NBS

PUBLICATIONS

NBSIR 86-3404

A 11 ID 2 L1L3D2

NATL INST OF STANDARDS & TECH R.I.C.

All 10261 6302

Nelson, Harold E/Fire safety evaluation QC100 .U56 NO. 86-3404 1986 VI 9 C.1 NBS-P

afety Evaluation System for

Office/Laboratory Buildings

H. E. Nelson

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

National Engineering Laboratory

Center for Fire Research

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

November 1986

Sponsored by:

QC National Aeronautics and Space Administration

jqq Washington, DC

.1156

#86-3404

1986

C • 2

NBS

RESEARCH

INFORMATION CENTER NBSIR 86-3404

FIRE SAFETY EVALUATION SYSTEM FOR

NASA OFFICE/LABORATORY BUILDINGS

info:

H. E. Nelson

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

National Engineering Laboratory

Center for Fire Research

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

November 1986

Sponsored by:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Washington, DC

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

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS. Ernest Ambler. Director

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Pa&e

Abstract 1

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AND RATIONAL 3

3. ADDITIONAL ANALYTICAL GUIDANCE 7

4. CONCLUDING REMARKS 9

5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 11

6. REFERENCES 12

APPENDIX A. NBS REPORTS ON PREVIOUS SYSTEMS 13

APPENDIX B. FIRE SAFETY EVALUATION SYSTEM FOR OFFICE/LABORATORY

BUILDINGS 14

FIRE SAFETY EVALUATION SYSTEM FOR NASA OFFICE/LABORATORY BUILDINGS

H.E. Nelson

Abstract

A fire safety evaluation system for office/laboratory

buildings is developed. The system is a life safety grading

system. The system scores building construction, hazardous areas,

vertical openings, sprinklers, detectors, alarms, interior finish,

smoke control, exit systems, compartmentation, and emergency

preparedness

Keywords: risk assessment, fire safety evaluation system,

office buildings, laboratories.

1 . INTRODUCTION

This project was undertaken at the request of the National Aeronautics

and Space Administration (NASA) . NASA requested assistance from the Center

for Fire Research (CFR) of the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) in the

development of a method to appraise the relative level of life safety from

fire in existing NASA office or combination office/laboratory buildings. NASA

desires means of comparing fire-safe conditions in office and combination

office/laboratory buildings with NASA safety objectives and criteria.

NASA uses the Life Safety Code (National Fire Protection Association

Standards No. 101) as modified by internal NASA design and safety publications

1
as its stated criteria. The existing building inventory and the operational

needs and functions of NASA, however, frequently conflict with the explicit

application of the NASA criteria. This results in a need to consider

alternative solutions that involve deviations from the established NASA

criteria and a need to determine the safety suitability of these alternatives.

The responsibility for determining the impact of a deviation or alternative

approach on NASA safety objectives rests with the NASA Division of Safety.

NBS recommended a two-phase program. Phase I has been completed. This

is the report of that phase. Phase I consisted of the development of an

evaluation system through the combined professional judgment of fire safety

experts from NASA and NBS. The project has involved close coordination

between NASA and NBS. In the process, NASA maintained all decision authority

on the level of safety appropriate for NASA. NBS concentrated on the

technical measurement of the relative level of risk in existing buildings or

design proposals to the given NASA objectives.

2
2.

DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AND RATIONAL

Phase I consisted of seven individual activities as follows:

1. Site visits

2. Establishment of parameters and variables for an evaluation system

3. Initial evaluation of relative impact of parameters and variables

4. NASA professional peer evaluation

5. NASA field evaluation

6. Iterations

7 . Report

NBS fire protection engineers visited the Lewis, Johnson, and Langley

centers. These visits were made in the company of NASA safety

representatives. Office and combination office and laboratory and other

buildings were reviewed at each site. The basic types of deficiencies,

problems, and needs were identified. In general, the following overall

conclusions were reached:

a. Most NASA buildings are of a substantial construction in terms of

framing and floor construction.

b. Most are relatively low rise (1 to 4 stories). The exceptions are

generally office buildings that do not contain laboratories.

3
c. Open stairways that could allow the rapid propagation of smoke are

common in many of the lower rise buildings.

d. Many of the buildings have a variety of laboratories having a wide

range of potential fire hazards. Most of the laboratories have

doors opening directly on the paths of travel that would be used

by persons attempting to leave the building in time of emergency.

e. Most buildings have manual fire alarms that report directly to a

facility fire department.

f. Relatively few of the buildings visited have early warning alarms,

and sprinkler protection is generally present only in cases of

combustible construction or critical operations such as essential

computer facilities.

g. Most of the occupants of the buildings have general familiarity

with the entire building or at least all possible exit routes that

might be of importance to them.

Following the site visits, discussions with the project leadership

concluded that the primary scope of the project was safety to life

considerations for occupants of these buildings in case of fire. It was also

decided that the basic standard of performance would be that presently

delivered by explicit compliance with NASA standards. It was also understood

4
that any evaluation system developed should be capable of having its criteria

changed by NASA if NASA should desire to adjust its standards.

CFR has previously developed a series of fire safety evaluation systems

involving buildings with varying degrees of similarity to the NASA facilities.

Appendix A is a list of NBS reports describing these previous systems. The

titles of these reports describe the types of buildings involved. These

reports also include detailed discussions of the theory and concepts inherent

in such evaluation systems.

The background of the past experience in previous fire safety evaluation

systems, the data derived from the visits to the field, and other logic tools

such as event logic trees and comparison matrices were used by CFR throughout

the project. A general outline of the parameters and variables and

information on initial relationships based on both past experience and

technical judgment was prepared by the CFR staff members.

