\

V, of * NBS TECHNICAL NOTE 861

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE/ National Bureau of Standards

Professional Opinion

Engineering Topics
NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

The National Bureau of Standards' was established by an act of Congress March 3, 1901. The Bureau's overall goal is to strengthen and advance the Nation's science and technology

and facilitate their effective application for public benefit. To this end, the Bureau conducts

research and provides: (1) a basis for the Nation's physical measurement system, (2) scientific and technological services for industry and government, (3) a technical basis for equity in trade, and (4) technical services to promote public safety. The Bureau consists of the Institute for Basic Standards, the Institute for Materials Research, the' Institute for Applied Technology,

the Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology, and the Office for Information Programs.

THE INSTITUTE FOR BASIC STANDARDS provides the central basis within the United

States of a complete and consistent system of physical measurement; coordinates that system

with measurement systems of other nations; and furnishes essential services leading to accurate and uniform physical measurements throughout the Nation's scientific community, industry, and commerce. The Institute consists of a Center for Radiation Research, an Office of Measurement Services and the following divisions: Applied Mathematics — Electricity — Mechanics — Heat — Optical Physics — Nuclear

Sciences 2 — Applied Radiation z — Quantum Electronics s — Electromagnetics 3 — Time

and Frequency * — Laboratory Astrophysics ' — Cryogenics ". THE INSTITUTE FOR MATERIALS RESEARCH conducts materials research leading to improved methods of measurement, standards, and data on the properties of well-characterized

materials needed by industry, commerce, educational institutions, and Government; provides

advisory and research services to other Government agencies; and develops, produces, and

distributes standard reference materials. The Institute consists of the Office of Standard

Reference Materials and the following divisions: Analytical Chemistry — Polymers — 'Metallurgy — Inorganic Materials — Reactor

Radiation — Physical Chemistry.

THE INSTITUTE FOR APPLIED TECHNOLOGY provides technical services to promote

the use of available technology and to facilitate technological innovation in industry and Government; cooperates with public and private organizations leading to the development of

technological standards (including mandatory safety standards), codes and methods of test; and provides technical advice and services to Government agencies upon request. The Institute consists of a Center for Building Technology and the following divisions and offices: Engineering and Product Standards — Weights and Measures — Invention and Innovation — Product Evaluation Technology — Electronic Technology — Technical Analysis — Measurement Engineering — Structures, Materials, and Life Safety 4 — Building

Environment * — Technical Evaluation and Application * — Fire Technology.

THE INSTITUTE FOR COMPUTER SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY conducts research and provides technical services designed to aid Government agencies in improving cost effec- tiveness in the Conduct of their programs through the selection, acquisition, and effective utilization of automatic data processing equipment; and serves as the principal focus within

the executive branch for the development of Federal standards for automatic data processing

equipment, techniques, and computer languages. The Institute consists of the following

divisions: Computer Services — Systems and Software — Computer Systems Engineering — Information Technology.

THE OFFICE FOR INFORMATION PROGRAMS promotes optimum dissemination and

accessibility of scientific information generated within NBS and other agencies of the Federal Government; promotes the development of the National Standard Reference Data System and

a system of information analysis centers dealing with the broader aspects of the National Measurement System; provides appropriate services to ensure that the NBS staff has optimum

accessibility to the scientific information of the world. The Office consists of the following

organizational units: Office of Standard Reference Data — Office of Information Activities — Office of Technical

Publications — Library — Office of International Relations.

x Headquarters and Laboratories at Gaithersburg, Maryland, unless otherwise noted; mailing address Washington, D.C. 20234.

2 Part of the Center for Radiation Research.

3 Located at Boulder, Colorado 80302.

* Part of the Center for Building Technology.
755 A Survey for the Collection of

•^' Professional Opinion on Selected

* Fire Protection Engineering Topics

Gregory A. Harrison and James L. Houser

Center for Fire Research

Institute for Applied Technology

[/(,$- National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

"TefiU^'d&J n^+e no- ti&\

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Frederick B. Dent, Secretary

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Richard W. Roberts, Director

Issued March 1975
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 75-600001

National Bureau of Standards Technical Note 861

Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), Tech. Note 861, 30 pages (March 1975) CODEN: NBTNAE

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON: 1975

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 (Order by SD Catalog No. C13.46:861). Price 80 cents.
Contents

Page

1. SURVEY PROCEDURE 1

2. SURVEY LIMITATIONS 2

3. INTRODUCTION 2

4. GENERAL DISCUSSIONS 3

5

.

SURVEY RESULTS . . 4

6. SYNOPSIS OF NARATIVE COMMENTS 14

6.1. Building Interior Contents 14

6.2. Code Regulation and Enforcement 15

6.3. Fuel Load Concept 15

6.4. Noncombustibility Definition 15

6.5. Sprinklers and Detectors . 16

6.6. High-Rise Buildings 16

6.7. Smoke and Toxic Gases 17

APPENDIX 18

in

A SURVEY FOR THE COLLECTION OF PROFESSIONAL OPINION

ON SELECTED FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEERING TOPICS

Gregory A. Harrison

National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C.

and

James L. Houser

Gypsum Association, Chicago, Illinois

A questionnaire survey on selected fire protection

engineering topics was sent to 422 persons from every state

and major city in the United States and, also, parts of

Canada. The surveyed included architects, engineers, insurance and government representatives, academics, and fire

services personnel. One hundred and eighty six questionnaires

were returned, a 46.2% return rate. This return rate is

more than double the National average on survey returns.

