ UJ UJ UJ X U O CL oooo K UJ

-J X

< K X

to to

-«

z

z o

— o

u. tr

< < CO CD < < CD CO < < GO CO <<(0 0

z oc — o

u. U

< < < <

< < < < << < <

< < < <

a: cr cr cr • * • * SS 22 o o o o uuuu z z z z

I z —

u. O

104
Exhibit 4.6 Sample Output Showing the Best Combination of Design

Equivalent Solutions

Part B: Description

This Total Building Summary Report records the best solution for the entire

building from among the 40 design classifications. The first descriptive

heading shows the design variable qualifiers for this design classification.

The total cost of retrofitting the entire building to this design

classification is then given followed by the cost of prescriptive compliance.

In this case the total cost is approximately 10 percent of that associated

with prescriptive compliance. Information on the location of the fire zone,

the post-retrofit state for each of the 13 building safety features, the

surplus over each of the 4 safety requirements, and the estimated cost to

comply are then printed out. Each fire zone takes up one line of output. The

solutions for the fire zones are based on the least-cost solution from within

the design classification under consideration. If, as in this case, one of

the design variable qualifiers entered in a state above that which appears in

the heading, an artificial solution is created. Thus although the qualifier

for zone dimensions is a dead end greater than 30 feet, since the first three

fire zones entered with no dead ends, they are included as an artificial

solution within this design classification. This approach is taken because

the objective of the design classifications is to have a compatible set of

retrofits. Since the existing condition within the building was acceptable

(i.e., a mixture of dead ends on floors 3 through 9 and no dead ends in the

basement, first and second floors), not changing one of the building safety

features across all zones should not affect the acceptability of the design.

The classifications are, however, based on a worst-case scenario. Thus if a dead end resulted in any fire zone, no artificial solution would be generated

indicating a "no dead end" situation.

105
Exhibit 4.7 Sample Output Showing Design Equivalent Solutions Based on Smoke Detection and Alarm in Corridors and Habitable Spaces

Part A: Printout

>• cd ai e* m - -j MOO® moo. o «- co o

O H- s co in cm u o ^ ^ ^ ^ u

z o CO CO ^ h* o m CM - v- m

3 > co 10 V CM CM J2iO

a

cr K CM CM VMM 3 uj <n *- co z *- v- in co co O CO Oim cr CD -j < UJ UJ UJ CM * z z z z z a o o o

cr o z z z

a u

CO CM z CD CD CD CD in UJ -J < < < <

•• CM * < z z z z

in o o a cr cr a

•-« CO z »- o o o o

m uj uuuu z o

o

-J z z z z - < z o o o o

< •• 3 cr uuuu lO o in Z <

B < -J o o a a

O Ik z < U. Ik Ik u.

-J -< a

_j a: co z o -i »- CO « UJ H- UJ UJ CJ UJ

Ik * 3 < a O Z * * t z a -j -j cr S z z z z w cc Z u -« UJ > o o o o

< a 3 Z O \N\N in Z CD uj Z 23313

UJ o

a: 5 CO CO < UJ -J < m -J z z z z

* < z UJ z uj O

CO o 4- a o - * a: K CO 5 »- o O H- cr cr a; a

cr < oo a o co cr z z < < < < O -J -* o cO O a a a. a

a o Z U. u

UJ UJ k- UJ k*

cr co O Z UJ Q U.U.U.U.

•—< cr 5 Z cr u cr co UJ UJ UJ UJ

>• z UJ > o z < < o o o o

cr - s o o u. < M UJ < UJ S Z M < cr O O O O

a O -j Z < z z z z

s o z a UJ 3 u. 10 o *-• z z

t/1 UJ Z CO Q O < o o z z z z

co 2 LJ * —J o z z ^ ^ ^ O cr 0 5 0 H- Z till

z UJ M *-• UJ 3 UJ uj cr uj uuuu f* ** a o CD > cr uj a z z z z

o u. 3 > O UJ UJ UJ UJ

•J •—

<

UJ h- >- M —

j

a: »- z a <

3 < - «n H- *-• UJ CO o o o o

00 3 co -• cr U.UJ z in in m co O Z CO o u Z UJ »

