NST Of STAND 4 TEC|

REfEBENCE „*Z0NS

/yc

0

IQb QMD503

‘VJ8SJR 85-3290

National Fire Research Str

Conference Proceedings.

July 22 - 25, 1985

Bernard M. Levin, Editor

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

National Engineering Laboratory

Center for Fire Research

Gaithersburg, MD 20S99

December 1985

Final Report

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF CO&ri&iEft€£

NA7JOf4Al S’JRcAU OF STANDARDS

NBSIR 85-3290

NATIONAL FIRE RESEARCH STRATEGY

CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS,

JULY 22- 25, 1985

Bernard M. Levin, Editor

U S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

National Engineering Laboratory

Center for Fire Research

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

December 1985

Final Report

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

NATIONAL 8UREAU OF STANDARDS. Ernest Ambler. Director

The views and recommendations of the Workshop

Reports represents a summary or synthesis of

ideas and opinions presented by individual

members of the panel. Individual panel or workshop members may disagree with some of

the statements contained in their own group

report.

The statements and recommendations in this

report do not necessarily reflect the views

of the National Bureau of Standards or of the

National Fire Protection Association.

11

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Preface ..... v

Report of the Overview Panel, 1

Report of the Materials and Products I Workshop 7

Report of the Materials and Products II Workshop. .... 21

Report of the Design and Engineering I Workshop 31

Report of the Design and Engineering II Workshop 39

Report of the Regulatory and Risk Workshop 49

Report of the Real-Time Extinguishment and Hazard

Analysis Workshop 55

Report of the Investigation and Litigation Workshop ... 61

Report of the Research for Fire Safety and Survival

Workshop 67

Appendix A - List of Participants 81

Appendix B - Brief Summary of Workshop Topics ...... 93

Appendix C - Abbreviations Used 94

Appendix D - Report of the National Fire Research

Strategy Conference August 28-29, 1984 95

Appendix E - Supplementary Comments ........... 118

iii

PREFACE

During the past decade, we have made major advances in understanding fire,

its growth, and its dangers. We are now developing scientifically-based

methods of fire safety analysis. These advances give us the expectation of

better, technically supported, and more cost effective fire safety.

These improvements in fire safety are threatened by shortages of funds and

facilities and the resultant diversion of scientific expertise to other

areas. As supporters, users, and performers of fire research, we need to

consult, coordinate, and cooperate to use all of our resources to their

greatest advantage. The conferees in this meeting of the National Fire

Research Strategy Conference agreed that a National Fire Research Strategy

is key and they outlined the essential elements of such a strategy.

The National Fire Research Strategy is viewed as an evolving product of the

efforts of the many participants of the Conference. All persons interested

in fire safety are encouraged to become involved in this process. There

will be future meetings of the Conference, workshops on specific topics,

ad-hoc task groups, and draft plans and reports that need your input. You

are each urged to carefully read this report, give your comments, and

participate in the Plan development and implementation. Your comments and

suggestions may be sent to either of the following.

Jack E. Snell, Director

Center for Fire Research

National Bureau of Standards

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Robert W. Grant, President

National Fire Protection Association

Batterymarch Park

Quincy, MA 02269

v

NATIONAL FIRE RESEARCH STRATEGY CONFERENCE

Report of the

Overview Panel

at the July 22-25, 1985 Meeting

A . BACKGROUND

This meeting of the National Fire Research Strategy Conference is a continuation of the initial conference convened in Quincy, Massachusetts in

August 1984. This initial conference, sponsored by the National Bureau of

Standards and the National Fire Protection Association, was called to review

the need for a restatement of national goals and directions for U.S. fire

research.

The participants at the Quincy meeting recommended that "a coordinated fire

research plan should be developed to achieve the reduction in fire losses in

the United States in accord with the objectives of the Fire Prevention and

Control Act of 1974."

The workshop participants of this second meeting of the National Fire Research

Strategy Conference (which was a direct result of the 1984 Quincy meeting)

responded to the recommendation and made considerable progress toward

developing a coordinated fire research plan. In doing this, they attempted to

develop a flexible plan, or strategy, that is more than a relatively fixed and

detailed list of future efforts. They tried to develop a fire research

strategy that includes approaches for coordinating the diverse set of

activities conducted by the various sectors of the fire community.

B. VIEW OF THE OVERVIEW PANEL

The charge of the Overview Panel included the integration of the findings of

the other panels and the development of generalized conclusions encompassing

the full view of the Conference. The underlying theme of the Conference

discussion was the need for a national consensus supporting a comprehensive

fire research strategy. While the bulk of the text in the individual workshop

reports discusses technical matters, two other areas of co-equal merit

(managerial and political) were interwoven through the discussions and the

reports of the other workshops. To have a truly comprehensive strategy that

will represent a national consensus, it is essential to address all three

areas —technical, managerial, and political.

The key technical needs to be addressed were seen as: developing models and

other methods for quantifying hazard and risk; producing the data needed to

effectively utilize such methods: and transferring rapidily the technology

from scientific findings to applied use.

The key managerial need to be addressed was seen as providing an open me : free communication and coordination where all of the parties involved can - the total need, their part in the effort, and the impact that they can mak<_-.

The participants at this meeting proposed that the continuance of the Nat:

Fire Research Strategy Conference as an ongoing body offers the best

instrument for this.

1
The key political needs to be addressed were: pulling together the widely

diversified groups of the fire community; healing divisions within the

community; building consensus; and mounting the needed (long term, broadbased) support.

C. RECENT ADVANCES IN FIRE TECHNOLOGY

The Conference recommendations reflect the realization that we are making

dramatic progress toward meeting the key technical needs mentioned above. We

are rapidly developing the technological resources needed to bring about

significant improvements in our ability both to reduce the risk that fires

will strike and, once fire has begun, to effectively control its consequences

with lower physical and human costs.

A primary catalyst has been a series of advances in our basic understanding of

fire itself, including flame dynamics, gas production, and other combustion

processes

.

A second catalyst has been powerful new generations of computers with vastly

improved information handling, analytical and interfacing capabilities. These

new computers now enable us to simulate extremely complex, real-world

phenomena, such as fires, to a degree of realism that was practically

unattainable just a short time ago. Associated with these new generations of

computers has been the development of important new technologies, such as expert systems, that can use such computers effectively and can couple them

with both researchers and practitioners.

It is now realistic to anticipate that fire research can provide the base for

national programs that can greatly alleviate many of today's pressing

problems. Fire research can also lead the way to a not-so-distant future in

which scientifically* valid techniques for ensuring fire safety are in widespread use.

Fire research findings can help:

• manufacturers analyze cost-effectively the smoke toxicity or other

fire impact of new materials and assemblies of materials;

• designers determine the impact of specific combinations of fire

protection features on the hazards involved and the resultant level

of safety provided.

• designers, and the officials who regulate their designs, analyze

whether potentially useful variations on current safety codes do in

fact offer levels of safety "equivalent" to the current code

provisions

;

• fire services diagnose, on the scene or in pre-fire planning, the

most effective and safest line of attack on a growing fire; and

• our judicial system unravel the often tangled knot of responsibility

and liability in the aftermath of a fire with greatly enhanced

surety.
Such advances in fire safety will increase significantly our ability to

provide higher levels of fire safety together with reduced costs, the

encouragement of useful innovations in products and building design, and a wide variety of other benefits. The full promise of fire research, however,

lies in its potential to reveal the details of fire development and how to

control that development. Such fire safety analysis has immense value to all

Reaching the full promise will require both the continued scientific

development of our quantitative understanding of fire and related phenomena

and the translation and transfer of this knowledge into useful analysis tools

While much lies ahead, the advances of the last decade have shown the way and

are now bearing fruit.

D. QUANTIFICATION OF FIRE RISK AND HAZARD

To understand and prevent or control fire we need to know what material is

burning, where in the structure it is located, its size, and what products it

is giving off. We then need to know when any detection device, automatic

sprinklers or other fire initiated safeguards will be activated and their

effect on the fire. We need to know how fast a fire spreads, where, and what

byproducts (and their interactions) are produced by the various burning

materials. If there are people present, we need to know whether they are aware of the fire, how they will respond to that awareness, whether they know

the building's floor plan and the best escape route, and whether the fire or noxious products are moving rapidly enough to cut them off before they can

reach the exit. We should be able to validate optimal strategies for the

local fire service. After the fact, we need to know what started the fire,

what contributed to its severity and how well safeguards performed.

New scientific knowledge is progressively enabling us to simulate better the

probable outcome of a fire. Thus we can analyze, with improving certainty,

the effects of using various building materials, egress routes, alarm systems

etc., to determine their impact on overall fire safety. Previously, to deter

mine the effects of the countless interacting variables that must be taken

into account, we had to build a building and burn it down experimentally, at

great cost. (An alternative, of course, is to rely on professional judgment

and small-scale tests, both of which have been pressed to the limits of their

reliability.) Burning a building, even a highly instrumented building, gives

us data only on that particular building design; we have been unable to confi

dently predict the effects of minor but possibly significant alterations in

that design.

Scientifically based simulations, by contrast, are relatively inexpensive and can be altered incrementally to identify subtle but significant interactions

beyond tne reach of experiments in which an actual building are burned. This

ability to predict without burning is, at once, the power and promise of fire

research.

3
E. DATA NEEDS NOW AND IN THE FUTURE

Long-Term Needs

To gain the simulation capability described above requires that the simulation

model incorporate extensive data on, for example, the behavior of various

materials in fires, the likely delay that occurs as occupants decide whether

to evacuate or not, the physical and chemical properties of combustion, and

the effects of specific fire safety elements (e.g., detectors, automatic

sprinklers, smoke control, etc.) on developing fire situations. We need not

only additional data but improved methods for collecting and analyzing such

data.

Much of this type of data is not now available. To acquire the needed data,

however, means ambitious programs of materials testing, analyses of past fires

(both those reported to the fire service and the far larger number considered

too minor to report), surveys of public awareness of fire safety measures,

etc.

Acquiring such large data banks, and developing the simulation models to use

them, will involve us all in an iterative process in which we should do all

the following: acquire data; construct models to simulate actual fire

conditions; test, and as needed, change the models; and, likely, discover that new data is needed to accommodate the refined models. This is characteristic

of science in general.

Complementing the data gathering (and of comparable need) is the development,

implementation, and application of a methodology for abstracting, organizing,

coding and analyzing data from actual fires.

Short Term Needs

As in other fields, however, data needs in fire research also reflect the

current imperatives of fire safety and the national economy. Local fire

services need the best information available now on how to tackle today's

fires, as do product manufacturers, code officials, regulatory bodies,

designers, fire investigators, and the many others with responsibility for

fire safety. There is no need to slight these short-term operations oriented

needs in favor of the longer-term research oriented ones or vice-versa.

Indeed, the two efforts should be complementary.

F. TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER

A critical need in fire safety is technology transfer, or the translation of

scientific output into guidelines, tools, and other products that can and will

be put to use in current fire safety efforts. Some observers believe the

amount of untranslated data to be extensive, others less so. Still others

point to the uncertainties, both in terms of public safety and legal

liabilities, inherent in using innovations which have not been tested through

extensive previous use.

Nevertheless, a strong theme running through the conference workshops was the

need to enhance technology transfer. The researcher, whose talents lie in

research and not in the development of professional tools, can only be a

4
consultant in the transfer of technology to the ultimate user. Instead, the users who are most familiar with the specific needs must assume the prime

responsibility by defining those needs and the form in which the transferred

technology would best meet them. The researcher can then assist the transfer,

especially if the transfer process requires extensive interpretation and

analysis of the data to meet the defined needs.

G. COORDINATION AND COMMUNICATION IN THE FIRE COMMUNITY

The fire community includes: the entire fire service (paid and volunteer);

engineers and architects; researchers in the Federal government, academia, and

private industry; state and local officials; manufacturers; and many others.

The resources available for fire research are limited compared to the magnitude of the effort required. Moreover, no one organization, agency, group or industry has the resources to organize a fire research program that integrates

all relevant aspects, encourages free exchange of ideas and technology, and

provides the output that only effective interactions can produce. Thus when

we use the term "national" strategy for fire research, we are not using it as

a synonym for "federal"; the efforts needed to advance fire research are so broad that every sector must be a full partner in developing and implementing

a truly "national" strategy.

This necessary diversity and freedom of action on the part of all participants

creates a need for full coordination and communication to avoid, for example,

unintentional duplication of effort, or the development of potentially complementary efforts that, in fact, "talk past each other" because crucial commonalities are not included in early planning stages. An otherwise useful

research project, for example, may produce results that are of little use to

practitioners because the research neglected to include consideration of some vital real-world variable.

In recent years much of the former distance between various sectors and

philosophies within the fire community has narrowed as disparate groups have

discovered shared goals and the possibility of mutual benefits from closer

working relationships.