The questionnaire covered topics such as the adequacy of the

term "noncombustible" as contained in the National Fire

Protection Association's National Fire Code, hazards of fire

loading concepts, code regulation and enforcement, furnishings, sprinkler systems and smoke detectors. In addition to

the questionnaire data, many of the surveyed took the time

to write in various unsolicited comments.

Although this survey does not represent a statistical

study approach, it is the best effort to date to gather and

document the current professional thinking on fire protection

matters. When the data permitted, obvious and significant

group thought ideas and patterns are documented. The objective of this survey is to collect and document professional

opinions on selected fire protection engineering topics for

the purpose of determining current professional thinking, and

indications of future trends of thought.

Key words: Building construction; detectors; flame spread;

furnishings; interior finishes; noncombustible; smoke development; sprinklers; survey.

1. SURVEY PROCEDURE

A questionnaire was prepared and sent to 422 selected persons from

every state and major city in the United States and parts of Canada. The

returned questionnaires were first categorized according to group specialties, e.g., architect, fire service, insurance, etc. The questionnaire

data was then tabulated into tables for display and analysis purposes.

Finally, the results were formally recorded.
2. SURVEY LIMITATIONS

A survey involves communication and full communication occurs only

when one person receives both the same intellectual message and the same emotion that the other person sent and felt. Although it is not necessary

for the "receiver" to agree with the message content, it is necessary for

him to understand the total message meaning. 1 Hence, an inherent survey

limitation is whether or not the surveyed really understood the message of

a particular question. It can not be ascertained how serious this limitar

tion is, but its existance is acknowledged.

Another possible survey limitation is the lack of common premise on which the questions were answered. For example, it is possible that some code officials and architects, may have responded to certain questions with

code restrictions in mind, whereas, an academic or fire service individual

may have responded with the idea in mind that "this is what I would like to see done." Specifically, perhaps the building code official may wish to

favor a fire load concept with regards to furnishings, but responds negatively because he does not do so in reality.

Other sources of acknowledged error include semantics, inferred

meanings, and individual biases toward selected fire protection systems

and/or hazards.

In spite of certain inherent weaknesses, it is felt that the results

of this survey reflect the thinking and thought patterns of a significant

number of professionals in the field of fire protection and fire safety.

Although this survey does not reflect an in-depth study on a statistically

valid approach, it does represent the best effort to date to collect,

analyze and interpret the collective thinking of a large number of professionals. The survey did produce results that illustrated that there exists

well defined chains of thought with consistent patterns. Where possible,

these are identified.

3 . INTRODUCTION

There has been a growing awareness in the fire protection profession

of the problems associated with the use of the three-part definition of the

term "noncombustible" as contained in the National Fire Protection Association's National Fire Code. The BOCA Basic Building Code, the Southern

Standard Building Code and the American Insurance Association National

Building Code uses this three part definition. The ICBO Uniform Building

Code incorporates only the first two parts of the three part definition.

It is becoming increasingly evident that virtually every segment of

the construction, regulatory and fire service concerns are questioning the

adequacy of the aforementioned definition that uses a test for "surface

burning characteristics" (flame spread) to describe noncombustibility.

Newman, W. H. , Summer, C. E. and Warren, E. K. , The Process of Management,

3rd Ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1972.

2
Flame spread, it is reasoned, while certainly a significant factor in the

buildup of a fire, is only one parameter associated with the relevant fire

hazard of construction materials that should be accessed. Should not the

definition include factors such as the ease with which a material will

ignite or the rate of its heat release? How severe is the production of

smoke and toxic products? Should the current level of fire resistance, be

increasing or traded off for detection and suppression systems? Can our codes be changed to performance criteria based on a concept of total fire

load? Should the manufacturing of furnishings be regulated?

We solicited answers to these and other questions from more than 400

persons with fire expertise. The response was a significant 46.2%, which

is moire than double the National average on survey returns.

The sensitivity of certain subjects was quite evident from the various

written-in comments. Out of 186 responses, 136 used this opportunity to

express themselves with candor on many topics related to fire protection.

Some were critical of the survey; others applauded the survey's intent.

The majority of unsolicited comments voiced genuine concerns, many of which

were unique. A synopsis of the written comments is contained in a separate

section of this report.

4. GENERAL DISCUSSION

The questionnaire, in its original form, is contained in the Appendix.

For purposes of data presentation and brevity, the original questionnaire

questions have been reworded to capture their intent or focus and to,

hopefully, afford a readable format to the presentation of the survey

results. It should be noted that certain questions have been deleted from

the compilation of the results because of either insufficient response to same or because the question required a written-in response which is presented in another section of the report.

Analysis of' this survey required working with more than 10,000 bits of

data.

Table 1

Total Effective Total %

Group Sent Distribution Returned Returned

Academic (A)

Building Official (B)

General Interest (Gl)

Fire Service (FS)

Federal Government (GOV)

Insurance (I)

Architech/Engineer (A/E)

Total

17 14 8 57.1

47 47 28 59.4

49 43 22 51.2

234 234 101 43.2

11 11 4 36.4

14 12 5 41.7

50 42 19 45.2

422 403 187 46.2
5. SURVEY RESULTS

The results of the survey are as follows

2

Question l.A

Data:

Comments

Do you use the three part definition of "noncombustibility"

as found in the NFPA National Fire Codes (1972-1973)

Vol. 4, Section 220?

B GI FS GOV A/E

Yes 2 5 12 56 1 2 10

No 4 23 8 32 2 3 5

Total

88

77

Although approximately 50% of the total respondents

indicated that they did not use this definition, it is

interesting to note that only five building officials out

of twenty-eight utilized the definition.

Question 3 Do you consider the definition- adequate?