The 13 parameters used to measure fire safety (see Table 1 of the Fire

Safety Evaluation Worksheet in Appendix B) were developed by the CFR staff.

This was done by reviewing the Life Safety Code and the NASA safety and design

manuals. The 13 parameters match the principal headings of the fire safety

requirements for office type occupancies in the Code and NASA manuals. These

13 parameters, along with the brief list of other considerations contained on

the face page of the worksheet, encompass- all the fire requirements and

criteria specified by NASA for office and combination office - laboratory

buildings. Similarly, the variable elements of each parameter were selected

5
to match the levels of parameter performance in the Life Safety Code, in NASA

criteria, or in actual or probable use in NASA buildings. The evaluation

systems previously developed by CFR (see Appendix A) were extensively used as

a guide in this phase of the project.

The initial assignment of relative point values for the individual

variables was done by the CFR staff using past systems, the character of NASA

buildings, and professional judgement as the basis.

In each case (parameters, variable elements, and assigned values) the

initial proposition presented by the CFR staff was used as the basis for

examination and testing in the subsequent phases of the project.

A meeting was then held with NASA fire safety representatives from NASA

Headquarters, and the Lewis, Johnson, Goddard, and Langley centers. Two-days

of discussion were held and proposed interrelationships were reviewed. A

preliminary fire safety evaluation system evolved from that meeting.

CFR staff members then developed a trial fire safety evaluation system

based on approaches agreed to at the joint meeting. The mandatory requirement

values listed in Table 3 of the worksheet (Appendix B) were developed at this

time. This was done by using the trial evaluation system to evaluate a

hypothetical building that actually conformed with NASA criteria. The scores

obtained became the values used for Table 3. In addition, a computer sort ing

program to study potential outputs was developed and a copy of this program

was provided to the Lewis Center. The trial fire safety evaluation system was

6
circulated for review and testing through the NASA fire protection and safety

offices

After an extended period of field testing, an additional meeting was

convened with NASA fire safety representatives. The comments developed from

the NASA field trials were reviewed. An adjusted fire safety evaluation

system was developed. An exercise similar to that described by Nelson in his

paper "An Approach to Enhancing the Value of Professional Judgment in the

Determination of Performance Criteria" [1] was used to compare potential

results obtainable from the evaluation system against NASA objectives. At the

close of this session a consensus was reached on a satisfactory evaluation

system.

3. ADDITIONAL ANALYTICAL GUIDANCE

The range of occupancies and sizes of buildings constituting the NASA

inventory indicated a need to provide specific guidance to users for

estimating certain values in Table 1 of the Fire Safety Evaluation System.

The following is an explanation of that guidance:

a. Segregation of Hazards (Item 2)

(1) The mixed occupancy nature of many of the NASA buildings makes it

important to identify which laboratories and similar special

purpose spaces actually present a hazard in the building and the

7
extent or level of that hazard. In order to make this evaluation,

it is necessary to predict both (a) the likelihood that

"flashover" will occur in that space and (b) the total potential

fire severity in that space. "Flashover" refers to the full

involvement of all combustibles within a compartment and is here

assumed to correspond to an upper gas layer temperature exceeding

about 1000°F. Figure 1 of the evaluation system (see Appendix B)

contains both a graph and a formula to assist in estimating total

potential fire severity. The later provides a means of estimating

the time period before a standardized (severe) fire test exposure

in a laboratory space will cause failure of the main structural

components and is based on a correlation developed by Law [2]

between the intensity and duration of fires in compartments and

the standard fire endurance test exposure.

(2) Figure 2 of the evaluation system (see Appendix B) provides a

means of estimating the amount of energy that would be necessary

to produce flashover in a space. This figure is based on a simple

flashover prediction formula developed by Thomas [3]. Figures 1

and 2 are used by the investigator to estimate the potential

impact of fire in laboratories and other work spaces.

(3) Figure 4 of the evaluation system (see Appendix B) provides a

means of estimating the potential maximum energy level produced by

varying arrangements of furniture and other common fuels. Thi.s

will allow the investigator to make an appraisal of the likily

8
level of energy in a preflashover fire. The data in figure 4 have

been abstracted from several sources, predominantly those by

Babrauskas [4] and Alpert and Ward [5].

b. Corridor/Room Separation (Item 12)

The evaluation system specifies a point value charge of 0 to -6 for

incomplete corridor/room separations. This is the only element in the

evaluation system with a range rather than a specific number. Figure 5

of the evaluation system is designed to assist the investigator in

estimating the number to assign to this element. This figure uses a

smoke flow or leakage formula developed by Nelson [6] to estimate the

amount of time it would take for smoke flowing from a fully involved

room through a limited opening area into a large size corridor. Caution

is important in using this formula since it assumes that the leakage

area is close enough to the ceiling of the corridor so that entrainment

is not a significant factor.

4. CONCLUDING REMARKS

Appendix B is the fire safety evaluation system jointly developed by NBS

and NASA. This system provides a reasonable measurement of comparative fire

safety based on current NASA criteria. If NASA criteria is changed, the

system can be adjusted to relate to the new criteria.

9
Since this conclusion was based upon the experience and judgment of

personnel from both NBS and NASA fire safety staffs, it is suggested that the

use of the evaluation system be under the oversight and direction of the NASA

fire and safety staff organization.