We need to narrow these gaps even further to facilitate additional synergistic

activities that share data, facilities, personal expertise, and experience as needed. Directories of ongoing research projects, public education

activities, and other relevant data could be quite useful. The results of

this conference demonstrate the enormous potential value of such coordination

and communication.

H. STRATEGY FOR THE FUTURE

Based on the reports of all of the panels and its own deliberations, the

Overview Panel proposes the following principles and recommendations for the

future:

I. The National Fire Research Strategy Conference should continue to provide

a focal point for fire research, as a means for facilitating coordination

and communication among the various sectors of the fire community, and as

a mechanism for developing and maintaining the interpersonal relationships

that are vital for cooperative effort. The steering committee of the

5
conference should be augmented and maintained to provide this continuity.

The Center for Fire Research should continue to act as the conference

secretariat.

2. The work of the conference should be supported by task forces as appropriate. Initial task forces, which should be composed of volunteers

from the fire community, should include:

a. A task force to address the identification, recruitment, support and

retention of scholars for fire research careers.

b. A task force to address the physical and organizational infrastructure for fire research, including the ability of Federal, state,

and local governments, industry, fire services, and universities to

promote the sharing of resources.

c. A task force to address the full range of technology transfer issues.

d. A task force to compile directories of relevant organizations and

ongoing research. Much of this task has been accomplished as part of

the preparations for this conference; additional work remains to be

done.

3. The augmented steering committee should develop a national fire research

strategy based on the results of this conference and consultations with

the various sectors of the fire community. This strategy should include

research, development and technology transfer priorities and should

suggest appropriate roles for the several fire community sectors.

The steering committee's draft of the national fire research strategy

should be distributed to the participants of the Conference for review.

It should then be revised and submitted for public review.

The national strategy should then be distributed widely to provide policy

makers, research planners and funders, and the fire community with

guidance on both short-term and long-term goals and directions for fire

research in the United States.

Overview

Co-Chairmen - Harold Nelson

Henry Roux

Recorder - Paul McClure

Panel Members - Robert Barker

Clyde Bragdon

John Bryan

Howard Emmons

Clayton Hathaway

Peter Lund

John Lyons

Jack Snell

6
NATIONAL FIRE RESEARCH STRATEGY CONFERENCE

Report of the

Materials and Products I Workshop

at the July 22-25, 1985 Meeting

A. INTRODUCTION

Reliable information about the property characteristics of products and

their constituent materials is essential to efforts to improve the nation's

fire-safety record. Currently, manufacturers, builders, architects,

engineers, code-enforcement officials, and others who bear the

responsibility for assuring acceptable levels of fire safety lack objective

means for evaluating the fire hazards posed by materials and products in a variety of uses. To remedy this situation, manufacturers require

information and methods that enable efficient development of profitable

products, while providing an acceptable level of fire safety. Similarly,

architects, engineers, and other design professionals require a variety of

products and materials with assured levels of performance and the means to

confidently select materials and products to achieve a desired level of

fire safety.

Hazards assessment is now based on subjective judgments made by individuals

who largely rely on past experience. These individuals lack the tools for

determining whether a change in the formulation of a particular material or

a design modification actually improves fire safety. If a change results in

a product that is more resistant to ignition but more likely to generate

toxic smoke, for example, is the modified product safer or does it pose a greater risk? A similar dilemma faces the manufacturer because such

tradeoffs cannot be quantified today.

Inadequate data on properties of materials also hampers the efforts of

researchers who are working to develop models of fire dynamics. Such

models, which have the potential for accurately simulating fire growth and

spread, thus greatly reducing fire-testing costs, require information about

the fundamental properties of materials. The information now available,

however, is incomplete. As a consequence, fire safety efforts cannot take

full advantage of recent modeling advances.

The performance of a particular material or product depends on its chemical

and physical properties, as well as on the circumstances in which an item

is used. Simply stated, a product or material is neither safe nor unsafe.

Rather, an item's safety level must be evaluated in the context of its end

use. Recognition of this fact dictates that tests of a product or material

must not be limited to one set of fire conditions, which cannot represent

the range of real-life situations the product or material may encounter.

The challenge is to develop models that are applicable to a range of uses

and fire conditions and to improve the accuracy of fire hazard assessment

In the area of toxicity assessment, for example, models that would enable

one to assess the dangers posed by a class of materials under a variety of

fire conditions from data gathered from a limited number of test conditions

would be a significant improvement over our current capabilities.

7
Such sophisticated modeling techniques are technologically possible. In

fact, current models can assess the specific contribution of materials to

fire growth in a compartment. In the future, models will be able to

simulate the complex interaction between building design, the composition

and arrangement of building materials and contents, and fire detection and

suppression systems. Advancement from the historical hazards-assessment

approach of "build and burn" to the sophisticated models of the future

depends on our ability to determine the property characteristics of

materials and products.

The research programs proposed here can bridge many of the gaps in our knowledge of how the fire performance of materials and products affects

overall fire safety. This information is key to virtually all efforts to

improve the safety levels in buildings and transportation vehicles. The

ultimate beneficiary of the recommended research is the general public.

The ability to assess the hazards of specific materials and products and

the knowledge to support the development of new improved fire-safe

materials and products hinges on the establishment of the proper

technological base. To neglect the needed research is to forego the

tangible opportunity to improve fire safety, an opportunity afforded by the

present state of our knowledge of fire processes. The question is whether

sufficient resources from industry, government and academia will be

allocated to capitalize on this opportunity.

The panel devoted most of its time to identifying key research needs as they relate to the overall fire problem. It was readily recognized that

the proposed research will require the resources of government, industry,

and academia. Time did not permit division of research tasks and

determining the commitment of resources necessary to solve the problems

identified. The panel recognizes the importance of these elements in the

research-planning process.

The panel identified ten research thrusts intended to address the needs and

inadequacies described above. The thrusts are not equal in importance and

are listed in the priority order determined by the panel. The first three

thrusts, Fundamental Properties of Materials, Material Fire Hazard

Assessment, and Correlation of Standard Fire Tests with Performance in

Actual Fire, are roughly equal in importance and are broad research areas,

ranging from rather fundamental research to the development of engineering

tools.

Thrusts four, five and seven, Solid Phase Degradation Chemistry, Soot and

Particulates, and Heat Transfer from Flames, are relatively fundamental

research thrusts to develop the technology base needed in other areas. Thrusts six, nine and ten, Fire Performance of Building Assemblies,

Corrosiveness of Combustion Products, and Fire Residues are more applied

research projects which are directed towards specific material research

needs. Thrust eight. Extinguishment Systems, contains both a fundamental

research component, i.e., understanding extinguishment mechanisms and an applied engineering component, i.e., developing cost-effective fire

extinguishment systems.

8
It must be recognized that these ten thrusts were identified by a small

group ( 10) of fire researchers and practitioners from government, industry

and academia during a short workshop. Other, equally important, material

research thrusts may be identified in the future.

B. RESEARCH THRUSTS

I

.

Fundamental Properties of Materials

Thrust : Develop and assemble fundamental material property information

and measurement techniques for use in fire dynamic modeling efforts.

Current Situation : Material property information is incomplete and often

inaccessible, thus seriously hampering modeling efforts. Lacking, in

particular, is material property data over a range of real fire conditions.

The utility of some of the current information is questionable because many

property-measurement methods now used are inadequate.

Proposed Goals :

1. To supply modelers with needed material property data.

2. To develop the apparatus and methods required to provide the needed

data.

Needed Action/Research Elements :

1. Identify those material properties that are required inputs to fire

models.

2. List those needed material properties which are not available or require improved accuracy.

3. Develop new/improved apparatus and methods for securing the needed

data.

Performers : Universities, government and industry.

P riority Factors :

Importance - High. This activity underlies the entire modeling effort.

Probability of success - High

Cost: $3-5M

Time: 2-5 years

Technical Challenges : Primarily an engineering task. Current technology

will support development of the needed instrumentation and apparatus.

Technology Transfer : Will require the development of a material property

data base, the input to which must be checked by consensus standards

organizations.

9
Barriers and Issues : Activity will require close cooperation with the

modelers to determine and prioritize their needs.

Alternatives : Use existing data supported with the judgment of

experienced researchers in the field.

Key Action Steps : See needed action/ research elements.

Impact : Increased accuracy of the models, reduce the duplication of

material property data measurements, assist product and material

development, provide input to regulators and standards writers.

II. Material Fire Hazard Assessment

Thrust : Develop the means to quantify the fire hazard of various

materials and products.

Current Situation : Manufacturers of new materials and products need a mechanism to assess the effects of material/products changes on overall

fire safety. Trade-offs in material/product development—e.g., greater

resistance to ignition vs increased smoke production, or reduced rate of

heat release vs increased toxicity—must be considered in the overall

context of fire hazard assessment. The current system—i.e., code

compliance, government regulations—requires a manufacturer to develop

materials and products to pass a specific test.

Proposed Goals : Develop the capability to quantify the end-use hazards of

products and materials in real-fire scenarios. This will allow objective

identification of improved products, reduce product development costs and

foster public acceptance of products.

Needed Action/Research Elements :

1. Further develop and refine mathematical models such as the Harvard Fire

Code and FAST (Fire and Smoke Transport).

2. Develop the capability to model the burning of products and materials.

3. Identify those property characteristics of materials that are necessary

inputs in models.

Performers : Industry, academia, and government. This is the most critical

element in the cycle of material/product development and acceptance. It

requires the participation of all those who can contribute to and will be

affected by this advancement in hazard assessment.

Importance : This development would allow objective decision making by

manufacturers, engineers, fire fighters, builders and consumers.

Probability of Success : In a rudimentary way, the process has already

begun and has proven valuable in certain cases. Applications in complex

situations exponentially Increases the difficulty of developing a useable

model, however.

10
Cost: $5-10 M

Time : Continual development, but significant progress within 5 years.

Technical Challenges : The underlying chemistry and physics of burning

materials needs to be developed. Modeling of a burning product poses a formidable scientific and engineering challenge.

Technology Transfer : Make models user-friendly so that the practitioner

is comfortable using them; achieve recognition within model code writing

mechanism; educate authorities having jurisdiction; validate model.

Barriers : Funding, acceptance and validation.

Alternatives : Continue full scale testing and subjective decision making.

Key Action : Limitations of models must be clearly defined.

Impact : Reliable models will encourage material development. Current

tests do not accurately assess hazards and may actually keep safe products

off the market. Models will allow greater flexibility for architects,

designers and engineers, and will provide information critical to

fire-safety policy.

III. Correlation of Standard Fire Tests with Performance in Actual Fires

Thrust : Establish relationship between results of standard fire tests and

performance in actual fires.

Current Situation : Codes require certain material performance

requirements based on standard fire tests. The relationship of test

results to performance in actual fires is not clearly delineated.

Proposed Goal : Determine which standard fire tests provide data that can

be used to reliably predict performance in actual fires. Modify those

that are inadequate or develop new standard fire tests as required.

Needed Action : Identify standard fire tests used in codes. Determine

applicability of results of standard fire tests to predictive models.

Performers : Industry, government, academia

Importance : High. Needed by code officials to improve effectiveness of

regulations. Needed by fire modeling professionals to quantify so-called

"fire properties" of materials.

Probability of Success : High

Cost : $2-5M

Time: 2-3 years

11
Technical Challenge : An engineering challenge to extend application of

existing technology.

Technology Transfer : See goals.

Barriers /Is sues : None

Alternatives : Identify limitations of standard fire tests.

Key Steps : Foster exchange of ideas between testing and modeling

disciplines.

Impact : See goals.

IV . Solid-phase degradation chemistry

Thrust : Study solid-phase degradation to understand the mechanism of

degradation and its modification.

Current Situation : The mechanisms of material degradation in fire

environments are not understood. Fire retardant chemistry is largely

empirical.

Proposed Goals : Understanding material degradation mechanisms may lead to

materials with improved fire properties through either modification of the

base material or the addition of fire-retardant chemicals. The goal is to

provide the understanding necessary for the modification of the various

material's fire performance ranging from soot to ignition and burning or toxic gas production.

Needed Action/Research Elements : First-class chemistry researchers must

address this research area at a very fundamental level. Several

independent researchers are needed in a coordinated effort to address the

different aspects of the problem and contribute to its resolution.

Performers : Government, industry, and academia.

Importance : Material and chemical manufacturers need the research results;

however, the research is very complex and must proceed at a very

fundamental level exceeding the research capabilities of most

manufacturers. Success could lead to greatly improved materials and

products

,

Probability of Success : Probability is good if significant financial

resources are available to maintain the effort.

Cost ; Five year effort at over $0.5M per year.

Technical Challenge : The technical challenge is high. New scientific

understanding is necessary.

Technology Transfer : The technology will be transferred initially through

technical journals and symposia. Most material and chemical manufacturers

keep abreast of the technical literature applicable to their products.

12
Barriers: The single barrier is adequate financial resources. With

sufficient continued funding, quality researchers and facilities will be

attracted to the field.