Data: A B GI FS GOV I A/

Yes 11 5 57 1 1 8

No 7 17 11 29 3 4 7

Total

83

78

Comments: On a total response basis, 50% accept the definition

as being adequate. An examination of the academic,

government, insurance, general interest and building

official returns show that two-thirds of them do not

think that the definition is adequate.

Question 4

Data:

In your evaluations of building constructions, do you

relate fire load to fire hazard?

B GI FS GOV A/E Total

Yes 7 10 13 70 4 4 10 118

No 17 4 22 1 8 52

Comments: An overall ratio considers fuel load in evaluating

fire hazard of building construction. The majority

of building code officials, however, did not. This

is to be expected as building codes do not address

themselves to the fuel load concept. The fire ser- vice response shows a 3:1 ratio indicating that the

fuel load is considered. Perhaps this should be more

significant in the thinking of others involved with

building fire protection.

2 In those instances where a specific question response sub-total does not

correlate with the total number of returned survey forms for that particular group, it may be assumed that certain individuals refrained from

responding to that question.
Question 5.

A

Data:

Comments:

Is fire load considered in building framing?

Yes

No

B

17

11

GI

13

5

FS

56

31

GOV

4

A/E

13

5

Total

113

55

An overall 2:1 ratio for this category illustrates

concern for fuel loading in building framing.

Question 5.B

Data:

Comments

Is fire load considered in interior finish materials?

Yes

No

B

16

12

GI

15

3

FS

81

11

GOV

4

A/E

10

8

Total

138

36

Reasonably enough, a high ratio of 4:1 indicated

significant concern over fire- load in interior

finishes. There is a tendency for the categories

of building code officials and architect/engineers

to conflict with the overall survey response. This

may be explained by the fact that building codes

do not evaluate interior finishes in terms of overall

fire load.

Question 5. C Is fire load considered in building rurnishings?

Data: A B GI FS GOV I A/E Tota

Yes 7 6 16 72 4 5 8 118

No 22 1 19 9 51

Comments

The over all ratio of 2:1 c<jmparei5 with question 5.

A

However, government, academic, and insurance responses

indicated more concern for furnishings, whereas,

building code officials and architects showed markedly

less concern. This may be because furnishings are

not regulated by building codes.

Question 6.E

Data:

Comments

Are flame spread ratings considered in your evaluation

of building interior finish materials?

B GI FS GOV A/E Total

Yes 7 28 19 94 4 5 17 174

No 1 1

As expected, this response showed the universal knowledge

that the parameter of interior flame spread is one of the

most important considerations in building fire safety.

5
Question 6.F

Data:

Are flame spread ratings considered in your evaluation

of building furnishings?

GI FS GOV A/E

Yes 4 6 8 63 2 3 10

No 3 21 7 29 2 2 8

Total

96

72

Comments: Although there appears to be an even division of the

total group opinion on this matter, contrast is evident

between the building code officials and the fire ser- vices response. This might be explained by the fact

that furnishing flame spread rates are not considered

from the building code view point, whereas, the fire

services response may possibly be indicating their

recognition of the furnishing fire hazard with flame

spread rates recognized as being a relative measurement

parameter thereof. Unfortunately, this question is

subject to being answered from more than one common premise

with several resultant inferred meanings.

Question 8.K Are smoke and toxic gases considered in building interior

finish materials?

Data: B GI FS GOV A/E

Yes 7 21 16 87 4 3 7 No 6 1 7 2 11

Total

145

27

Comments As before, a clear majority shows concern for smoke and

toxic gases. Any negative response is probably predicated

on requirements not in a formal building code.

Question 8.L

Data:

Are smoke and toxic gases considered in furnishings'

Yes

No

B

6

21

GI

13

2

FS

72

21

GOV

3

1

A/E

10

8

Total

114

55

Comments: An overall group ratio of 2:1 indicates that concern

exists for smoke and toxic gases in furnishings. It is

interesting to note the reverse trends of fire services

and building code officials.

Question 13 Are interior contents more hazardous than the building

construction materials?

Data: B GI FS GOV A/E Total

Yes 7 23 19 83 3 5 15 155

No 3 1 6

6

3 13
Comments: As expected a high group ratio of 12:1 thought that

interior contents are more hazardous than the building

construction materials. This response was prevalent

in all categories.

Question 14. A Do you favor stronger code regulations governing flame

spread rates on floors?

Data: A B GI FS GOV I A/E Total

104

18

48

Comments: An overall majority indicated that increased code regulation on flame spread rates on floors was desirable.

Building officials and architects were somewhat divided

and a significant number of respondents indicated that

the code was adequate now in this area.

Yes 3 12 9 66 2 5 7 No 3 3 3

• 5 4

A/N 3 1 11 6 22 1 7

Question 14.

A

Do you favor stronger code regulations governing flame

spread rates on walls? 2

Yes 5 11 10 66 3 5 6

No 2 3 3

A/N 15 7 26 9

Data: A B GI FS GOV I A/E Total

106

8

56

Comments: A 2:1 group ratio existed favoring increased code

regulation on flame spread rates on walls. The majority

of building officials said it was adequate now and

approximately 1/3 of the fire services group said it was adequate now. Fifty-six respondents out of the

168 responding indicated that the code was adequate

now.

Question 14. A Do you favor stronger code regulations governing flame

spread rates on ceilings?

Data: A B GI FS GOV I A/E Total

104

11

56

Comments: A group ratio of 2:1 favored increased code regulation

on ceiling flame spread rates. However, most building

officials felt that the code is adequate now.

Yes 5 10 11 65 3 5 5

No 2 1 5 3

A/N 16 5 25 10

3A/N refers to "adequate now".
Yes 4 4 5 40 3 2 No 2 4 4 10 2 6

A/N 1 18 8 37 1 2 10

Question 14. A, Do you favor stronger code regulations governing flame

spread rates on trim?