-J O UJ z CO >- o z O

< UJ (j cr — UJ M — O O O UJ

L- -j cr uj O z z z o

o CD »- a u. < o co u. ** < Nff<Uj

cr < uj Q < n cr > < < o

z z

z

UJ CO a o

m in cl

cr O o o u

z o ~ a o

a

sssz o o o o

CM CM CM CM o u -J Ik

<n O -j 3 cr co cr cr a cr

UJ < CD o -J z z z z

o H- L- a 3

co O cr UJ O H- c ; • UJ UJ UJ UJ z o O CL O O O O

i- UJ

-J z

< H- z

k* m m <<<< o s < < < < *- z o < < < < ~ o < < < <

UJ u. cr z1- z x

<n uj < < < <

—• 4- < < < <

z cr < < < < ~ O

u. u

< < < <

cr cr a cr ce -

CO 5 5 5 5 z o o o o

o uuuu CJ z z z z

NJ Z

-j cr

u. o

— CM CO

106
Exhibit 4.7 Sample Output Showing Design Equivalent Solutions Based on Smoke Detection and Alarm in Corridors and Habitable Spaces

Part B: Description

This printout shows the best solutions for each fire zone when smoke detection

and alarm are required in all corridors and habitable spaces. The total cost

of retrofitting the entire building to this design classification is

approximately one third that of prescriptive compliance. As in the previous

case, an artificial solution has been created for the fire zones in the

basement, first and second floors which were input without any dead ends. In

addition, the basement floor was input with sprinklers in all corridors and

habitable spaces.

107
Exhibit 4.8 Sample Output Showing Design Equivalent Solutions Based on Smoke Detection and Alarm in the Total Space

Part A: Printout

OCCNt

K- -J o ® «c m

in o a. in cm v o OKI N V 01 O

u 3 i" n

o •• z o CO CM CO a to CM «- 3 > cn honw JIM aa K CM n in m in 3 UJ to *

to z - ^ m w w

o in •" s at to

Cl mi < UJ UJ UJ <0 X Z Z Z Z

z a O o o *• cr o z z z a o

in

Cl z z z z z

U) UJ -J o o o o •• Cl X < NNNN 1A O O «f -J -J -J J

~ n 3 Ki/) UJ K- H- H- K- z o

oM mi z z z z

H* < z o o o o

< •• 3 5 u u u u

</) <J iO z < M < -J a a q o

O U. Z < UUU.U.

mi M O

-J cr to z

o-l K in ** UJ >- uj in uj uj

u. X D < o o z H t Z a -J -J cr z zezz to cr z U UJ > o cm 5 3

« a *-• 3 Z O

(A z 3 uj Z I J I X

UJ o

a 3 z m

< uj J O </> -j z z z z

X < N UJ Z uj O m O Q H x cr K- u- h- K- H 10 Z K- H- O k- at cl cr a; a < to Q h to cr s z < < < <

oi -J -» o to o a. a. a. o.

Q. o Z U. a

Ui UJ h- UJ H

OE tO O Z * UJ o u. u. u. U.

*-> cr S I. a u cr to UJ UJ UJ UJ > Z UJ > o z < < o o o o

a z o o u. < NJ UJ < UJ s z M < at o o o o

a: O -I z < z z z z o z a UJ

U» tn O +* 3 s

to UJ Z f) o o < o a z z z z

to Z UJ * -J o z *-• z m* —• •• O cr O 3 O H- Z 1(11

z UJ N M UJ 3 UJ uj cr uj u uu u

^ o a CO > cr uj o. z z z z

a Urn 3 > O UJ UJ UJ UJ

-j M UJ K- K-

-j a k- z a <

3 < K- U) H- ** UJ (/) o o o o

031 M a Ik UJ Z in o in n a z i/> O u Z UJ *-*•*>•

-J O UJ Z to V O S + • o

< uj (j at UJ H- Nl - O O O UJ

K- -j k- cr ui a z z z a

o CO f- a U. K < O in u. < h a < uj u. u. to to cr szsz cr < uj o O O a o o o o o

< fM at cr o o o CM CM CM CM > < < O h- - z o

Z z uj to « Q o »-*-»->- z cr o O K- -i mi mJ mi o (J -I

U. to O -J 3 a co at oc at at

UJ < 3 O -j I z z z

o H- O 2

to o cr UJ O H- O K- UJ UJ UJ UJ z o u a o o o o

UJz

< K Z

to to < < < < o ~ s < < < <

H- z 9 < < < <

«-e O < < < <

UJ u. cr Z- Z K

to UJ < < < < — + < < < <

z a < < < < ~ o < < < <

u- <J a cr cr cr cr * *

to sssz z o o o o

o uuuu o z z z z N Z

-j cr CM O u. O

108
Exhibit 4.8 Sample Output Showing Design Equivalent Solutions Based on Smoke Detection and Alarm in the Total Space

Part B: Description

This printout shows the best solution for each fire zone when smoke detection

and alarm are required throughout the total space. The total cost of

retrofitting the entire building to this design classification is somewhat

more than one half that of prescriptive compliance. Through reference to FSES

Table 4, it can be seen that this movement increases the state value from 4

points to 5 points over the previous case (smoke detection and alarm in all

corridors and habitable spaces). An examination of the surplus scores over each safety requirement reveals an average increase of one point. In this