Alternatives : The alternative is to continue making incremental, largely

empirical, improvements on a trial and error basis.

Key Action Steps :

1. Commit the necessary resources.

2. Plan the program.

3. Recruit high-quality researchers and facilities.

4. Coordinate the research to achieve maximum progress.

5. Disseminate the results through technical reports, journals and

symposia.

6. Adjust the initial research plan as appropriate.

Impact : New and improved fire safe materials will be developed

economically.

V. Soot and Particulates

Thrus

t

: Investigate production of soot and particulates from burning

materials and rela’te their amount and their character to the material

properties, composition, and burning behavior of the parent material.

Current Situation : The mechanism of production of soot is not well

understood. Soot contribution to flame radiation is not well

characterized. Soot is a product of all fires. Its impact on fire

fighters, particularly during cleanup, and on fire victims is not

characterized. Other particulates are also generally ignored.

Proposed Goals : Determine to what extent soot and particulates present a hazard; identify soot contribution to flame radiation.

Needed Action :

1. Develop information concerning the initial production of soot.

2. Measure its contribution to flame radiation.

3. Develop a model for the deposition of soot.

4. Measure absorption properties of soots.

5. Perform similar actions for particulates.

Performers : Government, academia, industry.

Priority : Soot and particulates are probable carriers of toxins and ar known intermediates in radiation.

13
Probability of Success : Identification and particle size determination,

high; identification of absorbants, medium to high; radiation, high.

Cost : $5-7M

Time: Medium, initial results in two years; continuing for 4-8 years.

Technical Challenge : Technical challenge is high for initial formation

mechanisms.

Technology Transfer : Scientific articles, technical-popular articles,

press releases.

Barriers and Issues : Major barrier is demonstrating that the soot

generated in the laboratory is representative of real fires.

Alternatives : For modeling, make estimates from less well known data.

Key Action Steps : Delineation of radiation from soot measurement.

Impact of Action : Evaluation of hazards, possible elimination of serious

risk, probable saving of lives.

VI. Fire Performance of Building Assemblies

Thrust : Develop models to predict fire performance of various building

assemblies

.

Current Situation : To meet building code requirements, fire-resistancerated assemblies are field-erected with little variation from the prototype

tested assembly. Greater flexibility in design is needed to allow

transfer (substitution) of assembly components without necessitating costly

large scale fire resistance testing, while maintaining adequate level

of performance.

Proposed Goals :

1. Develop methods to predict behavior of assembly components to permit

transfer (substitutions) without detracting from fire performance.

2. Characterize fire' severity in current occupancies.

3. Develop models to predict behavior of assemblies of materials exposed

to post-f lashover fires that more nearly characterize expected fire

severity in building fires.

Needed Action/Research Elements:

1. Characterize performance of components in existing test environments

(elevated temperatures).

14
2. Develop models taking into account factors of fire growth and heat load

in expected building fires.

3. Develop parameters for component transfer ir. assemblies.

Provide interim testing to evaluate algorithms.

5. Validate model.

Performers : Government, academia, industry.

Importance : Medium - needed by designers /architects as a design, aid

flexibility of design); needed by materials suppliers to facilitate

markets

.

Probability of Success : High

Cost : $3-5 M

Tine to Accomplish : Medium to Long (5-10 years'.

Technical Challenges : Requires "accurate" assessment of fundamental

"reaction to fire" properties of materials: and poses difficult firedynamics problems.

Technology Transfer : Output in form useable by architects, and structural

and fire protection engineers.

Alternatives : Continue costly testing of prototypes; overdesign of

structures.

Kev Steps:

1. Determine expected heat loads in building fires.

2. Characterize performance of materials,

3. Develop and validate models.

Impact : Provides economic alternatives to building code requirements.

VI _. Heat Transfer from Flames

Thrus

t

: Develop the ability to predict heat transfer (radiative and

convective components) from flames.

Current Situation : Hire growth in structures is largely controlled by the

convective and radiative heat transfer from materials already burn i no mi

by the response of non- involved materials to existing flame beat transfer

properties. Fire spread and growth models require knowledge of flame 'neat transfer and material response to this thermal input.

Proposed Goals : Develop methods for predicting heat transfer fr:n ;.-es; correlate soot production to the properties of the burning material;

determine the effects of flame heat transfer properties on materials.

15
Needed Action/Research Elements : Further development of non-intrusive

optical diagnostics for determination of flame properties. Development of

mathematical models to simulate flame processes.

Performers : Government, academia and industry.

Importance : This research is necessary to support the development of:

1. models of fire growth in structures

2. tests to measure the fire properties of materials

3. methods and strategies for extinguishing fires

Probability of Success : High

Cost : $1-2M

Time : 2-4 years

Technical Challenges : Continued extension/improvement of efforts already

under way.

Technology Transfer : Information must be readily available and rapidly

disseminated to those responsible for test method development and fire

modeling through technical journals and symposia.

Barriers and Issues : None other than lack of financial resources.

Alternatives : This is fundamental work, requiring state-of-the-art

experimental capabilities and strong analytical modeling. Work must be

carried out at the highest level.

Key Action Steps : All needed action/research elements.

Impact : Better test methods; improved fire spread/growth modeling

efforts.

VIII. Extinguishment Systems

Thrust : Understand extinguishment mechanisms, impact of extinguishing

systems in fire growth models on the selection of materials, and the

changes to materials properties after an extinguishment agent is applied.

Current Situation : A basic understanding of extinguishment processes is

still unknown; more detailed data is needed regarding the interaction of

the material and the agent during the combustion process.

Proposed Goals :

1. Ability to model extinguishment action.

2. Ability to determine the most cost effective combination of materials

and systems using modeling.

16
3. Validate trade-off concept.

4. Discover new trade-offs for the installation of suppression systems.

Needed Action :

1. Study combustion process and extinguishment mechanism.

2. Develop modeling capability which includes the addition of detection

and suppression system parameters.

3. Model by computer the trade-off concept. Validate by large- and

small-scale tests.

4. Study changes in materials properties during combustion when

extinguishing agents are applied.

Performers : Government, industry, academia.

Priority : This research is a high priority for the validation of

trade-off concept. Design professionals would be able to use the models to

predict levels of safety for risk managers who would then make informed

decisions.

Success : The probability of success is high, however, there is also a high degree of difficulty. Development of apparatus and testing techniques

for studying the extinguishment process will be formidable.

Cost : $2-4 M.

Time : 3 years for production of some significant results and an additional 4 years until the projected completion date.

Technical Challenges :

1. Development of apparatus for studying the extinguishment process.

2. Development of models capable of evaluating the effectiveness of

different suppression systems.

3. Development of techniques to measure changes in materials properties

when extinguishing agents are applied during the combustion process.

Technology Transfer : User friendly systems will aid both the design

professional and the authority having jurisdiction in providing optimum

useage of materials and suppression systems.

Barriers and Issues : Money for research and the view held by some

that current empirical data is sufficient to provide most cost ef c ective

combinations of materials and systems.

Alternatives : Re-evaluation of existing data to assure its

optimum application.

17
Impact : Substantially reduce casualty and property damage figures.

IX, Corrosiveness of Combustion Products

Thrust : Develop test methodology for characterizing corrosive properties

of products of combustion.

Current Situation : Current performance criteria for determining

material response in combustion toxicology and flammability tests do not

characterize the potential for corrosive damage to different substrates.

The corrosive products of combustion can attack materials and change

properties critical to the performance of certain products or systems, such

as computer components and wiring in electronic control devices.

Proposed Goal(s) : Development of methodology will permit characterization

of the potential of materials and products to produce corrosive

atmospheres. This information can guide: 1) the choice of materials to

reduce the production of corrosive products in fires; and 2) the design of

components and devices capable of functioning in atmospheres anticipated

from fires.

Needed Action : Research to identify problems encountered at actual fires

that can be traced to corrosive action of products of combustion.

Utilization of current and developing test methodology which prescribes a range of exposure conditions which can be employed in corrosivity testing.

Performers : Government, industry and academia.

Importance : Medium - Needed for design consideration by

manufacturers of equipment and components subject to degradation by

corrosive products of combustion.

Would assist interior designers in selecting contents and interior finish

which in the event of fire would not produce products of combustion that

adversely affect performance of sensitive equipment.

Probability of Success : High

Cost : $0.5-1 M

Time to Accomplish : 2 years

Technical Challenge : Requires application of existing materials

characterization technology to combustion products.

Technology Transfer : Ordinary channels of information are open

to manufacturers of corrosion-sensitive products and to designers of

facilities housing corrosion-sensitive equipment. Make performance

requirements that will help reduce potential for producing corrosive

products of combustion known to manufacturers of interior finish,

furnishings and other room contents.

18
Barriers and Issues : Not a life safety issue and, therefore, nay not

nerit allocation from limited resources.

alternatives : Isolate susceptible equipment from products of combustion.

Key Action Steps : Preparation of report on problems encountered in actual

fires which document need to establish methodology for characterizing

corrosive properties of products of combustion.

Impact

:

Reduce major cost of "clean-up" following a fire.

X. Fire Residues

Thrust : To characterize the material residues from fires. These are defined as the ash, char and violatiles remaining at the fire scene.

Current Situation : Material residues from fires have not been studied and

the health effects of exposure to these materials are unknown.

Proposed Goal : Assess the hazards fire residues pose.

Needed Action 'Research Elements :

1. Air sampling at fire scene (post fire)

2. Categorize materials, pvrolyze and examine residues for toxicants

(unusual or unexpected concentrations).

3. Examine residues of like materials at fire scene and compare with (2).

Performers : Government (fire service) and academia.

Importance : Medium

Cost : S100 ,000/vear

Time to Accomplish : 2-5 years

Technical Challenges : Scientific - Determine toxicant(s) relationships to

chronic health problems.

Technical Transfer : For medical treatment.

Barriers : Limitations of fire ground studies

Alternatives : Do nothing.

Key Steps : Collect and assess /samples

Impact : Improve medical treatment of exposed persons.

IS
Materials and Products I

Co-Chairmen - Richard Magee

James Winger

Recorder - Mark Bellow

Panel Members - Richard Brooke

Edward Clougherty

Arthur Cote

Paul Garn

John Nickles

Steven Packham

C. Ross Thompson

Thomas Waterman

Susan Womble
NATIONAL FIRE RESEARCH STRATEGY CONFERENCE

Report of the

Materials and Products II Workshop

of the July 22-25, 1985 Meeting

A. INTRODUCTION

The workshop members organized their deliberations around one question: What

research do manufacturers and specifiers need?

The participants first determined that for the purpose of establishing

research needs, manufacturers and specifiers —such as architects, interior

designers, and other "agents" of the consumer—are sufficiently alike to be

considered together. Similarly, the participants determined that it was not

useful to break the categories down further although the phrase "materials and

products" covers an enormous range of substances, combinations of substances,

and goods. Materials and products was taken to mean the wide range of items

from basic building materials to consumer products and finished structural

assemblies

.

The workshop began its task by reviewing the prework papers’ recommendations

for research, and organized those proposals into categories (Appendix 1).

These were later related to major research areas. The members agreed that all

of the suggested studies could yield significant and useful information or tools. However, they decided that the broad charge presented to the workshop

was best served by identifying a more general set of research needs.

From the list of research needs suggested by workshop members, the

participants identified five major research areas in the area of materials and

products. These are described in Section B. The first two research areas encompass, in many ways, the products of the remaining three areas identified. However, workshop members agreed that research areas 3, 4, and 5 are of major importance and should stand alone.

The workshop participants also identified significant themes and concerns that

cut across all five research areas. Insufficient funding, for example, is a problem that we all complain about. But participants emphasized that the

underlying reasons for this absence of funding—lack of concern and conviction

that fire research is important, for example—varies in different areas of the

field. Thus, modeling research might lack funds because funding agencies have

not been persuaded that it is a useful component of fire prevention and

control.

The workshop participants also emphasized that in all of the research areas identified, considerable work has already been done. But in many cases, the

pieces of research have not been brought together in a comprehensive way that

is useful in making design and application decisions. For example, many test

methods are available that describe properties of materials but the members

felt that a set of tests is needed that can be used with various combinations

of materials to predict performance in real-world fires.

21
Finally, the need for improved data collection and analysis techniques is common to all of the five major areas.

B. MAJOR RESEARCH AREAS

The prework, papers and workshop participants perceived research needs were grouped into the following five major research areas.

I

.

Develop engineering methodologies for fire risk assessment of individual

products or materials .

Currently, no adequate methodology exists that can be used to properly

evaluate the role of a product or material with respect to fire safety.

Because of this, a need exists to develop a system for assessing products'

fire performance. Components of this system should include: fire incident

data that can lead to the identification of hazard and risk; test methods or models that measure or predict characteristics such as ignition, flamespread,

rate of heat release, total heat release, smoke obscuration, and toxicity; a methodology for assigning realistic weighting factors to relevant fire

properties based on the end use environment; and methodology for combining

each of the above into a tool to assess fire risk.