Data: A B GI FS GOV I A/E Total

58

28

77

Comments: A clear majority indicated that the building code is

adequate now for trim flame spread rates. Building

code officials, fire services, and architects appear

to be predominately satisfied with the code regulation.

Question 14. B- Do you favor stronger code regulations governing flammability/combustibility of furniture?

Data: A B GI FS GOV I A/E Total

Yes 6 24 18 91 3 5 15 162

No 1 2 1 1 5

A/N 4 2 6

Comments: An overwhelming support is in evidence for stronger

code regulation governing furniture flammability.

Question 14. B~ Do you favor stronger code regulations governing

flammability or combustibility of draperies?

Data: A B GI FS GOV I A/E Total

Yes 4 21 17 86 2 3 16 149

No 3 3 1 1 2 10

A/N 2 9 1 2 14

Comments: An obvious majority indicated that concern exists for

stronger code coverage of draperies.

Question 15. A Do you favor automatic door closers in apartment buildings?

Data: A B GI FS GOV I A/E Total

Yes 7 20 14 87 3 5 13 149

No 1 7 9 6 23

Comments: A ratio of 6:1 felt that automatic door closers is of

value in apartment buildings.
Question 15. A Do you favor automatic door closers in office buildings?

Data: A B GI FS GOV I A/E Total

Yes 6 19 14 69 1 3 13 125

No 1 10 7 27 1 - 2 6 54

Comments: The group response showed less concern for office

occupancies and a need for automatic door closers.

The ratio from 15. A was reduced to approximately 2:1.

Question 15. A_ Do you favor automatic door closers in high-rise

structures?

Data: A B GI FS GOV I A/E Total

Yes 7 22 17 92 1 4 13 156

No 7 4 4 1 1 6 23

Comments: A high group ratio of 6:1 responded in the affirmative.

Of interest here is that the mention of "high-rise"

seems to elicit a reaction for more stringent fire

safety requirements regardless of the occupancy.

Question 15. B Do you favor fire suppression systems in apartment

buildings?

Data: A B GI FS GOV I A/E Total

104

53

Comments: The group response was a clear majority for fire suppression

systems. However, the response of the insurance and

architect/engineer concerns differs sharply from the group

trend.

Question 15. B„ Do you favor fire suppression systems in office buildings?

Data: A B GI FS GOV I A/E Total

Yes 5 11 9 68 2 9

No 2 3 7 28 2 3 8

Yes 4 12 12 67 3 11 109

No 3 3 4 29 2 2 6 49

Comments: These results align closely with those of question 15. B.
Question 15. B Do you favor fire suppression systems in high-rise

buildings?

Data: A B GI FS GOV I A/E Total

Yes 6 20 11 91 2 4 17 157

No 1 1 5 5 1 13

Comments: The group responses were almost unanimous. It is

interesting to note the full support of architects

for fire suppression systems.

Question 15. B, Do you favor fire suppression systems in single family

residences?

Data: A B GI FS GOV I A/E Total

Yes 2 5 6 19 1 33

No 5 5 8 77 2 5 16 118

Comments: A clear majority is evident on this matter.

Question 15. C Do you favor smoke detectors in apartment buildings?

1

Data: A B GI FS GOV I A/E Total

Yes 6 15 11 65 3 1 11 112

No 1 3 10 31 4 6 55

Comments: It is of interest to note that categories "A", "B",

"FS", "GOV" and "A/E" basically agree with each other

with an opposing trend evident in cateogry "I" and "GI",

Question 15. C» Do you favor smoke detectors in office buildings?

Data: A B GI FS GOV I A/E Total

94

63

Comments: A lesser concern for smoke detectors in office buildings

exists.

Question 15. C„ Do you favor smoke detectors in high-rise buildings?

Data: A B GI FS GOV I A/E Total

Yes 4 11 10 59 1 9

No 3 4 5 37 2 4 8

Yes 5 15 12 66 1 11 110

No 2 3 3 30 1 5 6 50

10
Comments: In general, group concern for high-rise smoke detectors

compared favorably with data in question 15. C.

.

Question 15. C, Do you favor smoke detectors in single family residences'

Data: A B GI FS GOV I A/E Total

Yes 6 16 8 50 3 2 8 93

No 1 3 7 46 3 9 69

Comments: Only a 3:2 ratio exits. Somewhat surprizing was the

lack of support by the fire services for home smoke

detectors. Strong support is in evidence by the

academic, building code officials and government

categories.

Question 15. D Do you favor product of combustion detectors in

apartments?

Data: A B GI FS GOV I A/E Total

Yes 5 20 11 78 1 4 10 129

No 2 1 3 18 1 1 7 33

Comments: Of interest here is that, although the group response

is similar to that for question 15. C- , the insurance

category response is an exact reversal.

Question 15. D„ Do you favor products of combustion detectors in office

buildings?

Data: A B GI FS GOV I A/E Total

Yes 5 17 10 72 4 11 119

No 2 1 4 24 2 1 6 40

Comments: Again, when compared to question 15. Co, the insurance

category responded with a complete reverse trend. Also,

in general, the overall response was more positive than

that for question 15. C~.

Question 15. D Do you favor product of combustion detectors in highrises?

Data: A B GI FS GOV I A/E Total

Yes 6 21 13 84 2 13 139

No 1 1 2 12 2 3 4 25

11
Comments: Compared to question 15. C, a larger number of

respondents indicated preference for products of

combustion detectors. However, a reverse trend is

evident in the government category.

Question 15. D, Do you favor products of combustion detectors in single

family residences?