case, the additional cost of compliance is due almost entirely to the

installation of smoke detection and alarm equipment. If one were to examine

the two design classifications where automatic sprinklers were interchanged

with smoke detection and alarm, a similar result would occur. Thus careful

consideration should be given to any decision which would require detectors or sprinklers in the total space rather than in all corridors and habitable

spaces

.

109
Exhibit 4.9 Sample Output Showing Design Equivalent Solutions Rased

on No Dead Ends In Corridors

Part A: Printout

> Of 0) * *

ft -J <0 to ro r*

</> o a. V P) <71 W 0^1 m * i* a* u o 01 u *“ z o OHJ> N n O l/>

(/> D > (0 Of o o o J|IA

a

ft X Of o o o o

D UJ (/) tO Z «• O </> —

0)n ft 00 -J < UJ UJ UJ

ft X X z z z *» z a o o o

Of ft o z z z

ft o

</) ft

Of 2

in UJ -J UJ UJ UJ UJ

•• Of X < z z z z

to o o «f o o o o

r> Z ft z z z z

l/) UJ z o

o

fr* -J z z z z

ft < z o o c o

< •• D ft o <J u u

fA O 0) z < M M < -J o o o o

O ft z < U. U. ft ft

-J H O

-J ft to z O -j ft to UJ ft UJ UJ UJ UJ

U. X 3 < Q o z * t * # Z ft -J -J ft z X X X X

to cr z O 1-1 . UJ > o o o o

< CL *-> D z o

(A Z CD uj 2 1X11 UJ O

ft 2 *-• to <UJ JH l/) _J z z z z

X < 3 UJ X uj O ft ft ft ft

to o + a O ft X ft ft ft ft ft

to s >- z O ft ft ft ft ft < U) o ** tO ft z z < < < <

-j IM O to o a. a a. a. a X ft . o

UJ ft UJ ft

</) a z UJ a U. u. u. U. ~ a s i ft (J o: </> UJ UJ UJ UJ X uj > o z < < o o o o

>- 2 O O ft < fsj UJ uj 2 Z < ft o o o o

ft O -j X < z z z z

o Z ft UJ

u. 0)0 s 2

UJ Z UJ o o < O 0 X X X X

0) Z UJ o -j a z z - Of Of

ft o s ft z 1 1 1 I UJ N «-! O D UJ UJ ft UJ uuuu ~ o z GO > ft UJ ft z z z z

u. ** D > O UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ ft ft

-J ft ft X ft <

< ft 0) h « UJ to o o o o

DO) ft u. UJ Z in in in in O Z O) o o Z UJ *•*?•*

O uj Z to >02 4- +

UJ (J ft •-» UJ ft M -* O O O O

.j ft ft UJ Q z z z z

GO ft ft U. < Q tO U. < M tt < UJ ft ft to to ft 2 2 2 2

a < uj a o o ft o o o o o

<x fsj a ft o o o Of Of Of Of > < < o ft ft z o

Z z UJ to ~ a o ft ft ft ft z a O Q ft -J -J -J -J o u -J ft

0> O -J D a to ft ft ft ft

UJ < (0 O j X X X X o ft ft a 3

to o a +

UJ o ft C ft UJ UJ UJ UJ X u U ft o o o o

ft UJ

—J X

< ft X

ft to to < < ffi GO o s < < GO CO ft z o < < go cn ~ o < < CD 03 UJ u. ft X

ft X X

to uj < < < <

«“• + < < < <

Z ft < < < < ~ o < < < <

U. u

ft ft ft ft a

ft * •

to 2 2 2 2

z o o o o o u u u o o z z z z

ft z ~ ~ ~

—J ft Cl CO

u. o

110
Exhibit 4.9 Sample Output Showing Design Equivalent Solutions Based on No Dead Ends in Corridors

Part B: Description

This printout shows the best solution for each fire zone when no dead ends are permitted. (Recall that a dead end greater than 30 feet existed on floors 3

through 9.) Although the installation of an exit stairwell is quite

expensive, the solution produced by the FSESCM program costs about 30 percent

less than that associated with prescriptive compliance. This is because the

procedure upgrades all building safety features which are not constrained by

the design variable qualifiers in the most cost effective manner.