The goal of this research area is to take data collected from fires and

identify key performance parameters, then combine them in a way that permits

manufacturers or "specifiers" to systematically evaluate the risk posed by a product in its end use.

Accomplishing this goal will require six research elements. These must be

conducted in the following sequence, since each item depends on the completion

of the previous item. These are:

1. Improving fire record data collection and analysis capabilities.

2. Developing and modifying tests.

3. Standardizing tests.

4. Continue developing dynamic fire models.

5. Developing a scheme to determine weighting factors to produce a fire risk

assessment.

6. Establishing a system of technology transfer to implement and use the

methodology.

This work could be conducted in virtually all sectors of the research

community. The first, second, and fourth actions could be conducted by investigators from industry, academia, and government. Test standardization, a scheme of weighting factors, and a system of technology transfer could be

developed by consensus standards groups. Potential sponsors of actions,

except the scheme of weighting factors, could include government, industry,

and professional, trade, and testing organizations. The development of a scheme to determine weighing factors would best be developed by the individual

paticipants in consensus standards groups.

99
The participants ranked this research high in importance, as well as in

potential for success, albeit over the long term. The cost would range from

$4 million to $6 million, and the work would take between 3 and 10 years to

complete.

This research could be accomplished with no new technological breakthroughs.

However, improvements are needed in data collection and analysis, fire

modeling capability. Also a better relationship between test methods and

real-world fire situations must be established. In terms of technology

transfer, this research area would require publication of findings in journals

and standards, and presentation of seminars for the implementation of

methodology

.

Several barriers impede the successful completion of this research area. Before fire record data can be improved, more funding is needed for proper

training and for the acquisition of hardware and software. Also, some industries oppose test development, viewing such tests as threats to their

interests. Test standardization, weighting factors, and fire risk assessment

are all hampered by lack of consensus about what such standardization should

involve. Weighting factors and fire risk assessment both suffer from lack of consensus. A dynamic fire model lacks adequate funding and is also hampered

by a skepticism as to the reliability of this methodology. A barrier to

technology transfer is its lack of proven capability.

II . Develop engineering methodologies for fire risk assessment of various

systems, assemblies and configurations of products.

This research thrust would be based, at least in part, on the data yielded by

the first research area. Currently, no method exists to evaluate the combined

performance of two or more materials or products in a fire situation, although

many fires are in fact fueled by such combinations. A more realistic method

for evaluating multiple factors that affect safety of life and property loss

from fire is needed for a cost-benefit approach to fire safety. Other work

dealing with methodology for fire risk assessment of individual materials and

products has an important influence on this research. Previous research

forming a part of this study is available and needs to be collected and

reviewed.

The goal of this research is to develop the capability of testing the

performance of individual materials and products and from that data predict

multiple material, product, and system performance. To accomplish this goal,

two research actions are needed. First, researchers must investigate fires to

study the performance of combinations of materials and products. Second, they

must develop models and tests to predict the performance of multiple materials

and products and to perform full-scale tests for validation purposes.

With funding from both the public and private sectors, this research could be

carried out by investigators in government, industry, and academia. It ranks

high in priority, since manufacturers, designers, regulatory officials, and

property owners all need to determine fire risk. It also ranks high in its

probability of success. Technology transfer would provide a technical basis

for making regulatory documents truly performance oriented, and would assist

manufacturers in developing products and systems to provide levels of fit‘-

safety. The cost is estimated at between $0.5 million and $2 million per year

over a 10-year period. The barriers are economics and codes.

23
Ill . Evaluate human (consumer, specifics, etc.) behavior relative to

materials and product use.

If consumers did not misuse products, there would be a substantial reduction

in the number of fires. Fires caused by clothes draped over a heater, a dropped cigarette, or food left on a stove are not primarily problems with

products. Similarly, do-it-yourselfers are unregulated and continue to

install finished walls, heaters, fireplaces, woodstoves, and other materials

and products. These circumstances generate a need to determine how to

motivate and educate consumers on appropriate behavior. Getting people to

behave in a safer fashion—as they do in other countries—could sharply reduce

the problem. Alternatively, materials and products can be made more resistant

to consumer misuse.

The goal of this research area is to reduce the rates of injury and death, as well as the incidence of fires, caused by carelessness and misuse of products

and materials. A second goal is to increase the number of buildings,

especially dwellings, that have properly operating fire detection and suppression systems. A third goal is to educate consumers to select products by

safety characteristics.

To accomplish this goal, four research actions are necessary.

1. Summarize existing information on how behavior is affected and how

attitudes are shaped.

2. Investigate how to increase consumer awareness and how to overcome consumer apathy.

3. Research the accuracy of data on fire causes, ways to improve this data

base, and uses to which the data can be put.

4. Research escape and safety methodologies with respect to smoke generation,

combustion, or other aspects of products and materials.

This research could be conducted by investigators from private industry,

academia, market research organizations, and behavioral research organizations. The research ranks high in priority; the subject has largely been

ignored and little research has been done. The probability of success is also

high; established methods of market research are applicable to the problem.

The cost is estimated at $10 million over the next five years, a figure that

includes the cost of disseminating information and conducting education

campaigns. This public information program would also be the chief technology

transfer agent needed.

The chief technological challenge in this research would be pinpointing the

triggers that motivate people to practice safety.

Currently, four barriers impede progress in this research area. First, the

fire research community retains a bias against soft research, a bias that is

reflected both in the allocation of research funds and in acceptance of

research results. The CFR and the National Fire Research Strategy Conference

have a hard science orientation, with bias against human behavioral research,

although such research is explicitly included in the CFR charter. Second, the
research is hampered by our limited knowledge about attitudes on fire safety;

this low knowledge base provides little foundation to build on. Third, such

research is hard to do accurately, as evidenced by Coca-Cola's recent costly

marketing research that nevertheless resulted in product failure. Fourth, the

average consumer gives low weight to safety when he purchases products.

IV. Evaluate capability and reliability of products that reduce the risk of

fire .

People put a lot of trust in smoke detectors, sprinklers, and other fire

safety devices. Currently, however, we do not know when the first generation

of detectors will fail; there are signs that this is already happening.

Detectors also have high false-alarm rates. The industry is in a price-driven

market, with no standard to force reliability and durability. Neither do we know the reliability of the new fast-acting residential sprinkler systems.

Some people are skeptical about whether these products will perform as their

promoters claim. There are no standard reliability test methods and criteria

for many fire safety products, including dampers, fire resistant finishes, and

others. Longevity is a particular issue.

The first goals of this research area are to establish information on reliability and to develop a set of tests and standards for reliability.

Another related goal is to make consumer products with built-in tolerance for

behavior error.

Four research elements are necessary to meet these goals.

1. Laboratory and field research on the causes of device failure and false

alarm.

2. Obtain failure incidence data from devices in the field over the long

term, after developing a standard format for data collection.

3. Develop methods and criteria for testing the reliability of devices. (Do

not rely on the minimum standards currently in effect.)

4. Research ways to improve quality, reliability, and performance

characteristics (e.g., different day-night sensitivities), and to reduce false

alarms

.

5. Research ways to improve products to make them more tolerant of behavioral

errors

.

This research could be conducted by CFR, USFA, CPSC, and by private

manufacturers, university-based researchers, the fire service, fire research

organizations, and testing laboratories. It ranks high in importance

particularly work on smoke detector reliability in homes —and carries a high

probability of success. The cost would range from $1 million to $3 million

over a three-year period. The technological challenge would be to develop

short-term test methods that accurately predict long-term performance.

Increased stress tests may not be valid in this respect. A second challenge

would be economic: how to build in reliability at a low cost, and how to

avoid pushing reliability out of the market by price competition.

25
The single barrier to this research area is the assumption by some people that

current test methods do apply to new fire safety devices. Those who believe

they do raise barriers to the need for further testing. The key issue is

whether current testing is adequate to predict long-term reliability.

V . Develop fire tests and models that accurately measure and predict the fire

performance of products .

An underlying theme of fire research is the development of reliable and costeffective fire tests and models. In particular, fire tests will probably

always be a part of establishing fire performance. Tests, however, can be

costly and expanded use of analysis is desirable. There has been significant

progress in this area, particularly in the last decade, but substantial effort

is still required.

At present, the methods of reliably modeling and testing fire performance are not generally available or affordable. Single tests are often used to

evaluate material and product fire characteristics, where sets of tests would

produce more accurate depictions of real-fire performance.

The goal of this research area is to construct methods of analysis and a series of laboratory-scale fire tests that permit prediction of fire development under those fire scenarios that create the highest incidence of loss of

life and damage to property.

To accomplish that goal, four research elements are necessary.

1. Assess current predictive and test methods of evaluating fire performance

by controlled full-scale fire experiments.

2. Reduce this assessment into predictive-model format.

3. Develop computer programs and graphics to predict performance and present

results

.

4. Conduct fundamental research to develop the technology base on which fire

tests and models are established.

This research could be conducted by government agencies, university-based

researchers, and private industry. Interaction and communication among these

groups is particularly important for success. This research ranks high in

importance, since all elements of society benefit from the reduced costs of

fire loss that this would produce. Although the research is difficult, the

probability of success is high. The cost would range from $1 million to $2

million annually, and could be accomplished over a five- to ten-year period.

The chief technical challenge would be making stand-alone computer capabilities widely available, and achieving a better understanding of pyrolysis and

turbulent combustion processes. Technology transfer could be achieved through

CFR reports.

The barriers to success are similar to those of research areas one and two.

In addition, progress would be hampered by a lack of communication between the

various constituencies in fire research community.

26
C. INITIATING THE WORK

The research described should be, and probably can only be, accomplished if

aLl interests participate, including Federal, state and local government,

manufacturers, specifiers, private consulting and research organizations, and

academia. Federal funds, at least in the form of seed money, will be required

for intiation of work.

The research into materials and products is recommended in a cohesive package,

both technically and adminstratively . Management accomplishment in this area,

including attracting funding and technology transfer, will be at least as difficult as technical progress.

One reasonable strategy for initiating and sustaining work in this critical

area is to first plan and outline in detail the required research and

projected benefits (pay-off). This could be done using Federal seed money to

several diverse organizations who would independently develop technical and

administrative/management strategies. Since the goal would be to identify the

best and most comprehensive strategy, duplication of effort should not be of concern. At least six projects funded at $50,000 each should produce the

necessary first step. The second essential step would be to initiate dialogue

through a third party to consolidate all of the work. The next step would be

to "assemble'' a research "team" to initiate work under oversight of a single

organization, whose task would be to facilitate work, maintain a dialogue and

provide for continuous review of results among various performers. Work

should be done in relatively small, discrete pieces with rigid deadlines.

Review teams of experts from all appropriate disciplines should be convened,

on at least an annual basis, to provide guidance and arrange field "testing".

D. PAY-OFF

The results of the research described would be measured as a part of the

overall program. Pay-off is expected in terms of: improved fire safety of

materials and products; reduced costs of materials and products; reduced costs

of testing; greater certainty in real fire performance; and attendant

reduction in fire loss.

E. FUNDING SUMMARY

The workshop participants did not agree on specific levels of funding or time

frame required. Ranges were adopted as follow:

Research Area One - $4-6 Million over 3-10 years

Research Area Two - $5-20 Million over 10 years

Research Area Three - $10 Million over 5 years

Research Area Four - $1-3 Million over 3 years

Research Area Five - $1-2 Million over 5-10 years

(A reasonable goal based on the above might be $9 million per year for

5 years.)

27
F. ADDITIONAL OPINIONS

On several issues some workshop members felt important items were not

addressed or required additional information. Time permitted only brief

expositions on these topics.

Research Area Number Three

Not much spent in last ten years on behavioral research. While the costs may

appear disproportionately high for the next few years, they are a small

fraction of the total for the long run.

Psychological research is expensive and takes time; it involves large samples

of people. Also, there are many products —consumer equipment, materials, fire

safety devices—that each have their own aspects to measure.

This issue deals directly with the people part of the problem—the morbidity

and mortality rates. It will have a high benefit-cost ratio.

Most people attending the conference are scientists or engineers. A "vote'’ on priorities from them is unlikely to reflect the importance and potential

payoff of this area.

Research Area Number Four

Presently the approval standard of independent testing laboratories such as UL

and FM for many building and fire safety products already contain criteria for

essential reliability and capability factors as a condition for these products

receiving such approval. Fire sprinklers, both standard response, quick

response and residential sprinklers, are prime examples. While this might not

apply to the complete universe of all products, there is no apparent need to

expand research dollars and effort in such a pursuit. Further, the cost to

fund such duplicate effort would be astronomical.