Data: A B GI FS GOV I A/E Total

Yes 7 19 9 59 1 4 6 105

No 1 6 37 1 1 11 57

Comments: Same general response as contained in question 15. C,.

Question 15. E Do you favor elevator recall systems in apartments?

Data: A B GI FS GOV I A/E Total

Yes 3 12 13 63 1 3 11 106

No 4 2 3 33 2 2 6 52

Comments: With the exception of a trend in the government and

academic categories, the majority favored elevator

recall systems.

Question 15. E» Do you favor elevators recall systems in offices?

Data: A B GI FS GOV I A/E Total

Yes 3 15 15 67 1 3 11 125

No 4 1 1 29 2 2 6 45

Comments: These results are consistent with those of question 15. E...

Question 15. E Do you favor elevator recall systems in high-rises?

Data: A B GI FS GOV I A/E Total

Yes 6 23 16 86 3 5 16 155

No 1 1 1 10 1 1 15

Comments: The influence of the term "high-rise", is, again,

obvious. The inferred logic as evidenced by the above

data does not correlate with the logic of the data for

questions 15. E.. and 15. E .

12
Question 15. F Do you favor pressurized corridors and stairs in

Data: A B GI FS GOV I A/E Total

apartments?

A B GI FS GOV I A/

Yes 3 11 9 62 1 6

No 4 4 6 34 2 5 11

92

66

Comments: A 3:2 group ratio exists for favoring pressurized

stairs and corridors in apartments. Reasonable support

is in evidence in the fire service and building

officials categories. The insurance response appears

to support a negative trend toward same.

Question 15. F~ Do you favor pressurized corridors and stairs in

offices?

Data: A B GI FS GOV I A/E Total

Yes 3 10 12 63 1 7 96

No 4 4 4 33 2 5 10 62

high-rises?

A B GI FS GOV I A/E Tota

Yes 6 20 13 86 1 4 12 142

No 1 2 3 10 2 1 5 24

Comments: Most consistent with results in question 15. F.

.

Question 15. F.. Do you favor pressurized corridors and stairs in

Data:

Comments: With high-rises being considered the turn around is

obvious with a resulting 6:1 ratio favoring pressurized

stairs and corridors.

Although no formal presentation of data is given for questions 9, 11

and 12, certain overall group trends or tendencies for central values were

observable that are noted as follows . **

1. Concern for fire load created by furnishings received greater

emphasis when compared to building framing and interior finish.

2. Flame spread ratings of interior finish materials was thought to

be the prime fire hazard concern.

3. Smoke and toxic gases were thought to be important for both

interior finish materials and furnishings.

TfMany respondents left these questions blank and an analysis of the data

available suggested that some respondents used a reversed numbering

scheme than that directed by the survey question, e.g., 10 being the least

hazardous instead of being the greatest.

13
4. The group response indicated that the location of interior finish

materials on the ceiling represented a greater fire hazard than

either on the floor or walls.

5. Gypsum ceilings were rated as being superior to cellulosic and

noncombustible ceiling tile with respect to fire hazard potential.

6. SYNOPSIS OF NARRATIVE COMMENTS

Of special interest and importance in tabulating the returned survey

questionnaires was that out of 186 questionnaires returned, 136 respondents

took the time to write in comments expressing their thoughts on a number

of topics relevant to fire protection. Most of these comments could be

generally categorized as being concerned with:

1. building interior contents, e.g., furniture

2. code regulation and enforcement

3. fuel load concept

4. the adequacy of the noncombustibility definition

5. sprinklers and smoke detection

6. high-rise buildings

7. smoke and toxic gas production in building fires

Because of the volume and consistancy associated with the written

comments, it is felt that they are worth recapitulating as being partially

representative of the current thinking of persons charged with fire protection responsibilities. Although a synopsis of the comments runs the

risk of being viewed as statistically invalid, there existed well defined

chains of thought suitable for discussion as follows.

6.1. Building Interior Contents

In addition to the overwhelming positive response (155 to 13) to

question 13 of the survey, which compared the fire. hazard associated with

interior contents versus that of the building structural materials, a significant number of participants additionally indicated in writing that

interior contents represent the primary building fire hazard and need to be

controlled. Of special concern were the observations (especially by Fire

Marshalls) of the increase in the use of and unfavorable fire experience

associated with, plastic furniture and decor items. Although interior

contents were well recognized as being in need of control, the mechanism of

control was left open for discussion. However, the clear majority favored

14
public education and product fire safety standards as a control mechanism

in lieu of traditional building code requirements. Although, some respondents suggested that interior contents be controlled by building code regulations, unaminous agreement existed that the enforcement of such regulations would be difficult to impossible and definitely not practical.

6.2. Code Regulation and Enforcement

The concensus of the respondents was that todays building codes are adequate, but are in need of an active updating mechanism at the local

level, that is, in fact, carried out prior to unfavorable fire experience.

Also, it was stated by many that present code enforcement is far too lax or weak and that some sections of code regulations were not practical from an enforcement viewpoint. Several architects noted that the codes lacked

coverage with regards to building maintenance and operation and that they

felt this was a major factor in building fire experience. An examination

of these survey forms, also revealed that these same respondents also indicated that interior contents were the major fire hazard. Several respondents

supported the need for a single nation-wide model code.

6.3. Fuel Load Concept

The survey questions pertaining to the fuel load concept were deleted

from the analysis process because of a general lack of response. This

absence of a- survey response, coupled with the written comments provides a good indication that there is a lack of understanding and/or widespread

resistance to the acceptance of the fuel load concept. Basically, the

survey showed that the fuel load concept is not at all understood or accepted

by the majority of respondents..