Ill
Exhibit 4.10 Sample Output Showing the Details of the Prescriptive

Compliance Solution

Part A: Printout

> © © «r cm

fr- -J © fr- CO CM

in o a WONO fr- 2 CM © fr* V

CJ O •- in u Cl z o in © — c* o m CM v- —

©

3 > n

-i s m

a.

fr* CO CO CO

<r x cm 3 ui m

in • © o o o

Z v v © <r <r u m

e** Cl cr m

in -j < Ui Ul Ui • Cl r I z z z fr- a o z cr o o o z o

ro CB o z z z Ul a • o Z 2 ui in ~ z z z

c* ~i O • «-« Cl z CO < Ui m Ui -1 ui ui ui ui 3 fr* uj fr- > •• cm X < z z z z -i Z to < <

in o O o o o o a o 3 fr- 3 n Z fr- z z z z cr cj < co

CO Ui 3 CJ Ui z a m uj uj uj x o X CD > fr- M —i z z z z < fr- •-«

fr- < s o o o o in »- o

< - 3 cr uuuu 3 u. — a -

CJ CO z < o o —

•— —« < —

o o o o x >- cr uj

u. z < u u. u. u. v) cr m u d

-« a Ui 10 Q

© z >- X • Ui

in Ui fr- ui ui ui ui < »- in cr in < a o z * * S^cr & »-> -j -i ac z X X X X Ui 3 o Ui > o o o o fr- umfr- 3 z o V, SSN ~ Z CJ fr- •-> Z CD Ui Z 3 3 3 3 •- o -• ©

O • ui

*-• in z in m o in ©

in « -j z z z z o 3 fr- uj cr u. Ui Z ui O fr- fr- fr- fr- -l Z Q 3

z O fr- x cr fr- fr- fr- fr- - a uj uj o ui

fr- o o fr- cr cr a cr 3 cr 2 ui o x

ee in a z z < < < < -j 3 uj o o fr- o - - o «n o CL a. CL CL om cr x a Z u. o in uj - u.

Ul -J fr— <3 Z O a o Ui Q U. U.ICU. ui O > uj © .cr u cr m uj ui ui ui o u uj a 5 co > o z < < o o a o z m a < uj

cr Ul u. < M Ul < ui a x

< CJ < a o o o o -• > cr a

s z O -J X < z z z z -J • fr- -J 3 3 5 < z a Ui a in ui < o o

3 •- 5 Z S »- u. ui a m -J Q O < o o X X X X o z < m cr x

a -J O z« z CM CM CM CM O UJ CO Ui fr- O 2 *- z • « i i S cr >

z o 3 Ul ui cr ui UUUU uj ui fr- 3 - *•

•-X o CO > a uj a. z z z z > cr z »- uj o *4 3 > O UJ ul Ui Ui *-i UJ < u in

-J Ui Ul fr- fr- fr- 3 2 uj < ui > . I a < aouniu) j

** fr- •-« Ui CO o o o o UJ > ©

CO fr- ac u. ui Z o o o o cr oc o > -i <

a. o o z ui f> ^ O S fr— fr— -J z m >02 co > ui cr < cr •- Ul fr- IM ~ o o o o UJ fr— UJ U. UJ z - u b- a: Ui O z z z z cruj j<zn o © fr- a U. cl u. a in uj

fr- Ul M < < o o a

<r u. u. co oo cr ssss uj <n uj a ui a O O cr o o o o o X Q.ZUJH

cr O O CJ CM CM CM CM fr- Ui — I <

fr- fr- z o x cr a - -i

ui in — Q O ui ui uj ui in »- o -j 3

o: o a - a o o o ~ ~ z o

cj —

U- fr- 3 -J

u. — in o z ©

O -1 3 a in cr cr cr cr — uj in cj « (D O -1 X X X X X uj S Ui 3

fr- fr- O 3 »- cr x x -j in

to o cr + O CO fr- CL i-i O fr- O fr- uj Ul Ui uj T s — or u U Q- a <j o o O 3 u. 3 cr ui 3 cr o O co

-J X o o z X

< fr- X x — UJ < o *- in in < < m o fr— Ul fr— QC *-i o - z < < CD CD -J Z X O U. x

fr- z o < < CD © < O Ui 3E ^ 3 ~ o < < CD CD

ill u. cr X

fr- X X m ui < < < <

+ < << <

z cr < < < < — O

u. u

< < < <

cr cr a: cr a: - * V % * © ssss z o o o o o uuuu (J z z z z M Z - ~ *-

-j cr

u. o

v- —* CM CO

112
Exhibit 4.10 Sample Output Showing the Details of the Prescriptive

Compliance Solution

Part B: Description

This printout shows the prescriptive compliance solution for each fire zone.