Material and Products II

Co-Chairmen - Richard Gewain

J. Thomas Hughes

Recorder - Susan Walton

Panel Members - John Blair

Nicholas Chergotis

Gerard Faeth

Frank Fee

Robert Glowinski

Ralph Johnson

William Koffel

James Mi Ike

Paul Quigg

Philip Schaenman

Robert Williamson

28
APPENDIX 1 - Materials and Products II

The following list is based on prework papers submitted by participants. The

parenthetical numbers indicate research area in which workshop members placed

the proposals.

A. Materials Properties Research/Test Methods

1. Basic Fire Research (1, 5, 2)

2. Smoldering Fires (1, 5, 2)

3. Escape Data, Smoke (1+5)

4. Fire Toxicity Hazard Standards Experiments (1, 5, 2)

5. Fire Safety Under Zero Gravity (2, 1, 5)

6. Smoke Generation from New Building Products (1+5)

7. Quantify Toxicity and Corrosiveness of Products of Combustion (5)

8. Structural Fire Performance of Building Components (2, 5, 1)

9. Small-Scale Flammability Test (5)

10. Chemistry and Chemical Kinetics of Fires (5)

11. Measurement of Product Characteristics (1+5)

B. Modeling/Predicting

1. Predicting Heat Transfer (5)

2. Structural Model for Wood (5, 2)

3. Link Solid and Gas-Phase Predictive Models (5)

4. Predict Flame Radiation (5)

5. Predicting Product Performance from Small-Scale Tests (5)

C. Use of Results of Research/Design

1. Define Level of Fire Safety (1, 2)

2. Technology Transfer (1 - 5)

3. Institutional Mechanisms (1 - 5)

4. Computerized Requirements and Design System (2)

5. Fire Safety Information System (1 + 5)

6. "Handbook" of Fire Properties (5, 1, 2)

7. Toxicity Data and Choice of Materials (5)

D. Specific Product Development/Information

1. Solid and Liquid Heating Devices (3)

2. Escape Mask Impact (4, 3)

3. Fire Growth Assessment by Detector System (4)

4. False Alarm Study (4)

5. Detecting Small Fire (4)

6. Smoke Detector Response

7. Fire Retardants and Fire Performance (4)

8. Fire Resistant Materials for Aircraft (4)

9. Fast Response Sprinklers vs Standard Sprinklers (4)

10. Expand Usage of ESFR Type Sprinklers (4)

11. Fast Response Sprinklers and Life Safety (4)

12. Cost-Benefit of Residential Sprinklers (4)

29
E. Cost of Litigation vs Research

1. Expenditures for Litigation vs Research (1)

30
NATIONAL FIRE RESEARCH STRATEGY CONFERENCE

Report of the

Design and Engineering I Workshop

at the July 22-25, 1985 Meeting

A. INTRODUCTION

The Design and Engineering Workshop discussed the research necessary to

permit design engineers to supplement technical expert judgment with

technical data.

The Workshop decided to focus on the research necessary to auantify safety,

rather than on the research necessary to quantify the fire performance of

materials and building components. It recognized, however, that good test

methods, which do not exist in some areas, are a prerequisite to having an engineering-based system of design.

Three major thrusts were identified: improvements in fire modeling;

making full scale assessments of hazard from small scale tests; and fire

risk assessment. These thrusts are all related, and there are similar

barriers to their respective exploitation. Thus, the common barriers and

the means to overcome them are' discussed together.

B. RESEARCH THRU STS /NEED

S

I. Fire Modeling

Thrust : Improvement of predictive capabilities of fire models

Current Situation : Fire modeling, a field which has been developing over

the last 10 years, needs amplification and application to be truly

effective. There is also a need to develop a body of research data which

can be used to provide accurate input to the models.

Proposed Goals : To obtain accurate and reliable engineering tools, or models, for design of fire-safe facilities.

Needed Actions : The Workshop believes that research is required to improve

models' predictive capability in the following areas:

1. Fire Growth - vertical flame spread; heat transfer: effects of

ventilation,

2. Fire Suppression - action of suppressing agents.

3. Response of detectors to flaming and smoldering combustion - effects of ventilation on smoke movement.

31
4. Structural response to fire (Human response needs to be

investigated by others but this is not an issue for this Workshop.

)

5. Full scale tests of representative configurations.

6. Definition of range of validity of models.

7. Fire-related material properties - heat of combustion; heat of

gasification; thermal conductivity.

Performers : Government, academic, fire research laboratories (public and

private). Computer facilities are available; large scale testing will

require specific facilities.

Priority Factors :

A. The importance of this research is high with a high probability of success. The cost is anticipated to be high. Most of the research would

be on a continuing basis.

B. The research results will be used by the following groups to obtain

accurate and reliable engineering tools on models for the design of

fire-safe facilities: architects; construction specifiers; fire protection

engineers; and insurance companies.

C. The following groups will benefit:

1. The construction industry and manufacturers of building material

(conventional and changing technology) will benefit through

increased market penetration, reduced liability and more rapid

acceptance of emerging technology.

2. The detection/alarm industry, the sprinkler industry, the chemical

suppressant industry, the transportation industry (airlines,

ships), and building owners and operators will benefit through

maximizing design efficiencies for effective life safety

applications and design.

Technical Challenges : This research requires continuation and refinement

of past and current programs. Additional fundamental information on the

action of fire suppressant agents is needed.

Technology Transfer : Attention must be paid to making the fire models

"user friendly.

II. Full Scale Hazards from Small Scale Tests

Thrust : A reliable methodology for determining full-scale hazards from a limited number of small-scale tests is needed.

Current Situation : This workshop concluded that there are currently few

programs to communicate, integrate and generalize such data.

32
Proposed Goals : To develop the capability to make accurate assessments

of overall fire hazards using small-scale test results.

Needed Actions: Develop procedure for predicting full scale hazard from

small scale test results. Analysis should conform to the following

guidelines

:

1. Validation of small-scale tests is essential.

2. Initial validation procedure must be sufficiently broad to test

exDected range of physical parameters.

3. There should be compatabilit}/ among small-scale data, full-scale

measurements, and input data for analytical models.

4. Final test procedures should emphasize small-scale test

parameters.

5. Validation tests should duplicate realistic fire situations.

6. Resulting test methods for fire safety practitioners need to be

economical, reproducible, and simple.

Performers : ASTM, SFPE, NFPA, NBS, Private Organizations

Priority Factors :

The importance of this Thrust was rated high. The likelihood of success,

the cost, and the time required are all interrelated.

\ It is needed by designers, regulators and manufacturers for better design,

regulation and manufacturing and for the reduction of complexity of testing

procedures.

Technical Breakthroughs Required and Technical Challenges

Breakthroughs: Fit small scale toxicity test results to predict

full scale fire environments.

Define parameters of upward flame spread.

Challenges: Define fire performance of materials in varied

geometries.

Develop more emphasis in procedures of physical

scaling.

Technology Transfer : Not a significant problem in this area.

Barriers : The major barriers are: An inadequate supply of new

professionals; a reluctance of manufacturers to participate, due to the

proprietary nature of product information and industry needs for individual

market segments.

33
Actions to overcome Barriers would include:

1 . Identification of resource centers

community.

and advertise these to

2. Development of overall cost/benefit

producer and user. analysis procedures for

3. Application of new results to show

performance analysis of materials.

better and more general

III. Fire Risk Assessment

Thrust : Develop a professionally accepted methodology which will

objectively assess the fire hazard severity, and which will quantify fire

safety goals. The design and engineering of facilities will be enhanced by

use of this methodology which will permit comparison of alternative

approaches to meeting fire safety goals.

Current Situation : Experts recognize that design engineers currently lack

the ability to quantify input data as well as output objectives. Codes and

standards are often based on arbitrary guidelines for protection levels,

failing to provide quantifiable objectives that could be used to compare

alternative approaches or designs for achieving fire safety. Some attempts

to deal with these situations are in phases of development.

Proposed Goals : Establish methods that would allow practitioners to

design and/or evaluate fire protection approaches, based on an assessment

of actual "real life" hazards. Endorse development of quantitative methods

that define levels of risk, and fire protection. Promote design and/or

comparison of design alternatives to better assist fire safety efforts.

Needed Action : Research in this field should stress:

1. Coordination and integration of existing test methods and standards.

2. Modeling that defines relationships among variables, selecting

critical elements in different situations.

3. Response to proposed actions of Thrusts I and II (Fire Modeling and

Full Scale Hazards from Small Scale Tests).

Performers

:

1. Prof. Fitzgerald of WPI has made an initial effort to develop such a system. NFPA Committee on Systems Concepts is also involved in this

area; additional efforts have been initiated by others.

2. The Society of Fire Protection Engineers should take a leading

position in this area, through a reestablishment of its Research

Committee.

34
3 . The system will require consensus support from other groups that are involved in fire protection. Ongoing review and development will be

needed to stay current with emerging technology and to deal with

diverse needs and situations. If re-established, the SFPE Research

Committee could deal with this need on a continuing basis, actively

seeking comments and participation from all groups involved.

Priority Factors : The importance of the research is high with a medium

probability of success. "he cost is anticipated to be medium to high. Th

work should be completed in a medium time frame.

Technical Challenees:

1. Development of objective data bases for use in discrete areas.

2. Identification of gaps in existing technology—and completion of

research projects to provide data as well as concepts that are not

currentlv available.

3.

Devising a means to coordinate the application of data derived from

many different areas.

Barriers : There are many barriers, both professional as veil as societal,

to improved fire safety. These barriers can be divided into four major

categories: 1. Technology Transfer, 2. Education, 3. Funding and 4.

Direction/coordination of efforts. A barrier to sharing data and

experience in fire safety is the proprietary nature of innovations.

Understandably, companies of all sizes are reluctant to take steps which

would promote sharing of breakthroughs in R&D. This is a common oroblem,

but exacerbated because of concern over questions of product liability or product image.

To implement an effective fire research program for design professionals,

closer interface must be maintained with other fields. Fire safety,

though very important, is not the sole function of a facility, be it a hospital, hotel, warehouse or manufacturing facility. Integrating fire

safety concepts with functional design is not generally accomplished

adequately.

Technology Transfer : This is technology transfer—making use of current

and future research and data to develop improved engineering techniques.

Technology transfer means using and sharing research and data.

To improve technology transfer, this workshop offers the following

recommendations

:

1. An information management system should be developed to facilitate tie

dissemination and retrieval of fire research results. The Society of T 1

r

Protection Engineers should take the lead in developing such a system.

Additionally , the Fire Research Abstracts and Reviews, once supported bv

USFA FEMA, should be re-instituted, and entered into a comouter based

information management system. It would appear that a grant is necessary

to accomnlish this latter task.
2. Researchers in applied, as well as fundamental, areas should be

encouraged to publish in refereed journals. This may require the

establishment of a peer-reviewed journal oriented to applied research.

3. The USFA mission of Technology Transfer should be revitalized,

4. Federally-sponsored research should include a Technology Transfer

component program as an objective.

Education barriers identified by the Workshop encompass both the

practitioners and enforcers respectively of fire safety.

C. GENERAL COMMENTS

Fire safety issues are becoming increasingly complex. They often surpass

the seemingly disparate interests and qualifications of architects,

engineers, building code officials and other regulatory professionals. The

workshop members feel that this gap hampers efforts of the well-intentioned

majority in those fields, who remain reluctant to make decisions and

formulate policies which depart from traditional "cookbook" solutions to

fire protection. Regulations and fire code changes now, and in the future,

will require greater technical sophistication.

The workshop recommends that these efforts to educate both the public

and the fire safety professionals be continued and expanded as follows:

1. Continuing engineering education programs for fire protection

professionals should be developed and presented. The SFPE has taken the

lead in this effort. That effort needs to be supplemented by engineering

colleges.

2. Concerted efforts must be directed toward the development of new fire

protection engineering programs at both graduate and undergraduate levels.

3. Public awareness and public education on fire safety should be

strengthened. The NFPA and USFA have the lead in this effort.

Funding of research was also identified as a barrier to achieving the goals

identified by the workshop.

All disciplines and occupations playing a role in fire safety—engineers,

designers, regulators and equipment manufacturers—suffer from a shortage

of funds and from limited staff resources in support of research and

training. In part, this situation developed because of a lack of strong

constituencies, in both the public and private sectors, that would marshal

greater financial support for programs championed by most experts in fire

safety.

The most pervasive barrier identified was the lack of direction and

coordination of the entire fire safety research effort. Research is

usually conducted on a crisis management basis, and relies too often on a disaster-directed mode. A handful of well-publicized fires—kept alive in

media accounts—force the field to initiate research projects limited in

scope, and of scant value in the overall context of fire safety.

36
Those professionals in the field do not always see the value in developing

and/or implementing improved solutions. Many employed in fire safety at

all levels prefer to adopt a "let the other guy do it" approach. The

workshop concludes that this situation is not the result of a lack of good

intentions —since efforts of many companies as well as government agencies

and associations are commendable and demonstrate a long-standing

involvement. Rather, it is an information gap which fragments the field

and its professional corps. This gap emphasizes differences, not common

interests, and fosters a sense of powerlessness on the part of those who

might become more active.