10
5 . ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The development of the Fire Safety Evaluation System for NASA

Office/Laboratory Buildings was possible only because of the cooperation and

contribution of NASA professionals. We are particularly grateful to Mr. Jack

R. Colegrove for both technical and administrative leadership. Of critical

importance was the team of NASA expertise that Mr. Colegrove assembled to

critique and test the system as it developed. The NASA experts that served on

that team were:

Jack R. Colegrove Lewis Research Center

Leven B . Gray Nasa Headquarters

John C. Garrison, Jr NASA Headquarters

Joseph H. Letourneau Goddard Space Flight Center

Ronald L. Long Kennedy Space Center

Matthew B. Cole Johnson Space Center

Jackie W. Holloway Langley Research Center

11
6 . REFERENCES

[1] Nelson, H.E., An Approach to Enhancing the Value of Professional

Judgment in the Determination of Performance Criteria, ASTM/CIB/RILEM

Conference, Lisbon, 1982.

[2] Law, M. , "Prediction of Fire Resistance", Proceedings, Symposium No. 5,

Fire -Resistance Requirements for Buildings - A New Approach, Joint Fire

Research Organization, London, 1973, H.M. Stationery Office.

[3] Thomas, P.H., Testing Products and Materials for Their Contribution to

Flashover in Rooms, Fire and Materials, 5, pp . 103-111, 1981.

[4] Babrauskas , V., Upholstered Furniture Room Fire Measurements, Comparison

with Furniture Calorimeter Data and Flashover Predictions, Journal of

Fire Sciences . Vol. 2, No. 1, 5-19, Jan/Feb 1984.

[5] Alpert, R.L. and Ward, E.J., Evaluating Unsprinklered Fire Hazards, SFPE

Technology Report 83-2, Society of Fire Protection Engineers, Boston,

MA, 1983, 103-111, 1981.

[6] Nelson, H.E., "Fireform" - A Computerized Collection of Convenient Fire

Safety Computations, NBS Report, NBSIR 86-3308, National Bureau of

Standards, Gaithersburg, MD, 1986.

12
APPENDIX A. NBS REPORTS ON PREVIOUS FIRE SAFETY EVALUATION

SYSTEMS

A Firesafety Evaluation System for Health Care Facilities, NBS

Report NBSIR 79-1551-1, 1980.

A System for Fire Safety Evaluation for Multifamily Housing, NBS

Report NBSIR 82-2562, 1982.

A Fire Safety Equivalency System for National Park Service

Overnight Accommodations, NBS Report NBSIR 84-2896, 1984.

A Fire Safety Evaluation System for Board and Care Homes, NBS

Report NBSIR 83-2659, 1983.

The Development of a Fire Safety Evaluation System for Detention

and Correctional Occupancies, NBS Report NBSIR 84-2976, 1984.

13
APPENDIX B

FIRE SAFETY EVALUATION SYSTEM

FOR

OFFICE/LABORATORY BUILDINGS

14
Fire Safety Evaluation Worksheet

for Office/Laboratory Buildings

Facility Identification

Evaluator Date

First complete Table 1 on page 2. Continue with Table 2 on page 3 and Tables

3 and 4 on page 4. Then return to this page to obtain the Equivalency

Conclusions:

TURN TO NEXT PAGE

PART E. EQUIVALENCY CONCLUSIONS

Complete Tables 1-4 before doing this part.

1. ( ) All of the checks in Table 4 are in the 'yes' column. The level of fire safety is at least

equivalent to that prescribed for general purpose buildings.*

2. ( ) One or more of the checks in Table 4 are in the "no* column. The level of fire safety is not shown by this system to be equivalent to the life safety requirements prescribed by

NASA for general purpose buildings.

*The equivalency covered by this worksheet includes the majority of considerations

involved by NASA. There are however, a few considerations that are not evaluated by

this method. These must be separately considered. These additional considerations

are covered below.

Facility Fire Safety Requirements Worksheet

Considerations Met Not

Met

Not

Applic.

A. Building utilities conform to the requirements of

Paragraph 7-1 of the Life Safety Code.

B. The air conditioning, heating, and ventilating

systems conform with Paragraph 7-2 of the

Life Safety Code.

C. Elevator installations are made in accordance

with the requirements of Paragraph 7-4 of the

Life Safety Code.

D. Rubbish chutes, incinerators, and laundry

chutes are installed in accordance with

Paragraph 7-5 of the Life Safety Code.

15
Fire Safety Evaluation System for Office/Laboratory Buildings

DETERMINE SAFETY PARAMETER VALUES - USE TABLE 1 Select and circle the safety value for each parameter in Table 1 that best describes the conditions in the facility. Choose only one value for each of the 13 parameters. If two or more

values appear to apply, choose the one with the lowest point value. Table 1. Safety Parameters

SAFETY

PARAMETERS PARAMETER VALUES

1. Construction Combustible

Wood frame

Unprot. 1 hr

1 story

2 stories

-1

3 story -12

4-5 stories 12 6 stories or more NP -6

Ordinary

Unprot. 1 hr -1

-6

-12

NP

2. Segregation of hazards

Noncombustible

Unprot. 0-4

-6

-12

NP

Prot.

(1 hr.)

Fire resistive

Expose exit system Segregated from exit routes None or no

Dbl. def. Single def. Dbl. def. Single def. deficiencies -7 -4 -4 0 0

3. Vertical openings Open (or incomplete enclosure)

Connects 5 or more floors 4 firs. 3 firs. 2 firs. -10 -7 -4

Enclosed

<30 min. 30 min. -1 hr -1(0) A

4. Sprinklers

None

7. Smoke detection & alarm None

Corridors

only

All but corr. s and lobbies Total

Bldg. Std. Fast Std. 10

Corridors or special haz.