It is included as a baseline against which all solutions generated by the

FSESCM program can be compared objectively. Note that surplus scores are shown for all of the safety requirements. This is because each fire zone as input exceeded one or more of the prescriptive requirements. Although no credit was given for exceeding a requirement prior to the incorporation of the

Fire Safety Evaluation System into the Life Safety Code, score surpluses are possible if the evaluation procedure of the Fire Safety EValaution System is

used. The values of the surpluses are presented because it is felt that they

will promote a more meaningful comparison against those solutions based solely

on the Fire Safety Evaluation System.

113
Figure 4.1 Alternative Retrofit Packages for the Case Study Building

114
5. SOME COMMENTS ON USING THE FSESCM COMPUTER PROGRAM

The purpose of this chapter is to provide guidance for making intelligent use

of the model. The previous chapters dealt with the technical underpinnings of

the model and the mechanics of setting up and interpreting a case study. This

chapter aims at ways in which these basic approaches can be tailored to

specific objectives. Specific topics discussed in this chapter include: (1)

when and how to use a particular combination of options; (2) how to batch runs

so that more than one facility can be analyzed; and (3) how to find and

correct input errors.

Once all data have been collected and prior to an analysis with the model, a series of important questions must be answered. As an initial step, the user must carefully define the objectives of the study and attempt to relate them

to the data recorded on the worksheets. Some typical objectives which senior

management might wish to analyze involve: (a) the time phasing of the

project; (b) the affects on services and revenues; (c) the costs of a highly

desired option; or (d) the opportunity to anticipate future changes in the

requirements of the Life Safety Code.

In performing any of the analyses mentioned above, it is essential that

sufficient detail be incorporated into the data file so meaningful tradeoffs can be made. For example, a baseline run exercising a minimum number of

options can be used to establish a "straw man" scenario. The CHANGE and

REQUIR options can then be used to modify the problem so that it more closely

follows the pecularities of the building under analysis. A series of

"what-if" questions can then be addressed by systematically changing key input

values and rerunning the model. These results can then be compared against

the "straw man" scenario to weigh the benefits of alternative courses of

action.

There are several practical considerations which govern the amount of detail

for a given case study. First, all topics should be ranked according to their

importance to the decision maker. This implies that greater effort should be

made to obtain more precise information on selected "high visibility" items,

rather than spending an inordinate amount of time on relatively unimportant

data. Second, care should be exercised when precluding retrofits. This is

because certain design variable qualifiers may be affected which govern the

output provided under the Total Building Summary Report.

Suppose an initial run has been performed and several targets of opportunity

for further analysis can be identified. For example, one may wish to require

a higher level of Containment Safety than currently specified under the Life

Safety Code. Similarly, one may wish to increase the cost of installing an exit stairwell. The two cases mentioned above relate to the use of the REQUIR

and CHANGE options, respectively. If the Containment Safety requirment were

to be increased by 20 percent, then the following card sequence would be

needed

115
REQUIR 1 SOLVE

20

where REQUIR occupies columns 1 through 6 of the card, 1 (Containment Safety)

occupies column 9, and 20 occupies columns 11 and 12, respectively. The next

card tells the program to solve the application problem with the increased

Containment Safety requirement. If this option were to be exercised and the

cost of installing and exit stairwell to move to the no dead end zone length

less than 100 feet state were increased from slightly under 230,000 to

250,000, then the card sequence would be:

REQUIRE 1 20

CHANGE 6 6 250000

SOLVE

where CHANGE occupies columns 1 through 6, the building safety feature number

(6) is in column 9, the state number (6) is in column 12, and the transition

cost (250000) occupies columns 14 through 19. If one also wished to examine

the impact of excluding two or more retrofits, say horizontal exits and

sprinklers in corridor and habitable spaces, then the card sequence would be

REQUIR 1 CHANGE 6

CHANGE 10

CHANGE 13

SOLVE

20

6 250000

4 -1

2 -1

To examine how the various effects are related, one may choose the following

sequence:

REQUIR 1 20

SOLVE

CHANGE 6 6 250000

SOLVE

CHANGE 10 4 -1

SOLVE

CHANGE 13 2 -1

SOLVE

In making use of the options provided, one should note that they are cumulative and they have an impact on all output reports which follow. For

example if the following sequence were input.