6.4. Noncombustibility Definition

The written responses regarding the adequacy of the survey definition

for noncombustibility were most consistent. The survey was circulated

prior to the suggested changes by American Insurance Association (AIA)

using "limited combustibility" and currently being balloted as a tentative

change in NFPA. The most cited inadequacies of the current definition

include:

1. The noncombustibility definition, as worded, allows the use of

certain plastic materials with a flame spread less than or equal

to 25. This is unacceptable because of the melt/drip phenomenon,

heat release potential and toxic gas and smoke production potential,

2. The absence of criteria in the noncombustibility definition

governing the production of smoke and toxic gases.

15
3. Incorrect grammar and cumbersome readability.

4. ASTM E-84 is not a proper test method or tool for evaluating

noncombustibility.

5. Materials which may satisfy the definition were, in fact,

combustible as viewed from a practical viewpoint and with

respect to relevant fire experience.

•Along with the above cited deficiencies were suggestions for improvement. Most notable were the number of respondents (greater than 30) who

stated that the ASTM E-84 test method was not being used properly with

respect to the noncombustible definition and that it should be replaced by

ASTM E-136. Also, a repetition of thought occurred whereby it was indicated

that for a material to qualify as being noncombustible, it should not burn

or glow at a temperature equal to or less than 1,200°F. One comment

stated that a complete dictionary of terms was needed for those engaged

in the many facets of the fire protection profession to help ensure efficient and accurate communication.

In essence, the respondents indicated that to be classed as non- combustible, a material should perform under fire conditions like masonry

or concrete. It was commonly expressed that a better way to approach the

problem was to utilize the concept of heat potential with additional criteria regarding smoke and toxic gas production.

6.5. Sprinklers and Detectors

Many favorable comments, mostly by fire marshals, were written on

the merits of quick, automatic fire/smoke detection and extinguishment,

e.g., smoke detectors and sprinklers. The dominant theme repeated often

was that automatic sprinklers should be required for high-rise buildings

and nursing homes regardless of construction. In cases where automatic

sprinklers were installed, it was generally acknolwedged that code tradeoffs e.g., interior finish requirements, should be encouraged to help

create economic incentives for installing automatic sprinklers.

Smoke detection equipment capability was recognized as being highly

beneficial, but cost factors were identified as being the primary reason

for not installing same. Of secondary importance for not installing

smoke detectors was the fear of creating apathy for the smoke detection

warnings because of an unreasonable number of false alarms.

6.6. High-Rise Buildings

The high-rise fire problem was cited as being the "now" fire problem.

The various comments carried a central design philosophy recommendation at

its core for high-rise buildings. The suggested design criteria "package"

for high-rise buildings contained, as a minimum, the following:

16
1. Automatic sprinklers

2. Smoke or products-of-combustion detectors

3. Pressurized corridors and stairways

4. Emergency power

5. Central Communications center

A particular high-rise problem mentioned frequently was that concerning

vinyl wall coverings and other plastic decor and furnishings.

6.7. Smoke and Toxic Gases

A large number of the written comments indicated a concern for the

smoke and toxic gas production potential associated with building fires,

particularly in regards to interior eontents and plastic materials. The

overall collective essence of all the comments pertaining to smoke and

toxic gas production potential of materials was that this problem was not

being solved or dealt with in the field and that the production of smoke

and toxic gases posed the greatest threat to life safety in building fires

Many suggested that smoke and toxic gas production potential be tied in

with the definition of noncombustible which would then discourage certain

undesirable materials in new construction.

17
APPENDIX

18
To: Mr. J. L. Houser

National Bureau of Standards

Technical B"66

Washington, D.C. 2023*f

Printed below is the "Definition of Noncombustibi 1 i ty" as found

in National Fire Protection Associations, National Fire Code,

1972-73, Volume k, Section 220. It is this definition which is

referred to in the questions that follow.

"Classification of building types refers to the use of

noncombustible material or noncombustible construction,

material which, in the form in which it is used, falls

in one of the following groups (a) through (c) be accepted.

No material shall be classed as noncombustible which is subject to increase in combustibility or flame spread

rating beyond the limits herein established, through

the effects of age, moisture or other atmospheric condition. Flame spread rating as used herein refers to ratings obtained according to the Method of Test of Surface

Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, NFPA No. 255; Underwriters' Laboratories No. UL 723; American

Socity of Testing and Materials, ASTM No. E84, tentative.

(a) Materials no part of which will ignite and burn

when subjected to fire.

(b) Materials having a structural base of noncombustible

material, as defined in (a), with a surfacing not over

1/8 inch thick which has a flame spread rating not

higher than 50.

(c) Materials, other than as described in (a) or (b)

,

having a surface flame spread rating not higher

than 25 without evidence of continued progressive

combustion and of such composition that surfaces

that would be exposed by cutting through the material

in any way would not have a flame spread rating

higher than 25 without evidence of continued progressive combustion."

1. (A) We use the above definition without change - Yes_ No_

(B) We use the above definition except for part(s) (a) (b) (c)

(C) If you do not use the NFPA definition, on what basis do

you determine noncombusti bi 1 i ty?

19
2. Do you apply the definition when evaluating material to be

used in the following constructions?

Not

Yes No Appl i cable

(A) 'Type I Fire Proof

(B) Type II Fire Resistant

(C) Type 111 Protected Combustible

or Heavy Timber

(D) Type IV Noncombustible

(E) Type V Ordinary

(F) Type VI Wood Frame

3. Do you consider the defini ti on adequate?

If not, how would you alter or improve the definition?

20
A "FIRE LOAD" of building constructions and contents is

defined as the quantity of combustible material expressed

in its equivalent weight in wood, as pounds per square

foot of the gross space.