Economic disincentives curtail efforts of practitioners to move beyond

horizons of immediate, short-term financial gain. Recognition of an existing status quo, and the perception on the part of too many in the

field that the status quo is desirable, constitutes a major shortcoming.

The workshop members believe that this conference itself is a major step

toward providing needed direction and coordination to achieve a technology-driven program. To facilitate this coordination, the workshop

further recommends the following:

1. A higher level of rational attention be given to the fire problem in

the U.S. This national focus can come only from government and private

sector cooperation.

2. Basic guidelines on fire research—which identify key measurements of

broad application—should be developed and implemented. These would

allow more effective use and coordination of ad hoc testing and research

within the overall framework identified in the stated needs section of this

document.

Design and Engineering I

Co-Chairmen - Frederic Clarke

Kenneth Dungan

Recorder - Julian Weiss

Panel Members - Norman Alvares

Jack Barritt

Paul -Croce

Rolf Jensen

Charles Lazzara

Roy Mathers

David McCormick

Wayne Moore

J. Gordon Routley

Frank Shisler

Merwin Sibulkin

37

NATIONAL FIRE RESEARCH STRATEGY CONFERENCE

Report of the

Design and Engineering II Workshop

at the July 22-25, 1985 Meeting

A. SUMMARY

The primary research goal identified by this workshop is the development of

knowledge-based, performance-oriented codes and standards. With this aim,

we established priorities in two areas - Long Range Research Thrusts and

Immediate Research Thrusts. The former consists of, in order: 1)

Modeling; 2) Expert Systems; and 3) Fire Safety Measuration. The second

group includes: 1) Smoke; 2) Fire Protection Systems; 3) Building

Technology; and 4) Information Transfer. For each of the latter, a problem

statement, a set of research needs and a strategy are presented. A common

description of the barriers faced by our research thrusts concludes this

report.

B. INTRODUCTION

The workshop group consisted of thirteen members with different

affiliations and areas of interest.

Affiliation

FRCA, PCA , SCA*

NCSBCS , NIH, BOCA

FM, UL

University of California - Berkeley

Grinnell Fire Protection Systems Co,

Ruskin Manufacturing Co.

The Garaewell Corp.

Shaw Associates

Koppers Co.

Areas of Interest

Building Codes

Test and Evaluation

Fire Retardant Chemicals

Fire Retardant Treatments

Smoke Control

Alarm Systems

Sprinkler Systems

Operational Fire Safety

Industrial Fire Research

Academic Fire Research

The group was charged with discussing the research necessary to permit

designers and engineers to supplement subjective judgment with technics’,

information. Facts, data and methods would be systematically assembled,

Full names of organizations are listed in Appendix C.

39
to permit credible measurement of the level of safety inherent in the

design and engineering of facilities, equipment, and vehicles.

The discussion focused on the designer and involved the development of long

range and immediate goals dedicated to: 1) the development of knowledgebased codes and standards and 2) information and technology transfer.

In each of the three long range and four immediate major thrusts identified

below, the problems, research needs, and strategies are sequentially

discussed. Barriers were found to be common and are, therefore, described

in one section at the end of this report.

C. LONG RANGE RESEARCH THRUSTS

I. Modeling

Once the workshop arrived at the consensus that its primary goal was to

encourage knowledge-based code and standard development, the item of

highest continuing and long range priority became model development and

validation. The term "knowledge-based" needs careful definition. If a requirement is based on fundamental physical principles, through detailed

mathematical quantification and experimental verification, it is called

"knowledge-based." An example is structural design based on beam and plate

theory which permits calculations of deflections and stresses; and

therefore, of safety by comparison with known yield strengths as a function

of the anticipated applied load. To be able to perform such a calculation

for fire safety is our aim. Because this ability is beyond the forefront

of current technology, a considerable research effort is required. Until

that effort is complete, we will rely on existing "consensus-based" codes

and standards, which establish the currently best available methods for

achieving fire safety.

The transition between these two types of standards will be gradual and

continuous. Current techniques may continue unchanged. We will, however,

understand their consequences; and therefore, be able to quantitatively

assess trade-offs between alternative approaches to the same safety goals.

A consequence of this understanding will be the possibility of having

performance codes instead of specification codes. Again, definitions are appropriate. A "Performance" code means that a result is required by law

and that the method by which that result is achieved is left to the

discretion of the designer. However, he then assumes the burden of proof

to show quantitatively that the required safety is achieved by his design.

Because we now lack the ability to make quantitative predictions, the

current system is largely one of specification. A "Specification" code means that a specified method is required by law. Once validated computer

models and expert systems become available, the more cost effective

performance code for achieving fire safety will be possible.

Because the needed fire modeling is so broad in scope and long range in

time scale, the workshop identified it as having highest priority. We

could not define in the time available more detailed research needs,

barriers, or action items. Suffice it to say that the Center for Fire

Research (CFR) at the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) is uniquely

well-equipped to identify initial action items and direct their execution

internally and externally and that such activity is of primary importance

40
to a successful national fire safety strategy.

II. Expert Systems

During the discussion of the needs of designers/engineers, a recurring

theme was the fact that to optimize fire safety design, expert consultants

are usually very desireable. While it is recognized that practicing

consultants have considerable expertise, they are few in number and quite

often limited to specific areas (e.g. , a particular code or standard, or technical area). During early design stages, mistakes, and the escalating

costs to correct them, can delay a new building or facility. As existing

buildings can be expected to change in occupancy and structural features

with time, the ability to quickly evaluate the fire safety of the modified

structure is a crucial engineering need.

Expert systems offer two outstanding potential features for the design/

engineering/code enforcing community. First, they provide an excellent

means for transferring research results to the end user (as is discussed

elsewhere in this report). Second, they provide a superior means of

implementing the desired transfer toward knowledge-based codes. Their

promise in this regard springs from the fact that the ability to combine

actual research results and fire measurements with the experience and

practical judgment of recognized experts allows informed users to reach

rational decisions on various engineering and design matters. If

variations from codes and standards or an innovative approach to a design

problem must be considered, these systems should help everyone better

understand the possible consequences of such an action, especially if the

level of fire safety is affected.

The technical obstacles that must be overcome to permit widespread use of

expert systems are formidable. These systems will probably require microprocessor capability that does not exist today. In addition, a system will

have to be able to synthesize fire behavior through the use of models - most all of which will need to be developed. Identification and

programming of the "expert” will be needed. Given the complexity of

specific fire problems, this programming will be costly and time consuming.

Finally, the cost effectiveness of such systems will need to be addressed,

especially if computer costs for running complex models remain high.

As is discussed elsewhere, the CFR must take the lead role in the

development of such systems. Because their development is so closely tied

to model development and indicated need, it is not possible to prioritize

what systems should be developed first. The potential benefits of this

technology are such that we believe that their development — as well as the development of the underlying models — should be a prioritv. Further,

they should be made available to the practicing community as soon as possible after their development so as to begin the movement toward

knowledge based codes and standards which permit the designer and regulator

to make rational decisions on design, installation, and tradeoff issues.

III. Fire Safety Measuration

The third long range goal which evolved from our workshop consensus was the

problem of developing measuration techniques to assess the level of fire

safety. Two separata problems exist: 1) find methods to evaluate the fire
safety inherent in a given design; and 2) decide what level of safety is

acceptable. The first is easier since it is a technical question with

primary input from classical disciplines, such as fluid mechanics, heat

transfer, mechanics and risk analysis. The second combines social and

political sciences as well as economic decisions associated with tradeoffs,

risk transfer, redundancy, etc.

To a large extent, the research necessary to determine what levels of fire

safety measuration are required will depend on other activities described

in this report. As our understanding of fire dynamics improves through

model development and the rationale for understanding the design of

structures and fire protection systems improves, our ability to assess practical limits to fire safety will improve. It is our belief that if

knowledge-based standards and codes are to become a reality, there must be

a consensus over what is to be gained in the way of fire safety.

This is a problem for the entire fire research community. Establishment of

a framework by which such decisions can be made should start now. CFR and

the United States Fire Administration (USFA) coupled with the possible

continuing input of this Strategy Conference should lead in defining what

issues and research is needed to develop the necessary consensus. Individual groups — i.e., industry, government, research and testing labs,

insurance and risk analysis and the standards organizations — should then

be able to develop individual objectives so that a final agreement can be

reached on appropriate levels of fire safety.

Q. IMMEDIATE MAJOR RESEARCH THRUSTS

IV. Smoke

Problem : A major immediate research thrust identified by our workshop was that of smoke, its quantification and control.

Needs: Questions we identified as needing answers through existing or imminent fire research fall into three categories.

1. Characterization: What is the definition of smoke? How do we measure

it? What constitutes the safety hazard of smoke — is it toxicity,

obscuration, soot, or other aspects such as corrosivity?

2. Production: How do we predict smoke production rates in a given fire

scenario? How does smoke type and amount change with fire scale? How does

smoke evolve as it moves away from its sources?

3. Transport and Control: How does smoke travel? When does

pressurization suffice and when are mechanical barriers necessary to

control its movement? How do we evaluate the interaction of smoke control

systems with suppression systems such as sprinklers? Are refuge areas viable and when will people be willing to use them? How do we establish

design criteria for full scale tests of smoke control systems to establish

their credibility and reliability?

These questions effectively state a problem which is well-posed and within

the competence of the fire research community. The solution to this

problem may be the most readily obtainable, directly visible, useful

42
product of our fire research effort. As noted by the Congressmen Wednesday

morning, such evidence would make funding of fire research an easier task.

Strategy : The approach to address this need which emerged as our group's

consensus was that the Center for Fire Research at NBS take the lead on

this problem, based on its existing skill level and available facilities,

particularly in modeling and measuration. We see three stages of activity:

1. Define needed results. This is a multi-organizational task with input

and possible funding from ASHRAE, OLS (Operation-Life Safety), USFA, NFPRF,

NCSBCS , FAA, et al.

2. Develop and implement a detailed research program. CFR should do this

utilizing internal expertise on aerosols, toxicity and fluid mechanics with

external expertise from universities, research and testing laboratories in

the United States as well as with NRC in Canada and the BRI in Japan

assisting as required to optimize progress.

3. Implementation. This is a ke37- step which imposes on researchers the

responsibility of following through on the results of their work to the

point of a quantifiable impact on life safety. Again, a marriage of

diverse groups such as CFR, USFA, OLS, ASHRAE, et al, is envisioned here.

A primary advantage of this research area is the coupling of a high

probability of success (this problem being within existing research

competence), with an opportunity for a large impact since many fire deaths

appear to be smoke related. The workshop therefore suggests that this

major thrust receive immediate and concentrated attention.

V. FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS

Problem : A major research thrust is the need to systemmatically

investigate the effectiveness of active fire protection systems in all

types of fires. The need is based on the established fact that there is no single, uniform fire which exhibits similar properties of heat transfer,

flame spread, smoke production, etc. In addition, new technologies are being considered for wide-spread use in buildings and new expectations of

human behavior—based on recent research—will be affecting the design of

safety systems. We anticipate that designers/engineers /code enforcement

personnel are now routinely engaged in questioning applications of these

technologies — most critically in the areas of tradeoffs and redundancies

in levels of protection.

Needs : Three areas of needed research were identified: 1) suppression

systems, most notably sprinklers; 2) detection devices, most notably smoke

detectors; and 3) alarm systems. Of most concern was the ability to

generate information for all three types of systems which would enable the

designer/engineer to install and use the systems in a way dictated by

occupancy or construction features. In addition, the evaluation of devices

by testing laboratories was seen as requiring study to determine if

existing standards are appropriate for the level of technology as it exists

today.

43
Table I outlines specific questions and needs in this area. In general,

the major components of this research thrust include four distinct areas:

a. Development of criteria for selecting/developing fire protection

system. One type of fire protection systems is not suitable for all

possible fires in an area. Of special note is the question of flaming vs,

smoldering combustion as it pertains to life safety, suppression, egress,

etc.

b. Development of information on the performance of smoke detectors in

large-scale fire and of criteria for the appropriate level of sensitivity

for a given occupancy to prevent unwanted false alarms, etc.

c. Development of application criteria regarding response characteristics,

effectiveness, installation criteria, etc., given particular construction

and occupancy factors.

d. Establishment of appropriate alarm technology and awareness to help

ensure people respond appropriately and quickly in a fire emergency.

Included in this area is the need to better understand human behavior in a fire emergency.

Strategy : Past programs suggest that any progress in this area will

require a concerted effort on the part of the private sector (manufacturing

interests, testing and research laboratories, and certain standards groups)

and the U. S. Fire Administration. A suggested strategy is for the USFA —

possibly working together with the CFR — to develop a program outline

which will address the major technical issues and serve as a blueprint for

developing the research framework.