REQUIR 1 20

REQUIR 1 20

The Containment Safety requirement would be increased by 44 percent.

Similarly, by precluding horizontal exits and sprinklers in corridor and

habitable spaces all cases where these retrofits are referenced as design

116
variable qualifiers under the Total Building Summary Report will be

suppressed. This is true even if they are only precluded in one fire zone within the buildng. Thus if these retrofit types are desired, it would be

necessary to restore the precluded cost with one which is deemed reasonable.

For example, the following sequence would permit the consequences of both courses of action to be assessed:

CHANGE 10 4 -1

CHANGE

SOLVE

13 2 -1

CHANGE 10 4 50000

CHANGE

SOLVE

13 2 140000

If buildings are to be batched together, the only sequences which are recommended are:

SOLVE

LAST

or

SOLVE

FINAL

or

TEST

NEXT

or

TEST

FINAL

The first group of controls tells the program to solve the application

problem, generate the Total Building Summary Report and proceed to the data on the next building which follows immediately. The second group of controls

tells the program to proceed as above but to stop after the Total Building

Summary Report is output.

The third group of controls tells the program that the testing option has been

exercised and to proceed to the data on the next building without outputting

the Total Building Summary Report. The last group of controls indicates that

the testing option has been exercised and no buildings follow. The program

stops without outputting the Total Building Summary Report.

117
In analyzing the results produced by the model, users should ask the following

questions. Are the answers meaningful? If not, what appears to be

inconsistent? Are all objectives satisfied? If not, how were they formulated

and related to the data on the worksheets? Have new problems been identified?

If so, do they shed light on the problem? By probing into the model's results

and through careful critique, users should build both technical skills and

confidence in exercising the model. One should always recognize that counter

intuitive results may lead to genuine insights into the problem when the

assumptions upon which a model is based are critically analyzed.

The remainder of this section will deal with error messages. In order to

address the everyday problems of incorrect formatting, recording and

sequencing, FSESCM has an elaborate system for edit-checking the values of key

input variables. If an error is encountered, then a message is printed out

which should help to locate and correct the error. There are two basic types

of error messages: (1) those which FSESCM treats as fatal for the building

under analysis; and (2) those which result in the setting of default values.

The discussion of FSESCM generated error messages which follows is designed to

be reasonably comprehensive but should not be considered exhaustive. The

diagnostic associated with each error message is presented first. The routine

which generated the message is then identified. This information serves as a cross walk to the Programmer's Manual should a modification to the source code

be required due to pecularities of the operating system. The action taken by

the program and the data output are then given. Recommendations for ways in

which the problem may be corrected are also given.

It is important to point out that the discussion which follows is limited to

first-order effects. If a non-fatal error (type 2), in which a default value

is set, is followed by a fatal error (type 1), then both errors should be

analyzed carefully for a possible relationship. In particular, a default

setting to correct for an earlier error may result in a sequencing problem

which triggers a fatal error. In every case where a fatal error is

encountered, there should be sufficient information to easily locate the card

which caused the problem. Non-fatal errors which do not require treatment

should be subjected to close scrutiny to insure that the interpretation of the

problem is not rendered meaningless.

Type 1 Errors

Diagnostic:

Routine:

Action:

Data Output:

Remedy:

NO SATISFACTORY SOLUTIONS ENCOUNTERED

MAIN

Analysis of current building terminates. Subroutine SEARCH

is called to locate where data on the next building starts.

None

Output from the revised simplex (RVSMPX) is abnormal. Check

application problem and input data.

118
Diagnostic:

Routine

Action:

SAFETY REQUIREMENT OUT OF RANGE

MAIN

Analysis of current building terminates. Subroutine SEARCH

is called to locate where data on the next building starts.

Data Output:

Remedy

None

Check the value of the first integer variable (see table 3.26)

after the command REQUIR on this control card. The number of

the safety requirement must take on a value between 1 and 4.

Diagnostic:

Routine

Action:

USER MOD INCORRECT

MAIN

Analysis of current building terminates. Subroutine SEARCH

is called to locate where data on the next building starts.

Data Output: Command on control card (HIN) plus option qualifiers

(11,12,13).

Remedy

Check the value of the command on this control card against

those given in table 2.2.

Diagnostic:

Routine:

Action:

PARAMETER CARD INCORRECT

MAIN

Analysis of current building terminates. Subroutine SEARCH

is called to locate where data on the next building starts.

Data Output:

Remedy

Building safety feature number as read.

Check application problem and input data. An improper setting

of the input state for a building safety feature can cause this problem. Check for missing cards.