Yes No

k. In your evaluations of building constructions, do you

relate fire load to fire hazard?

5. Are you concerned with the total fire load in:

A. Building Framing

B. Interior finish materials

C. Furnishings

6. Are flame spread ratings considered when you

evaluate:

D. Building Framing

E. Interior finish materials

F. Furnishings

7. Are heat release or "flash" points of concern in:

6. Building Framing

H. Interior finish materials ___

I . Furnishings

8. Are smoke and toxic gas considered in:

J. Bui ldi ng Framing

K. Interior finish materials

L. Furnishings

21
9. Using a scale of 1 as the least and 10 as the greatest in

degree of importance, evaluate items A. through L. in

questions k through 8 (see page 3) as they apply to the

hazards of a construction.

(Note: All could be 10 or 1 or any other 'number in between.)

A. E. I

.

B.__ F. J.

C. G. K._

D. H. L.

10. Assuming that one hour of fire resistance is necessary for

each 10 pounds per square foot of fire load, what would you

consider as a reasonable maximum al lowable fire load per sq.

ft. of occupied space that should be permitted in the following:

Structure Contents

A. Office Buildings, up to 75 feet*

B. Office Buildings, 75 .feet or more

C. Apartment Dwel lings, up to 75 feet

D. Apartment Dwellings, 75 feet or more

E. Mercantile Occupancies, 75 feet or less

F. Garden type Apartments, 50 feet or less

G. Town or Row Houses (connected single

family dwelling units)

H. Detached single family dwellings

I. Public places of assembly such as theaters, night clubs, auditoriums,

etc.

p S f ps f

*75 feet in height, accessible by fire service apparatus, is being used

here to differentiate between mid-rise and high-rise buildings.

22

PSf psf

PSf PSf

PSf PSf

psf PSf

; psf PSf

> psf psf

PSf PSf

psf PSf
U. Please rate on a scale of 1 as the least hazardous and 10 as

the highest, the following categories that you consider to be

potential serious fire hazards.

A. Furnishings B. Interial finish materials

I. on floors 5. on floors

2. in closets 6. on walls

3. in storage rooms 7. on ceilings_

k. Other 8. Other

12. With regard to life safety, using 1 as the least hazardous

classification and 10 as the highest, please rate the following

with regard to life safety:

A. Floor coverings

1. Carpeting

2. Wood

3. Other

B. Wall coverings

1. Vinyl

2. Paper

3. Paneling

k. Paint

C. Ceilings

1 . Gypsum

2. Cel lulosic tile

3. Noncombustible tile

Yes No

13. Do you consider the interior contents more hazardous

than the building construction materials?

23
14. As a means to reduce, if not eliminate present day hazards,

would you favor stronger code regulations governing:

Yes No Adequate now

A. Interior flame spread:

1. on floors

2. on walls

3. on ceilings

4. on trim

B. Flammability/combustibility of:

1. furniture

2. draperies

15. Do you favor mandatory requirements in the structures indicated

for the equipment listed?12 3 4

Single

Family

Apts Offices High-Rise Residence

A. Automatic door closers

B. Fire suppression systems

C. Smoke Detectors

D. Products of Combustion Detectors

E. Elevator recall system

F. Pressurized corridors

and stairs

24
We would appreciate any general or specific comments with

reference to any questions listed.

SIGNED

TITLE

CITY

STATE

1 Please send a report when data has been compiled.

25
NBS-114A (REV. 7-73)

U.S. DEPT. OF COMM. BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET

1. PUBLICATION OR REPORT NO. NBS TN-8612. Gov't Accessic

No.

3. Recipient's Accession No.

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

A SURVEY FOR THE COLLECTION OF PROFESSIONAL OPINION

ON SELECTED FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEERING TOPICS

5. Publication Date

6. Performing Organization Code

7. AUTHOR(S)

Gregory A. Harrison and James L. Houser

8. Performing Organ. Report No.

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION .NAME AND ADDRESS

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

10. Project/Task/Work Unit No. 4903285

11. Contract/Grant No.

12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Complete Address (Street, City, State, ZIP)

same as No. 9

13. Type of Report & Period Covered

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

16. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or lese factual summary of most significant information. If document includes a significant bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.) A questionnaire survey on selected fire protection engineering topics was sent

to 422 persons from every state and major city in the United States and, also, parts

of Canada. The surveyed included architects, engineers, insurance and government representatives, academics, and fire services personnel. One hundred and eighty six

questionnaires were returned, a 46.2% return rate. This return rate is more than

double the National average on survey returns. The questionnaire covered topics such

as the adequacy of the term "noncombustible" as contained in the National Fire Protection Association's National Fire Code, hazards of fire loading concepts, code

regulation and enforcement, furnishings, sprinkler systems and smoke detectors. In

addition to the questionnaire data, many of the surveyed took the time to write in

various unsolicited comments.

Although this survey does not represent a statistical study approach, it is the

best effort to date to gather and document the current professional thinking on fire

protection matters. When the data permitted, obvious and significant group thought ide^s

and patterns are documented. The objective of this survey is to collect and document

professional opinions on selected fire protection engineering topics for the purpose

of determining current professional thinking, and indications of future trends of

thought

.

17. KEY WORDS (six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only the first letter of the first key word unless a proper name; separated -hy semicolons) Building construction; detectors; flame spread; furnishings;

interior finishes; noncombustible; smoke development; sprinklers; survey.