Fast

12

5. Manual fire None Fire Ext.s Standpipes only Standpipes & ext.s

fighting

appliances

only S3 sty. 2 4 sty. 5 3 sty. 2 4 sty. 0 1 0 1 1 2

6. Manual fire None w/o fire dept. w/fire dept. notification alarm system notification off-station on-station 0 1 1 2 Rooms Zone

Total

Bldg.

8. Interior finish exit routes rooms suites

Flame spread ratings B

< 75 5 200 >25 <75 <25

>75 <200 <75 >75 <200 < 75 >25 <200 <25

-3 -1 0 1 1 2

9. Smoke control Smoke partitions

Passive Active 0 3 4

10. Exit access Max. dead end No dead end > 50ft. & travel is: <75'>100' < 50' 2 75 > 200' c 1 00'-200' c 50-100' £ 50' -2D — 1 D -1 0 1 3

1 1. Exit system

Single

Multiple routes

Direct exits Deficient 2 2 -6 -2 0 5

A. use 0 l< building is

1 level B Consider (lame spread rating

to be 25 In any sprinkler protected spaces.

C. Increase 200-

300 It parameter 4 Is

t 0 or more.

D. Use 0 it parameter 1 1 is -6.

E. Rate

separation 20 min. (or actual it greater) If parameter 4

Is 1 0 or more.

• Smoke

resisting If parameter Is based on

unprotected

const. F Use ( ) it separation betweon rooms

also meets

criteria.

12. Corridor/room

separation

(Compartmentation)

Separation exists and level of protection is:

Incomp.

Smoke resistive E > 20 min. E 1 hr or more E No

separation w/o door

closers w/door

closers w/o door

closers w/door

closers w/doorcloser -6 to 0 0

1(2)F 1 2(3) F 3(4) F 0

Unfamiliar occupants Familiar staff None Coordinated None Coordinated

-2 0 0 1

13. Emergency

prepardness

16
PART B. COMPUTE INDIVIDUAL SAFETY EVALUATIONS - USE TABLE 2.

1. Transfer each of the 13 circled safety parameter values on Table 1 to

every unshaded block in the line with the corresponding safety parameter

in Table 2. Where the block is indicated (f2) enter only one-half the

value shown in Table 1.

2. Add the four columns, keeping in mind that any negative numbers deduct.

3. Transfer the resulting values for S-| , S 2 > and S3

on page 4 of this

worksheet.

Table 2. Individual Safety Evaluation

SAFETY

PARAMETER

FIRE

CONTROL

(Si )

EGRESS

PROVIDED

(S 2 )

GENERAL

FIRE SAFETY

PROVIDED (S 3 )

1. Construction

2. Hazardous areas

3. Vertical openings 42

4. Sprinklers 42

5. Manual fire

6 .

fighting

Manual fire

equipment

alarm

><

system

42

7. Smoke detection

and alarm

-2

8 . Interior finish 42

9. Smoke control 42

10. Exit access

11. Exit system

12 . Corridor

separation 4 2 42

13. Emergency

prepardness

T otal Si = S 2

- ii

CO CO

17
PART C. DETERMINE MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS - USE TABLE 3.

Transfer the circled values from Table 3 to the blanks marked S a , S b , S c , and

Sd in Table 4.

Table 3. Mandatory Requirements

Building Height

Control

Requirement

(Sa>

Egress

Requirement

(S b )

General

Fire Safety

Requirement

<S C

)

1 -5 Story 2 2 3

> 6 Story 1 1 4 9

PART D. EQUIVALENCY EVALUATION

1. Perform the indicated subtractions in Table 4. Enter the differences in the

appropriate answer blocks.

2. For each row check "YES" if the value in the answer block is zero or greater.

Check "NO" if the value in the answer block is a negative number.

Table 4. Equivalency Evaluation

YES NO

Control . Required

.. . (S^ minus . (S a ) ^0

provided Control I II

Egress . Required ^ 0 . . . (S 2 ) minus _

H (S b ) >0

Provided Egress

S 2 s b

General General

Fire (S 3 ) minus Fire (S c ) >0

Safety Safety

1 II

18

Return to page 1 of this form
GLOSSARY FOR EVALUATING A OFFICE/LABORATORY BUILDING

This glossary is provided to assist in completing the Fire Safety Evaluation

Worksheets for office and combined office/laboratory buildings. The

instructions for completing the worksheet are included in the worksheet

itself. They are not repeated in this glossary. This glossary provides

expanded discussion and definitions for the various items in the worksheet to

assist the user when questions of definition or interpretation arise. To the

maximum extent possible, the glossary does not repeat the definitions already

existing in the Life Safety Code or NASA Manuals.

Areas of Application

The entire building can be evaluated on a single worksheet. The building may,

however, be zoned with each zone considered separately or in any convenient

grouping of zones. The choice of zoning is normally based on the approach

that produces the most functional or economical results. The criteria for

zoning facilities is as follows:

a. Zoning must be such as to divide the building into units that consist of one or more complete fire/smoke zones. A fire/smoke zone is a portion

of a building that is separated from all other portions of the building

by building construction having at least 1-hour fire resistance and/or

smoke partitions conforming to the requirements of section 6-3 of the

Life Safety Code for smoke barriers of at least 20 -minute fire

resistance. Any vertical openings (shafts, stairs, etc.) involved must

also provide 1-hour separation (except that stair doors may be

45-minute, Class C doors). In facilities completely protected by

automatic sprinkler protection, the above fire resistance requirements

do not apply. The elements separating one zone from another, however,

must be of sound, smoke resisting construction. Doors in zone separations must be either self-closing or equipped with automatic

closers operated by smoke detectors.

b. Zones may be either adjacent to each other (e.g., separate wings or building sections) or above each other (e.g., floors or groups of

floors)

c. Each zone containing business (e.g,, office or laboratory) space must be

evaluated using this system with the following adjustments:

(1) Charges for Parameter 2, Hazardous Areas, apply to any

hazardous area in the zone being evaluated and to any

hazardous areas in zones adjacent to or below the zone being evaluated.