Diagnostic: THE VALUES ON CARD AFTER THE ERROR

ARE:

Routine:

Action:

SEARCH

Analysis of current building terminates. Subroutine SEARCH

is called to locate where data on the next building starts.

Data Output: Card number in sequence (1-20) and its values in alphanumeric

(A6, A72) formats.

Remedy: Use output to locate the card which caused the error. Additional diagnostics will also be available.

Type 2 Errors

Diagnostic:

Routine:

Action:

Data Output:

Remedy

AN ATTEMPT TO RELAX A SAFETY REQUIREMENT IS BEING MADE

MAIN

None

None

None is required but it would be advisible to verify that

relaxing (reducing) the safety requirement was the intent.

119
Diagnostic:

Routine

:

Action:

Data Output:

Remedy

Diagnostic:

Routine:

Action:

Data Output:

Remedy:

Diagnostic:

Routine:

Action:

Data Output:

Remedy:

Diagnostic:

Routine:

Action:

Data Output:

Remedy:

Diagnostic:

Routine:

Action:

Data Output:

Remedy:

Diagnostic:

Routine:

Action:

Data Output:

Remedy

BUILDING SAFETY FEATURE OUT OF RANGE

MAIN

The incorrect value is set to a default value of either 1 or

13.

None

Check the value on the first integer variable (see table 3.26)

after the command CHANGE on this control card. The building

safety feature declared must take on a value between 1 and

13.

RETROFIT STATE OUT OF RANGE

MAIN

The incorrect value is set to a default value of either 1 or IT4M(I), where I is the building safety feature number.

None

Check the initial settings of the state variables read into

IT4X(I). Check the value of the second integer variable, 12

after the command CHANGE on this control card. Both 12 and

IT4X(I) must take on values between 1 and IT4M(I).

BUILDING TYPE QUALIFER OUT OF RANGE

MAIN

The incorrect value is set to a default value of either 1 (hospitals) or 2 (nursing homes).

None

Check the value on the seventh card for this building in the

data file. ITYPE must be either 1 or 2 (see table 3.6).

BUILDING AGE QUALIFIER OUT OF RANGE

MAIN

The incorrect value is set to a default value of either 1 (new single story) or 4 (existing multistory).

None

Check the value on the seventh card for this building in the

data file. IBLDG must be either 1 or 4 (see table 3.6).

PARTITION QUALIFIER OUT OF RANGE

CZODIM

The incorrect value is set to a default value of 0.

None

Check the value on the first card for the sixth building

safety feature (zone dimensions) for this fire zone. IPART

must be either 0 or 1 (see table 3.15).

DEFICIENCY QUALIFIER OUT OF RANGE

CHAZAR

The incorrect value is set to a default value of 0.

None

Check the value on the first card for the eighth building

safety feature (hazardous areas) for this fire zone. Each

of three deficiency qualifiers must take on values of either

0 or 1 (see table 3.18).

120
Diagnostic:

Routine:

Action:

Data Output:

Remedy

SPRINKLER DESIGNATION OUT OF RANGE

CSPRNK

The incorrect value is set to a default value of 2 (wet

concealed)

.

None

Check the value on the first card for the thirteenth building

safety feature (sprinklers) for this fire zone. The

allowable values are 1 through 4 (see table 3.24).

Diagnostic:

Routine:

Action:

Data Output:

Remedy:

WATER SUPPLY DESIGNATION OUT OF RANGE

CSPRNK

The incorrect value is set to a default value of 3

(unknown)

.

None

Check the value on the first card for the thirteenth building

safety feature (sprinklers) for this fire zone. The

allowable values are 1 through 3 (see table 3.24).

As an aid in building skills at troubleshooting, readers are encouraged to

experiment with the example from chapter 3. A useful strategy might be as follows. First, run the model with all data as shown in chapter 3. Second,

make several copies of the file for use in subsequent runs. Third, create an error in each of the duplicated files (e.g., delete a line, duplicate a line,

change the column alignment on a card, exceed the maximum or minimum value,

etc.). Fourth, run the model and examine the diagnostics. Fifth, determine

what steps you would take to fix the problem based only on the information

provided. Would these steps correct the problem? If the answer is no, then

it will be necessary to study the relationship between the error you created

and the diagnostics produced by the program to determine the source of the

difficulty.

121
REFERENCES

American Nation Standards Institute, American National Standard Programming

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

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

Evaluation System Cost Minimizer Computer Program , National Bureau of

Standards, NBSIR 83-2749, Washington, D.C., 1983.