18. AVAILABILITY (^Unlimited

2 For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS H Order From Sup. of Doc, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402, SD Cat. No. CH

_] Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS)

Springfield, Virginia 22151

19. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

UNCLASSIFIED

20. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS PAGE)

UNCLASSIFIED

21. NO. OF PAGES

30

22. Price

80 cents

UBCOMM-DC 29042-P74
NBS TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS

PERIODICALS JOURNAL OF RESEARCH reports National Bureau

of Standards research and development in physics,

mathematics, and chemistry. It is published in two sections, available separately:

• Physics and Chemistry (Section A)

Papers of interest primarily to scientists working in these fields. This section covers a broad range of physical and chemical research, with major emphasis on

standards of physical measurement, fundamental constants, and properties of matter. Issued six times a

year. Annual subscription: Domestic, $17.00; Foreign,

$21.25.

• Mathematical Sciences (Section B)

Studies and compilations designed mainly for the mathematician and theoretical physicist. Topics in mathematical statistics, theory of experiment design, numerical analysis, theoretical physics and chemistry, logical design and programming of computers and computer

systems. Short numerical tables. Issued quarterly. Annual subscription: Domestic, $9.00; Foreign, $11.25. DIMENSIONS/NBS (formerly Technical News Bulletin) —This monthly magazine is published to inform

scientists, engineers, businessmen, industry, teachers,

students, and consumers of the latest advances in science and technology, with primary emphasis on the work at NBS. The magazine highlights and reviews such

issues as energy research, fire protection, building tech- nology, metric conversion, pollution abatement, health and safety, and consumer product performance. In addition, it reports the results of Bureau programs in measurement standards and techniques, properties of matter and materials, engineering standards and services, instrumentation, and automatic data processing. Annual subscription: Domestic, $9.45; Foreign, $11.85.

NONPERIODICALS

Monographs—Major contributions to the technical liter- ature on various subjects related to the Bureau's scientific and technical activities. Handbooks—Recommended codes of engineering and

industrial practice (including safety codes) developed

in cooperation with interested industries, professional

organizations, and regulatory bodies.

Special Publications—Include proceedings of confer- ences sponsored by NBS, NBS annual reports, and other

special publications appropriate to this grouping such

as wall charts, pocket cards, and bibliographies.

Applied Mathematics Series—Mathematical tables, manuals, and studies of special interest to physicists, engineers, chemists, biologists, mathematicians, computer programmers, and others engaged in scientific and technical work.

National Standard Reference Data Series—Provides

quantitative data on the physical and chemical properties of materials, compiled from the world's literature and critically evaluated. Developed under a world-wide

program coordinated by NBS. Program under authority

of National Standard Data Act (Public Law 90-396). NOTE: At present the principal publication outlet for

these data is the Journal of Physical and Chemical

Reference Data (JPCRD) published quarterly for NBS

by the American Chemical Society (ACS) and the American Institute of Physics (AIP). Subscriptions, reprints, and supplements available from ACS, 1155 Sixteenth

St. N. W., Wash. D. C. 20056.

Building Science Series—Disseminates technical infor- mation developed at the Bureau on building materials, components, systems, and whole structures. The series presents research results, test methods, and performance criteria related to the structural and environmental functions and the durability and safety characteristics of building elefnents and systems.

Technical Notes—Studies or reports which are complete

in themselves but restrictive in their treatment of a

subject. Analogous to monographs but not so comprehensive in scope or definitive in treatment of the subject area. Often serve as a vehicle for final reports of work performed at NBS under the sponsorship of other government agencies.

Voluntary Product Standards—Developed under pro- cedures published by the Department of Commerce in Part 10, Title 15, of the Code of Federal Regulations.

The purpose of the standards is to establish nationally

recognized requirements for products, and to provide

all concerned interests with a basis for common under- standing of the characteristics of the products. NBS

administers this program as a supplement to the activities of the private sector standardizing organizations. Federal Information Processing Standards Publications (FIPS PUBS)—Publications in this series collectively constitute the Federal Information Processing Standards Register. Register serves as the official source of information in the Federal Government regarding stand- ards issued by NBS pursuant to the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 as amended,

Public Law 89-306 (79 Stat. 1127), and as implemented

by Executive Order 11717 (38 FR 12315, dated May 11, 1973) and Part 6 of Title 15 CFR (Code of Federal

Regulations). Consumer Information Series—Practical information, based on NBS research and experience, covering areas

of interest to the consumer. Easily understandable language and illustrations provide useful background

knowledge for shopping in today's technological

marketplace.

NBS Interagency Reports (NBSIR)—A special series of interim or final reports on work performed by NBS for

outside sponsors (both government and non-government). In general, initial distribution is handled by the

sponsor; public distribution is by the National Technical Information Service (Springfield, Va. 22161) in paper

copy or microfiche form.

Order NBS publications (except NBSIR's and Biblio- graphic Subscription Services) from: Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington,

D.C. 20402. BIBLIOGRAPHIC SUBSCRIPTION SERVICES

The following current-awareness and literature-survey

bibliographies are issued periodically by the Bureau:

Cryogenic Data Center Current Awareness Service A literature survey issued weekly. Annual subscription: Domestic, $20.00; foreign, $25.00.

Liquefied Natural Gas. A literature survey issued quarterly. Annual subscription: $20.00. Superconducting Devices and Materials. A literature

survey issued quarterly. Annual subscription: $20.00. Send subscription orders and remittances for the pre- ceding bibliographic services to National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va. 22161.

Electromagnetic Metrology Current Awareness Service Issued monthly. Annual subscription: $100.00 (Special rates for multi-subscriptions). Send subscription order and remittance to Electromagnetics Division, National Bureau of Standards, Boulder, Colo. 80302.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

Washington. D.C. 20234

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

Penalty for Private Use. $300

POSTAGE AND FEES PAID

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE COM-215

Fourth Class Mail

7^e-iBi6