(2) Where zones are located above each other, the value

assigned to Parameter 1, Construction in each zone, is

based on the highest story used for regular human

occupancy in that "stack of zones", and the type of

construction of that "stack of zones".

19
(3) The assignment of values for Parameters 5, Manual Fire

Fighting Appliances; 6, Manual Alarms; 11, Exit

Systems; and 10, Exit Access, does not consider

conditions in unoccupied spaces in other zones when

such are not involved in any egress paths.

(4) The evaluation of Parameter 11, Exit Systems, includes

those portions of any exit route that serves the zone being evaluated. Any exposures or deficiencies

pertaining to any part of the exit route must be taken

into account in the evaluation of the zone.

d. Zones that do not involve regular human occupancy are evaluated the same

as those with regular human occupancy with the following variations:

(1) Any such zone may be omitted from the numerical

evaluation if all of the following conditions are met:

a. The zone is not involved in the exit route

from any space with regular human

occupancy

b. The zone conforms to the Life Safety Code

requirements applicable to its use.

(2) Alternatively, such zones may be evaluated using this

system provided any additional egress capabilities and

arrangements appropriate to the specific use of the

space are provided.

Maintenance

All protection systems, requirements, arrangements, and procedures must be

maintained in a dependable operating condition and a sufficient state of

readiness, and used in such a manner that the intended safety function or hazard constraint is not impaired. Otherwise, they receive no credit in the

evaluation.

Safety Parameter Table (General Discussion)

The safety parameters are a measure of those building factors that bear upon

or contribute to the safety of those persons who may be in the building at the

time of a fire.

Each of the safety parameters is to be analyzed, and the safety value for each

parameter that best describes the condition in the building is to 1>< identified. Only one value for each of the parameters is to be chosen,

two or more appear to apply, the one with the lowest point value is used.

20
1 . Construction

Construction types are classified in accordance with the definitions of NASA

standards

The requirements of NASA standards for "interior partitions enclosing

stairways or other openings through floors" are not to be considered in the

construction classification. These floor openings and their protection are separately evaluated under safety parameter 3, Vertical Openings.

Where the facility includes additions or connected structures of different

construction the rating and classification of the structure is based on

(a) separate buildings if a one-hour or greater fire resistive separation

exists between the portions of the building and/or (b) the lower safety

parameter point score involved if such a separation does not exist.

2 . Segregation of Hazards

The assignment of charges for unsegregated hazards areas is a four-step

process

Step 1. Identify Hazardous Areas . A hazardous area is any space

or compartment that contains a storage or other activity that is

not a part of normal office space arrangements and possesses the

potential of producing a fully involved fire.

Step 2. Determine the Level of Hazard . There are two levels of

hazard as follows:

a. Structurally Endangering . A hazardous occupancy with

sufficient potential fire severity to defeat the basic

structure integrity of the building framing as defined

in Parameter 1 (Figure 1 for determining approximate

potential fire severity)

Example: For a room 20 feet by 30 feet by 8 feet high

with a (window) opening 3 feet wide by 4 feet high,

3000 pounds of ordinary fuel can produce a fire

severity of approximately 95 minutes. If the fire

resistance of the hazardous area enclosure is less

than 95 minutes, the hazardous area is classed as structurally endangering.

b. Not Structurally Endangering . A hazardous occupancy

with sufficient fire potential to build to full

involvement (flashover) and present a danger of

propagating through openings or wall partitions but

not possessing sufficient total potential to endanger

the structural framing or floor decking as defined in

Parameter 1. (See Figure 2 for assistance in

estimating the fire size needed to flashover a room.

21
Also see Figure 4 for assistance in estimating the

unit fire potential of various combustible contents.)

Example: For the same room as in the previous

example, flashover is expected if the burning rate of

the most combustible fuel array exceeds about 2000

Btu/sec. In such case the area is classed as a hazardous area.

Step 3. Determine the Fire Protection Provided . The parameter

value for hazardous areas is based on the presence or absence of

the fire protection necessary to control or confine the hazard.

Two different types of fire protection are considered. The first

consists of automatic sprinklers or other appropriate

extinguishing system covering the entire hazard.* The second is a complete fire enclosure having sufficient fire resistance to

contain the potential fire severity of the hazardous area. This

includes (a) the separation of the hazardous area from any

structural framing members, (b) partitions separating the

hazardous area from all other spaces, and (c) fire-resistant doors

sufficient to exceed the potential of the fire load involved. Any

hazardous space that has either of these protection systems is

classified as having single protection.

Step 4. Determine Degree of Deficiency and Assign Parameter

Values. The parameter value is finally determined on the basis of

the degree of deficiency that the hazardous area has in terms of

the level of protection needed.

Figure 3 provides a matrix type table to assist in determining

degree of deficiency to be assessed.

In some situations, the building will contain more than one hazardous area with the same or with differing levels of

deficiency. The charge is based on the single most serious charge

for hazardous area found.