Lathrop, J.K. , editor, Life Safety Code Handbook , National Fire Protection

Association, Quincy, Mass., 1981.

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

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

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

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

D.C., 1980.

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

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

Commitment to Safety , 1976.

122
FEDERAL INFORMATION PROCESSING STANDARD SOFTWARE SUMMARY

01. Summary date

Yr. Mo. Day

8 3 0 7 1 l 9

04. Software date

Yr. Mo. Day

8 3 0 7 1 9

02. Summary prepared by (Name and Phone)

Robert E. Chapman (301) 921-3855

05. Software title FIRE SAFETY EVALUATION SYSTEM COST MINIMIZER (FSESCM)

06. Short title

03. Summary action New Replacement Deletion

Previous anInternal Software ID

07. Internal Software ID NA

08. Software type

Automated Data System

[^| Computer Program

| | Subroutine/Module

09. Processing mode

| | Interactive

[x] Bate*1

| | Combination

10. General Computer Systems

Q Support/Utility Q

f^T| Scientific/Engineering Q

| | Bibliographic/Textual

Application area

Management/

Business

Process Control Other

Specific Fire Safety in Health

Care Facilities

11.

Submitting organization and address

12.

Technical contact(s) and phone

Operations Research Division

Center for Applied Mathematics

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

13.

Narrative

Robert E. Chapman (301) 921-3855

William G. Hall (301) 921-3855

This program minimizes the cost to hospitals and nursing homes of complying with the

Life Safety Code. The model uses the Fire Safety Evaluation System developed by the

Center for Fire Research at the National Bureau of Standards as a means for identifying

alternatives to prescriptive compliance to the Life Safety Code. A linear programming

algorithm is then used to define compliance strategies which, for a given set of

constraints, are optimal in terms of minimum cost.

14. Keywords

Building codes; building economics; economic analysis; fire safety; health care facilities; hospitals; life safety; mathematical programming; nursing homes; renovation.

...... j 15. Computer manuf’r and model Sperry Univac

16. Computer operating system

1100/82

17. Programing language(s)

FORTRAN 77

18. Number of source program state- ments APPX 4000

19. Computer memory requirements

Less than 256 K Bytes

20. Tape drives U9V/UPS

(9 Track 1600 or 6250 FP~n

21. Disk/Drum units 22. Terminals

23. Other operational requirements

24. Software availability

Available HDDLimited In-house only

25. Documentation availability

Available Inadequate In-house only

a

26. FOR SUBMITTING ORGANIZATION USE

Standard Form 185

1974 July

U.S. Dept, of Commerce—NBS

(FIPS. Pub. 30)

185-101
U.S. DEPT. OF COMM.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET (See Instructions)

1. PUBLICATION OR

REPORT NO. NBSIR 83-2797

2. Performing Organ. Report No. 3. Publication bate

December 1983

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

User’s Manual for the Fire Safety Evaluation System Cost Minimizer Computer Program

5. AUTHOR(S)

Robert E. Chapman and William G. Hall

6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION (If joint or other than NBS, see Instructions)

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

7. Contract/Grant No.

I. Type of Report & Period Covered

9.

SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (Street, City, State, ZIP)

Center for Fire Research Department of Health and

National Engineering Laboratory Human Services

National Bureau of Standards Washington, D.C. 20201

Washington, D.C. 20234

10.

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

[^] Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FIPS Software Summary, is attached.

11.

ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most significant Information. If document includes a significant

bibliography or literature survey, mention it here)

The Fire Safety Evaluation System Cost Minimizer (FSESCM) computer program integrates

engineering and economic considerations with a linear programming algorithm which

permits the least-cost means of upgrading health care facilities to compliance with

the Life Safety Code to be identified. This report is designed as a reference

document for a nonprogramming FSESCM user. A description of the philosophy and

methodology behind FSESCM is given first, followed by a discussion of the data

requirements, the various options available to the user, as well as some of the

limitations of the program. A detailed example in which all inputs to the FSESCM

computer program are described is then given. The output associated with the

example is then analyzed rigorously. The report concludes with a set of guidelines

for making efficient use of the FSESCM computer program.

12.

KEY WORDS (Six to twelve entries ; alphabetical order; capitalize only proper names; and separate key words by semicolon s) Building codes; building economics; economic analysis; fire safety; health care

facilities; hospitals; life safety; mathematical programming; nursing homes;

renovation

13. AVAILABILITY

[x] Unlimited

[^] For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

| | Order From Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

20402.

[X] Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA. 22161

14. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

132

15. Price

$14.50

USCOMM-DC 6043-P80