It is believed several fire research centers have the capability to perform

most of the required work. Investigation of human response factors may

require involvement of non-fire researchers (although the CFR could do this

work). It is also believed that funding or sponsorship would be available

from several sources: the USFA for those areas responsive to the charge

given them in America Burning ; the manufacturing industry through

individual manufacturers or trade associations such as National Fire

Sprinkler Association, NEMA, etc. , and by individual organizations such as independent testing labs, insurance interests, building groups, etc. Use

of a private sector group such as Operation Life Safety or the National

Fire Protection Research Foundation (NFPRF) to act as a central

coordinating point fob the fund raising and program administration Is also

desirable. Such an entity could coordinate technical expertise from around

the country to monitor the research activity for responsiveness to needs,

technical merit, etc.

Sufficient technical capability now exists to perform this program. It is

expected that work could be completed in 3-5 years. Although there are

three distinct programs involved, some suppression/detection tests could be

conducted in concert with others to reduce costs. The results should be

easy to assimilate into engineering and design practice, especially if the

underlying assumptions, limitations, etc., are incorporated into knowledge

based codes and standards which permit the designer to make rational

decisions on design, installation and tradeoff issues.

44
VI. BUILDING TECHNOLOGY

Problem and Needs : The discussion of major research thrusts related to

building technology crystallized several important components in a field in

which much research has already been completed. The urgent research needs

arrived at with the working group involved synthesizing existing

information, questioning criteria, and model creation.

We look to a system for evaluating available data and prior research

results to determine whether existing criteria are valid. We suggest the

following:

1. Critical assessment of what is in place now; i.e., data, past

experience, rating tests, etc., to determine the performance and cost

effectiveness of present criteria.

2. Development of a model to predict fire assault on structures and the

structural response to fire. This model should consider: occupancy

conditions, fire loading, in-site protection systems, etc.

Strategy : The overall strategy to achieve structural research needs, like

the other major thrust areas, involves a wide ranging coalition. The

organizing partner (and program developer) should be the National Bureau of

Standards because of their disinterested position, varied expertise

centers (Center for Fire Research and Center for Building Technology) and

the existing capability to provide verification of the building technology

that already exists.

While the coalition approach assumes several working partners in this

research effort, primary support should necessarily come from the various

materials interests under the banner of their associations (AISI, PCA,

NFPA, SPI, Gypsum, etc.) with funding of existing product research.

The potential exists for research in this area to have a significant and

perhaps near term impact because much of it involves a synthesis of

existing data, with our workshop's expressed priorities of model

development and information transfer.

VII. INFORMATION TRANSFER

Problem : Any discussion on information transfer must answer several key

questions: What is available? Who needs it? In what form do they need it?

What technology should be brought to bear to improve the form of that

information transfer tomorrow? Over the years, considerable fire research

has been conducted without including provisions for transferring the

information to the next user. That audience may vary. For examole, the

output of a basic research project is probably best directed to an applied

research effort and the latter must be responsive to the designer and

engineer. Certainly, the form of the information must be such that the

designer and engineer can best use it. To date, however, that form is

almost always limited to reports, papers, monographs, etc., which are often

difficult to directly use in a specific design case. As the quantity of

research information grows, it will become more and more difficult for

designers and engineers to remain current.
Need ; Obviously, any research project should have the requirements of the

next user in mind. Beyond that, however, is a need to allow informed users

to have ready access to existing data in a form that can also be readily

used. A key part of this need is the recognition that fire is an extremely

complex subject. To assure that technical decisions are made as accurately

as possible, it is highly desirable to continue the long-range development

of expert systems on a priority basis. In the meantime, the development of

engineering data bases and improved transfer mechanisms could greatly

facilitate application of existing technology.

Strategy ; The need for improving our capabilities in transferring research

results to the design, engineering and code enforcement community is a very

high priority need. Because of its unique position and capabilities, CFR

is the best qualified to lead the national effort to improve this effort.

Specific action plans include:

a. Development and support for existing mechanisms of developing and

maintaining data bases on world-wide fire research and related activities,

(e.g. , incident reporting). CFR and USFA funding of such activities is

essential, as is the need to provide means to make such information freely

available and accessible.

b. Through its contacts with universities and the educational community,

the CFR should develop means to introduce fire science concepts into the

education channels of architects, engineers and other technical courses. Cooperation with the National Science Foundation should assist in this

effort.

c. With the CFR in the lead, continue research into the development of

expert systems. Independent research laboratories and universities should

also be involved. Because of the wide-spread interest in expert systems at

MBS, the CFR is again uniquely qualified to lead in the research effort to

apply this technology to fire and fire protection design, assist the

private sector in developing systems of interest and in correlating the

latest in model development into the systems to assure they remain current

and in step with the latest measuration technology.

The required resources for implementing the first two parts of this

strategy exist. Except for increasing the number of data bases,

incremental costs are not excessive. Immediate implementation is

recommended as payback should also be immediate. Development of expert

systems is considered a long-range thrust and is discussed elsewhere in

this report.

E. BARRIERS

There are several barriers which may reduce the probability of implementing

the research strategies proposed. While lack of funding is the most

obvious, consideration in fear of inducing legal liability is also a major

concern. For some areas of research, there is an apparent lack of

facilities to conduct research on a systematic on-going basis (e.g., a high

rise structure to validate a comprehensive smoke transport and control

model )

,

46
iesides these more obvious barriers, there are also institutional barriers

vhich must be considered. In general, any well-established, in place

system could provide a disincentive to investment. Our code and acceptance

process itself is one such potential barrier. In some areas (e.g.

,

building assemblies), an elaborate infrastructure of specific requirements

and performance criteria have evolved over the years which have resulted in

manufacturers and testing laboratories investing considerable sums in

product development and test facilities. Any research program touching on

these areas in which private sector support is expected would likely

require a prediction of measurable payback for the investment in terms of

demonstrating much improved performance, lower costs to the manufacturer or end user, or an expanded market. An added perception is that the codes and

standards process itself could prevent a timely introduction of a new

innovation to the user, thus creating an additional disincentive.

Closely related to the above is the question of the person applying changes

to the existing codes or standards. For example, there is a significant

national investment in the experience of code enforcing personnel. A major

change in a code or standard would have costs associated with informing

these people about the new change as well as in the re-building of the

experience base. In our view, construction of knowledge-based codes could

help minimize this impact and assist in improved implementation of the

changes when the code is first used.

The final barrier is associated with the historical fact that individuals

and organizations sometimes take hard positions. This is understandable

(but not desirable) where there are competing technologies (e.g.,

suppression vs smoke control) and, in some cases, where particular

special interest groups may be involved. Quite often, however, such

barriers exist only as a matter of opinion. This underscores the fact that

fire protection is still largely an art and sometimes an opinion has little

more than an individual's personal experience and knowledge behind it.

Consequently, lacking a suitable knowledge base for many of our current

requirements also serves as a disincentive for investment if an influential

person or organization can sink a new innovation solely on opinion. It

also underscores a designer's/engineer's problem for proposing a new

innovation for use in a new building or facility.

Design and Engineering II

Co-Chairmen - Paul Fitzgerald

Patrick Pagni

Recorder - John Petraglia

Panel Members - William Christian

David Hammerman

Russ Kidder

Henry Mader

Jonas Morehart

L. L. Neibauer

Richard Plettner

Martin Reiss

Ken Schoonover

Harry Shaw

William Young
Table 1

1. Determine appropriate sensitivity to use for adequate protection,

considering different fire scenarios.

2. Determine appropriate sensitivity to use as the basis for

certification.

3. Determine a method to verify sensitivity.

4. Determine the benefits of photoelectric vs. ionization by occupancy.

5. Determine what criteria should be used for location/spacing (e.g,

,

NFPA 72, Appendix E).

6. Determine whether existing standards are at appropriate level of

technology.

7. Determine the effects of standard or fast response sprinkler

technology on smoldering and on flaming fires.

8. Determine how spacing, K factors, and waterflow can best be

determined based on performance standards.

9. Determine how suppression/detection system costs can be reduced for new installation or retrofit.

10, Determine how room and ceiling configuration affects performance of

suppression, operation, spacing, etc.

11, Determine the effects of induced air currents on sprinkler/detector

operation.

12, Determine a framework for accepting new suppression systems.

48
NATIONAL FIRE RESEARCH STRATEGY CONFERENCE

Report of the

Regulatory and Risk Workshop

at the July 22-25, 1985 Meeting

A. INTRODUCTION

In order for research to have an effect on fire problems it must, to some degree and in some form, be acted upon. Most often that action will take

place through the adoption and enforcement of codes and standards.

Therefore, the task of this panel has been to identify and develop

strategies for research that are needed so that those concerned with

providing fire safety can make their decisions, to a greater extent, on the

basis of technical data and quantified impact rather than the way they

are made today.

There was general agreement among participants that a carefully-conceived

research stategy was needed to make this attainable. As they saw it, the

program should identify: 1) the kinds of data needed: 2) the analytical

techniques to be brought to bear on the information made available; and

3) the process by which the data could be packaged and made useful.

Although much data on fire incidents are currently being gathered, the data

often neither support nor rebut many of the present regulatory

requirements. The kinds of information gathered therefore depend on the

problems to be addressed. In collecting, organizing, and analyzing fire

incident information, there are four factors to be considered. First, the

information should serve as the basis for risk analysis. Second, it should

be centralized to eliminate overlapping and wasteful duplication of

information. Third, it should be specific enough to identify fire

problems. (Current reference to the "Fire Problem" lacks clear definition

and explanation. Codes and standards are purportedly adopted to address

fire problems. But unless these problems can be clearly identified, they

cannot be addressed adequately by the codes. ) Finally, it should be more

historically oriented. That is, it should be used in comparison with the

regulations in effect at the time of construction, not those in effect at

the time of the fire.

In sum, the panelists agreed that —for a start —more complete, more

accessible and more reliable information is needed as a basis for

regulatory research and revision. In this context, "data" was determined

to include:

1) the collection and comparison of all pre- and post-fire incident

data; 2) fire and other test data; 3) behavioral data; 4) source data:

and 5) environmental, reference and economic data.

All of this information would lay the ground work for rigorous quantitative

analysis. There was a consensus that the analysis of choice should '-^e r

: s'< analysis and that this, in turn, could be classified in several ways. To

begin, there are various types of risk—potential, probable, perceived,

actual, and acceptable—as well as a repertory of techniques. Some of the

tools of risk analysis include:
Fire predictive modeling, e.g., for use in developing knowledge of causes

and what can be done to alleviate them; knowledge-based systems, e.g., for

use in analyzing risks in residential fires; plausible scenarios, e.g., for

use in estimating the degree of hazard of combustible materials,

considering the effect of ignition, rate of heat release, toxic gases and

the like.

The initial goal would be to look for consistent measures in sufficient

detail to assess fire mitigation methods. Having selected the appropriate

technique(s ) , an investigator could assess levels of risk, identify and

then analyze hazards, quantify the risks and, finally, conduct a costrisk-benefit analysis to which all the preceding phases have contributed.

Risk analysis could make two important contributions to the workshop's

goals. First, it might help the regulatory community understand and use certain fire effects quantitatively, (i.e., ignition and burning of

fuel-rich hot layers; wall and ceiling burning temperatures; buoyant flows

up stairwells; and toxic gas change and transport between fire production

and escape route.)

Second, it is a prerequisite to helping regulators decide what to regulate

and how to regulate it.

Even with accurate and complete data combined with sophisticated analysis,

a third step is still needed. The research must be packaged and made

useful. Once research results have been validated, they must be

transferred to users. Developers of codes must understand the uses and

limitations of research results, and be assured that practical applications

have been reviewed by persons with strong science and engineering

backgrounds. In light of the currently used, seat-of-the-par.ts risk

analysis used to aid in the drafting of codes, it would be useful to

prepare an impact assessment guide to review traditional fire protction

requirements of building codes and standards. Paradoxically, we make in

depth reports on failures but not on successes. (Thousands of fires where

little or no damage is reported go uninvestigated.) An impact guide might

help regulators discover what works.

Following through on this charge, the panelists agreed that prior to

embarking on such a comprehensive data gathering endeavor, it is necessary

to determine what research is currently available. Furthermore, the

construction of accurate and complete data bases is indispensable to the

risk and hazard analysis techniques that would be applied to specific

situations. These data bases would be of two kinds: (1) a research

data base that would be comparable to LEXIS in law or MEDLARS in medicine;

and (2) a fire data base, that would aggregate: behavioral, test,

demographic, and economic data relating to fires ; and formulas for

computing quantitative results.

B. RESEARCH NEEDS

I. Research Information Base

50
The elements of a research information base exist, but they are fragmented

and diffuse. In particular, fire safety research issues are addressed by

many Federal agencies—amounting to an estimated $40 million of scattered

activitv—and by private industry, which spends about $120 million annually

in fire safety development. What is needed is an information base that

would be centralized, free of redundancies and accessible to authorized

users. Whether the national coordinating body should be Federal or private

remained open. What is not at issue is that this body should track ALL

federal, state and private fire research and safety projects.