Open Plan Office Space

A sprinkler-protected open plan office space is not considered as a hazardous

space

An unsprinklered open plan office space is not considered as a hazardous spare

unless it involves such a collection of fuel that flashover is likely to occur. This can be estimated in the following manner:

*The credit for sprinklers is not to be given unless the hazardous area is

separated from the rest of human occupancy or the egress route by reasonably

smoke resisting partitions and doors.

22
a. Appraise the largest fuel concentrations. A fuel concentration is a collection of combustible materials (desks, files, or other

material or items) that is separated from other fuel

concentrations by a clear space that is 2 feet wide or 1/2 the

height of the collection, whichever is greater. Floor covering is

not considered in this estimate.

b. Burning rate is based on the best available data. If test data is

available use that data, if not see Figure 4 for assistance. If

data is not available and Figure 4 is not sufficient, burning rate

is based on 125 Btu per sec. per sq. ft. of actual fuel-covered

floor space for typical desk modules (based on wooden desks,

ignore space occupied by metal desks or metal file cabinets). For

open shelf storage or similar piled or stacked concentrations of

combustible materials, estimate 100 Btu per sec. per sq. ft. of

covered floor space for each foot of height of combustible

material. Double the above figures for the portion of the fuel

assembly that is foam plastic.

c. Based on the estimated burning rate, appraise the flashover

potential. Use figure 2 to do this.

d. If flashover is shown as a potential, use figure 1 to appraise

severity

e. If flashover is shown as a potential, classify the space as a hazardous area and assign charges as appropriate.

3 . Vertical Openings

These values apply to vertical openings and penetrations including exit

stairways, ramps, and any other vertical exits, pipeshafts, ventilation

shafts, duct penetrations, and laundry and incinerator chutes. The charge for

vertical openings is based on the presence or lack of enclosure and the fire

resistance of the enclosure if present.

A vertical opening or penetration is classified as open if it is

(a) unenclosed; (b) enclosed but has doorways (or similar portals) that are without doors; (c) enclosed but has unprotected openings other than doorways;

and (d) enclosed with cloth, paper or similar materials without any sustained

fire stopping capabilities.

4 . Sprinkler Protection

Where an automatic sprinkler is installed, either total or partial building

coverage, the system is in accordance with the requirements of NFPA Standard

No. 13, Installation of Sprinkler Systems.

To receive credit for protection the sprinkler system must be equipped with an automatic alarm initiating device that will activate the building manual fire

alarm system or otherwise sound an alarm sufficiently audible to be heard in

all occupied areas.

23
To receive credit for "Total Building" sprinkler protection, the entire

building must be provided with sprinkler coverage and must cover all zones of

the building.

5 . Manual Fire Fighting Appliances

Portable fire extinguishers are credited if the installation meets the

requirements of "Standard for the Installation of Portable Fire

Extinguishers", NFPA 10.

Standpipe and hose system are credited if they are in accordance with

"Standard for the Installation of Standpipe and Hose Systems", NFPA 14.

6 . Manual Fire Alarm

a. None . There is no manual fire alarm system, or if the system is

incomplete and does not meet the requirements necessary for a higher scored category.

b. W/0 F.D. Notif . There is a manual fire alarm system which meets

the requirements of Life Safety Code Section 7-6.

c. W/ F.D. Notif . There is a manual fire alarm system which complies

with the requirements of b, above, and, in addition, automatically

transmits a signal to the NASA or other fire department which is

committed to serve the area in which the building is located,

through a direct connection, an approved central station, or through other means acceptable to NASA.

7 . Smoke Detection and Alarm

All references to detectors herein refer to smoke detectors. No credit is

given for heat detectors in habitable spaces except as specifically noted

below. Heat detectors can be credited in uninhabitable spaces where ambient

temperature can be expected to exceed 120 degrees Fahrenheit or fall below 0

degree Fahrenheit, as long as separation from inhabited spaces has at least 20

minutes fire resistance.

To meet the requirements for smoke detector coverage, the spaces must be

provided with smoke detectors installed in accordance with NFPA 7? E,

Automatic Fire Detectors.

Only those detectors whose activation will sound the alarm throughout the zone of origin are to be credited in this parameter.

If the building is evaluated by zones as defined under "Areas of Application

the evaluation is based solely on detection within the zone.

24
8 . Interior Finish

Classification of interior finish is based on the flame spread rating of the

interior finish tested in accordance with ASTM Standard E 84, Tunnel Test.

The requirements apply to wall and ceiling finish materials as described in

section 6-5 of the Life Safety Code.

No consideration is included in the safety parameter value for any finish with

a flame spread rating greater than 200 or for any material not rationally

measured by the ASTM E 84 test. Such materials include foam plastics, asphalt

impregnated paper, and/or materials which melt, drip or delaminate, or those

capable of inducing extreme rates of fire growth and rapid flashover. In any

case where these materials are involved, the resultant risk is considered

beyond the capacity of this evaluation system and will require individual

appraisal

Any interior finish having a flame spread of 200 or less that is protected by

automatic sprinklers is evaluated as having a flame spread of > 25.

9 . Smoke Control

Smoke control definitions are as follows:

a. No Control . There are no smoke barriers or horizontal exits to a separated fire/smoke zone on the floor and no mechanical assisted

smoke control systems serve the floor.

b. Smoke Barriers . Smoke barriers consist of installations

conforming to the requirements of Section 6-3 of the Life Safety

Code

1. Passive. The smoke control system is passive if it

consists of continuous vertical and/or horizontal

membranes designed to restrict the movement of smoke.

Passive smoke barriers may or may not have a fire

resistance rating and may have protected openings.

2. Active. The smoke control system is active if it has

a tested engineering smoke control system that will

obstruct the leakage of smoke between compartments or zones

10 . Exit Access

Exit access is a measurement of the travel distance from the room to the

outside or to an enclosed interior stairway or other exit (i.e., horizontal

exit), or through a smoke barrier, whichever is shorter.

The charge for dead end access is made when any corridor affords access in

only one direction to a required exit. The calculation of the distance to

determine the level of charge is the measurement from the centerline of the

25
doorway exiting the office/suite to the nearest point where a person has a choice of two directions or routes of egress.

If dead end distances exceed 100 ft., a separate analysis must be made to

evaluate the potential of flashover of any spaces that could block egress from

the dead end and of the potential rate of smoke filling of the egress system

involved. If the safe time is shorter than the expected egress time the

evaluation should be discontinued unless a corrective action is specified.

11 . Exit System

Exit systems are the paths of travel from a room to the outside of any of the

types and arrangements described in Chapter 5 of the Life Safety Code.

a. Single Route. A single route exists when occupants on any floor

do not have either a direct exit or multiple routes as defined in

b, below.

b. Multiple Routes. Multiple routes exist when the occupants on a floor have a choice of two separate exit routes to the outside of

the permissible types listed in Chapter 27 of the Life Safety

Code .

Deficient. An exit route is deficient if it fails to

meet any of applicable criteria in Chapter 5 of the

Life Safety Code including capacity. An exit route is

deficient if a vertical opening interconnects with an exit route.

c. Direct Exits . To be credited with direct exits, each room must

have within that unit a door that opens to the exterior at grade

level or onto an exterior balcony with direct access to an exterior exit or smoke proof stair. Where such openings are directly onto grade in a location where any person egress ing can move directly away from the building without further exposure , the

credit for direct exit is applicable even if there are not other

exit routes from the space.

12 . Corridor/Room Separation

The values assigned in the Corridor/Room Separation parameter, are based on the quality of separation between room and the corridor.

a. Incomplete. The separation is judged as incomplete if the wall to

the corridor has unprotected openings (no door, louvers, gaps, or transfer grills) between floor and the ceiling. If openings exist

above the ceiling level, the separation is considered complete if

the ceiling in the room is a complete membrane. In this case, the

separation rating is based on the level of resistance to smoke

flow or fire resistance involved in wall/ceiling system.

26
The score imposed for incomplete separation is based on the

potential time that at least the lower 5 ft. of corridor could be

expected to remain free of smoke if a fully involved fire occurs

in an exposing room. This is dependent on the amount of leakage

area from the most leaky exposing room and the size of the

corridor (see Figure 5). The scores are as follows:

Safe Time Score

< 2 min

> 2 but < 4 min

> 4 but < 8 min

> 8 min < 16 min

> 16 min

-6

-4

-2

0

Complete Separation

b. Complete Separation. If the separation is not judged to be

incomplete based on the above criteria, the separation is considered

to be complete.

c. No Separation. There is no separation if the floor or the smoke

zone is not subdivided (there is no corridor leading to an exit)

Discussion on credit for door closers "smoke resistive" vs "> 20 min", "1 hr",

footnote F of Table 1.

13 . Emergency Preparedness

a. Coordinated. Building or Zone occupants are classified as "Coordinated" if a majority of the occupants have taken part in

scenario oriented fire exit drills. The scenarios are based on the

hazardous conditions that may develop during a fire in the facility.

The occupants must also be familiar with the fire safety procedures

described in NASA Safety Manual, Volume 9, Chapter 8.

b. None. Building or Zone occupants are classified as "None" if the

occupants do not meet all the requirements for "Coordinated"

27
o o o o o o

LO o LO o LO

C\J CM 1— T- (U|W) A1ILI3A3S 31VlAIIXOdddV

28

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

TOTAL

FIRE

LOAD

(lb)
o

CD

_ LO

LOO

ID

_ LO

LLI

_

O

I- CO <

DC0 _ LO Zz

DC

Z>

_

O

CQ CM >

'd

cr0

"Oo0

<:1 cE

co n

LO

— LO — o ( Z U) V3dV IAIOOU

M

S-i <DC

tJ

S-i 0)>oXw

CO 1—

[j-l

a)

4-> COB

•HXoaa<

CNJ

0)

S-J 3

tsO •H

P-.

29
NOT

STRUCTURALLY

ENDANGERING

STRUCTURALLY

ENDANGERING

NO PROTECTION SINGLE

DEFICIENCY

DOUBLE

DEFICIENCY

SPRINKLER

PROTECTION

SINGLE

DEFICIENCY

FIRE RESISTIVE

ENCLOSURE*

NO DEFICIENCY

SPRINKLERED &

FIRE RESISTIVE

ENCLOSURE

^Complete Enclosure Having Sufficient Fire Resistance to Contain the Potential

Fire Severity of the Hazardous Area.

Figure 3. Segregation of Hazards - Degree of Deficiency

30
SOME TYPICAL PEAK RATES OF HEAT RELEASE

BTU/SEC/

SQ. FT. GROWTH POTENTIAL FUEL

OF FLOOR RATE

AREA

1.5 S

15* M

35* S 35 F

50* M

60* M

60* S 65 VF

70* S 80* F

90* M

125 M

145* M

150* F

150 F

175* M

175 F

175 VF

220* F

225* F

290 VF

340* VF

350 F

360* F

450* F

600* VF

FIRE RETARDED TREATED MATTRESS

(INCLUDING NORMAL BEDDING)

LIGHT WEIGHT TYPE C UPHOLSTERED FURNITURE**

MODERATE WEIGHT TYPE C UPHOLSTERED FURNITURE**

MAIL BAGS (FULL) STORED 5 FEET HIGH

COTTON/POLYESTER INNERSPRING MATTRESS

(INCLUDING BEDDING)

LIGHT WEIGHT TYPE B UPHOLSTERED FURNITURE**

MEDIUM WEIGHT TYPE C UPHOLSTERED FURNITURE**

METHYL ALCOHOL POOL FIRE

HEAVY WEIGHT TYPE C UPHOLSTERED FURNITURE**

POLYURETHANE INNERSPRING MATTRESS (INCLUDING BEDDING)

MODERATE WEIGHT TYPE B UPHOLSTERED FURNITURE**

WOODEN PALLETS 1-1/2 FEET HIGH

MEDIUM WEIGHT TYPE B UPHOLSTERED FURNITURE**

LIGHT WEIGHT TYPE A UPHOLSTERED FURNITURE**

EMPTY CARTONS 15 FEET HIGH „ HEAVY WEIGHT TYPE B UPHOLSTERED FURNITURE**

DIESEL OIL POOL FIRE (>ABOUT 3 FT. DIA.)

CARTONS CONTAINING POLYETHYLENE BOTTLES 15 FEET HIGH

.MODERATE WEIGHT TYPE A UPHOLSTERED FURNITURE**

PARTICLE BOARD WARDROBE/CHEST OF DRAWERS

GASOLINE POOL FIRE ( >ABOUT 3 FT. DIA.)

THIN PLYWOOD WARDROBE WITH FIRE RETARDANT PAINT

ON ALL SURFACES (50IN. X 24IN. X 72IN. HIGH)

V700DEN PALLETS 5 FEET HIGH

MEDIUM WEIGHT TYPE A UPHOLSTERED FURNITURE**

HEAVY WEIGHT TYPE A UPHOLSTERED FURNITURE**

THIN PLYWOOD WARDROBE (50IN. X 24IN. X 72IN. HIGH)

FIGURE 4 (PART 1 OF 2) - SOME TYPICAL PEAK RATES OF HEAT RELEASE

31
NOTES:

* Peak rates of heat release were of short duration. These fuels typically

showed a rapid rise to the peak and a corresponding rapid decline. In each

case the fuel package tested consisted of a single item.

** The classification system used to describe upholstered furniture is as follows

Light weight = Less than about 5 lbs. per square foot of floor area. A typical 6-foot long couch would weigh under 75 lbs.

Moderate weight = About 5-10 lbs. per square foot of floor area. A

typical 6-foot long couch would weigh between 75 and 150 lbs.

Medium weight = About 10-15 lbs. per square foot of floor area. A

typical 6 -foot long couch would weigh between 150 and 300 lbs.

Heavy weight = More than about 15 lbs. per square foot of floor area. A typical 6 -foot long couch would weigh over 300 lbs.

Type A = Furniture with untreated or lightly treated foam plastic

padding and nylon or other melting fabric.

Type B = Furniture with untreated or lightly treated foam plastic

padding or with nylon or other melting fabric but not having both.

Type C = Furniture with cotton or well treated foam plastic padding

and having cotton or other fabric that resists melting.

The estimated heat release rates are based on furniture having simple

lines. For ornate or convoluted shapes increase the indicated rates by up to

50% based on elaborateness.

GROWTH RATES

S = Slow. Burning rate in the range of a t-squared fire that reaches

1000 btu/sec in 600 seconds.

M = Moderate. Burning rate in the range of a t-squared fire that

reaches 1000 btu/sec in 300 seconds.

F = Fast. Burning rate in the range of a t-squared fire that reaches

1000 but/sec in 150 seconds.

VF = Very Fast. Burning rate in the range of a t-squared fire that

reaches 1000 btu/sec in 75 seconds.

FIGURE 4 (PART 2 OF 2) - SOME TYPICAL PEAK RATES OF HEAT RELEASE

32
( n v) ( Z

U!) V3HV 39V)HV33

33

Figure

5.

Approximate

Time

to

Smoke

Impact
NBS-114A (REV. 2-80

U.S. DEPT. OF COMM.

4.

1 . BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET (See instructions)

PUBLICATION OR

REPORT NO.

2. Performing Organ. Report No. 3 NBSIR 86-3404

TITLE AND SUBTITLE

, Publication Date November 1986

Fire Safety Evaluation System for NASA Office/Laboratory Buildings

5. AUTHOR(S)

Harold E. Nelson

6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION (If joint or other than NBS, see instructions) 7. Contract/Grant No. national bureau of standards

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 8. Type of Report & Period Covered

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

9.

SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (Street, City, Stote, ZIP

)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Washington, D.C.

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)

A fire safety evaluation system for office/laboratory buildings is developed.

The system is a life safety grading system. The system scores building construction,

hazardous areas, vertical openings, sprinklers, detectors, alarms, interior finish,

smoke control, exit systems, compartmentation, and emergency preparedness.

12.

KEY WORDS (Six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only proper names; and separate key words by scm.coh m

fire safety evaluation system; laboratories; office buildings; risk assessment

13. AVAILABILITY 14. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

QX| Uni i mi ted For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

[] Order From Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.

15. Price

|J£] Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA. 22161

jlCOUM'DC # 0 4 » • •