THEREFORE RESEARCH IS NEEDED TO :

Develop a method of identifying and coordinating national (and

international) fire research, and creating an information bank to

include

:

problem(s) researched

facility

sponsor

status (completion date)

output (or work product)

funding (who and how much)

Identify an appropriate location, form, and manner in which such

information is collected, stored, and disseminated.

This research should be conducted by NBS/CFR or NFPA—in-house and by

grantees.

II. Fire Data Base

A separate fire data base should be developed. This would comprise data on fire incidents and on fire tests in sufficient detail to permit users to assess fire mitigation methods and alternatives. The entire fire-related

community needs this information to prioritize its efforts and to identify

regulatory response and levels of protection and hazard. As with the

proposed research information base, much (but not all) the information is

available, but in highly fragmented form. Test and performance data are needed, for example, to define the effects of building configuration and

detector sensitivity on fire growth; or to determine what structural

assemblies and designs should be permitted by regulatory officials; or how

to draft performance specifications for the flammability of furnishings.

The creation of a fire data base should be a cooperative effort of Federal

agencies —with NBS/CFR or the Fire Administration taking the lead—the

NFPA, associations of elected and appointed officials, and the insurance

industry.

THEREFORE RESEARCH IS NEEDED TO :

Develop a methodology for collecting pertinent fire data. ""hat

data should include:

51
Test data.

- Empirical knowledge.

- Behavior of those exposed to, confronted with, or victimized

by fire.

- Physiological effects of fire exposure on victims.

- Reference data.

- Economic information.

- Environmental data.

III. Analytical Tools

The creation of complete data bases is a necessary, but not sufficient

step, in applying knowledge to fire prevention and mitigation. The fire

community needs more analytical tools that incorporate this knowledge and

that can be used in regulating and in determining risk. There is a need to

quantify potential, probable, actual and acceptable levels of risk and for

publishing them—possibly as NFPA/ASTM standards. We also need an understanding of the code application process itself. A computerized

expert system could become a fast and efficient guide to assist enforcement

personnel in applying codes. As an additional example, it should be

possible to design decision support systems to evaluate tradeoffs and

equivalencies in building and fire codes. A final example would be an assessment technique for identifying "acceptable" levels of risk—that

is, the reduction of fire losses to acceptable levels —using existing

techniques (i.e., decision tree).

THEREFORE RESEARCH IS NEEDED TO :

Develop a methodology for comparing fire information relative to

the functioning of material, hardware, and structural elements in

a building before and after a fire —these elements to include

sprinklers, alarms, F.R. construction, opening protection,

furnishings, occupancy characteristics, etc.

Analyze the data to:

Identify appropriate analysis techniques; establish levels of

risk; identify hazards; identify and quantify the fire problems;

evaluate the hazard; quantify the risk; and set a cost-risk-benefit ratio.

Develop methods that can be used by those:

Responsible for developing, adopting, and promulgating codes and

standards; and responsible for enforcing codes and for accepting

alternate protection or equivalencies.

52
Determine the validity of these methods.

The technical effort should include the development of training packages

and materials that facilitate the use of the analytical tools.

This research should be undertaken by NBS/CFR, NFPARF (research), ASTM,

appropriate universities, and other private research groups through grant

funding.

IV. Additional Research Needs

In addition to the three interrelated programs outlined above, the

panelists believe that RESEARCH SHOULD BE UNDERTAKEN in specific fire

areas, as follows:

Learn how to commercially produce cigarettes that will not ignite

furniture and mattresses. The Cigarette Safety Act provides a beginning. NBS/CFR, the cigarette industry, the fire community, CPSC,

USFA, and HHS all should be involved.

Determine practical and feasible ways to produce furniture that will

not ignite when a cigarette is dropped on it. The Upholstered

Furniture Action Council has made significant progress in this area,

using better performance fibers and heat conducting welt cords.

However, more research remains worthwhile. The industry, NBS/CFR, and

CPSC, would contribute.

Heating equipment fire research, with NBS , CPSC and some universities

sponsoring research.

Structural assemblies risk assessment. Sponsors: NBS, Underwriters

Laboratories, AIA, universities, forest products companies.

Building configurations influence on sprinkler/detector sensitivity and

on fire growth. Sponsors: NBS/CFR, NFPA, UL.

Retrofit package for residential sprinkler systems. Sponsors:

sprinkler manufacturers, FM, UL.

Measures of fire load and fire stress rating. Sponsors: CFR, FM, UL,

equipment manufacturers, NFPA.

Flammability of furnishings. Sponsors: NBS/CFR, UL, CPSC, industry.

Optimization of sprinkler response time. Sponsor: NFPA, code

officials, revising NFPA 13 and 13D as appropriate.

Effects of ceiling height, sloped ceilings, beams and lintels on effectiveness of residential fire protection systems. Sponsors: NFPA,

UL, FM.

Determine combination of automatic sprinklers and corapartraentatior.

design standards that provide optimal protection. Sponsors: NBS/CFR,

NFPA, FM, Southwest Research Institute.

53
Provide heat out and air velocity time data for a wide range of fuel

loading. Sponsor: NFPA, strengthing NFPA 13, with support of FM, UL.

C. CONCLUDING REMARKS

The combination of massive contemporary data (information) bases with

sophisticated analytical tools could be applied to many situations. Among

those identified are: the drafting of a fire handbook of formulas and

data; the creation of a performance-based, risk-oriented fire code; and the

drafting of economic initiatives for fire sprinklers and detectors. What

these projects share is their amenability to quantitative analysis. Thus,

a performance-based fire code would consist of consensus performance levels

developed by means of risk modeling. Similarly, developing economic

initiatives for sprinklers and detectors demands a quantitative evaluation

of existing building code modifications, and a cost-benefit analysis of

tradeoffs

.

In conclusion, panelists agreed that the coordination of data and analysis

can resolve many regulatory problems —the updating of codes, the analysis

of acceptable levels of risk, the determination of what structural

assemblies should be permitted, and the resolution of residential fire

protection problems, to mention a few—that concern regulatory officials

involved in fire-related matters.

Regulatory and Risk

Co-Chairmen - Philip Favro

Alan Stevens

Recorder - Arnold Levine

Panel Members - H. Adams, Jr.

Bert Cohn

Olin Greene

Douglas Greenaway

James Hoebel

Charles McGuire

Rick Mulhaupt

Jerome Pepi

James Quintiere

Chester Shirmer

Robert • Strength

John Viniello

John Watts, Jr.

Jim White

54
NATIONAL FIRE RESEARCH STRATEGY CONFERENCE

Report of the

Real-Time Extinguishment and Hazard Analysis Workshop

at the July 22-25, 1985 Meeting

A. RESEARCH THRUSTS

I . Technology Transfer/Research Bridging

Def ini tion : The group voiced concern that fire research is not being

effectively translated and integrated for use by fire fighters. How can

such technology transfer be encouraged and expedited? Is there a need

or a way—of mandating developmental research in this area at the federal

level? What about cooperative projects between the private and federal

sectors? Even if there are obvious practical benefits embedded in basic

research findings, how can that information be translated and disseminated

to local fire fighters? What mechanisms and programs should be develooed,

and under what aegis, for doing this? Partial or preliminary results from

soundly based research in many cases, could be put into use to save lives

and property. That would require a closer interaction between fire

fighters and researchers than has been customary.

Current Situation : Certain programs are in place and could be used more

effectively for technology transfer. The success of several National

Forest Service computer systems, which themselves could probably not be

applied for use in combatting structural fires, represents a good example

of applying developing technologies to accomplish important tasks. The

fire service community could learn some general lessons from those

applications. Also, there are institutions that could be better used for

efficient technology transfer, including the Federal Laboratory Consortium

and the Centers for Higher or Continuing Education at various universities.

They could play an increasing role in selecting and packaging technology

for use by fire fighters.

Improved hardware and also "software" (that is, ideas as well as computer

software) exist that should be evaluated, improved, and put into use. Breathing apparatus, devices to see through smoke-filled spaces, better

suppression equipment including improved water nozzles and retardants, and

special hazard systems are just a few examples. Technology transfer often

will involve technologic development as well as information dissemination

and marketing—both of ideas and equipment.

Research : Several areas deserve examination. The urban-wildland

interface, a fire fighting problem in its own right, should be explored

further for providing insights into technology transfer. The solution o?

each environment's unique fire problems could lead to new ideas in the

complementary settings as well as the interface. The other key on-goinc

process, whose implementation will need study, is a way to build input from

fire fighters into the entire research process—from planning through

development and use.

55
Steps and Estimated Costs for Implementation : First, the existing firerelated research literature must be critically reviewed and put into a data

base (compatible in format with that of the U.S. Forest Service fire

information data bases), to be administered by the U.S. Fire Administration

(USFA) at an estimated annual cost of $300,000.

Second, the review board, which will be administered by USFA, should

include representatives from the following organizations: IAFF, IAFC, NFPA,

ISFSI, SFPE, NEMA, IFSTA, and the National Volunteer Fire Council as well

as college level educators. The board will be charged with identifying,

and facilitating the flow of, technical research information whose

application could benefit the fire service community. The information

should flow both ways between the research and fire service communities.

This should be a permanent undertaking of USFA, at an estimated annual cost

of $250,000.

Third, USFA will need to provide technical support and equipment for this

undertaking. Also, it will publish a users' guide of fire-related research

projects, and the information also will be stored on the data base system

and updated continuously. The estimated annual cost is $150,000.

Fourth, henceforth, research funding proposals will include a lay-language

summary, as will the final reports.

II. Fire Behavior Modeling and Applications

Definition : This thrust was defined as meeting the following goals:

providing fire fighters and officers with the capability of acquiring and

processing data, for use in real time, on the basis of tested computer

models of fire behavior. These models of the future would include

information about the design of buildings, their contents, and the

environments in which they are situated. Besides helping fire fighters

directly in training and in doing pre-fire planning, the models could be

useful for hazard analysis on the fire ground, estimating the likely

damages resulting from structural fires such as imminent building collapses

and the effect of fire protection systems. Moreover, current models could

prove useful for "marketing" purposes, such as convincing appropriate

individuals that certain changes in fire codes are worth implementing or that certain protection equipment is worth installing, and for doing

economic analysis of fire losses and fire prevention measures. In

addition, such models might help in planning for unusual architectural

features, such as atriums or redesigned loft structures.

Research Areas : Based on a discussion of progress in modeling wildland

fires, the group suggested that the available knowledge base for the

modeling of structural fires and their suppression be evaluated. The

crucial question is whether this knowledge base is adequate for

pragmatic-minded developers to fashion a crude but workable model system

for describing structural fires. Parallel, simultaneous efforts are needed

to learn how to best use the crude models now available and to continue the

development and validation of better versions. A key constraint is that

the model(s), once developed, be usable on microcomputer systems, such as those that would be available to an average fire department. Although

crude models now exist, they have not been made available nor have they

been tested by fire fighters.

56
Other capabilities that should be worked into such a modeling system

include: improved hazard evaluation; the effect of occupancy changes on the

fire-safety requirements of particular buildings; and the improved use of

sophisticated fire protection systems, which either could benefit in their

design from modeling or, alternatively, information derived from such

systems could be plugged into the modeling system to improve it.

Steps and Estimated Cost for Implementation : The first phase of fire

model building would occur in six steps that could be undertaken in a two-year period and cost between $750,000 and $1 million. The project

could be managed by USFA, using input from the fire service community and

systems engineers. Those steps consist of first, defining the

applications; second, defining scenarios that serve as useful, potentially

readily marketable prototypes; third, structuring the system level model

and the requirements to meet it, including its general processes and

elements; fourth, establishing submodels required for each process and

element in the modeling approach; fifth, identifying and reviewing the

available research and assessing its applicability; and sixth, identifying

new research needed to build the model and fill any gaps.

The scope of the second phase will determine its cost, but a minimum

estimate is three years, with an annual cost of up to $1 million. First,

it involves the building of the initial system and then conducting

sensitivity analyses to identify new research that would provide the best

payoff. User friendliness should be established at this stage, and the

effort would be sponsored by USFA. Second, the research that has been

identified should be conducted and/or sponsored by the NBS Center for Fire

Research (CFR), and will involve efforts by basic researchers and systems

engineers. There must be considerable interaction and feedback during the

final several steps noted in the foregoing.

III. Fire Simulation

Definition : The availability of reliable fire modeling systems is a prerequisite for sophisticated fire simulations, which ideally would fully

represent all the stages and variables that go into creating a structural

fire and then suppressing it. To be useful as a training tool, the

simulation must be displayed so that the viewer can interact with it in

"real time" slower, or possibly even faster than a real fire would

progress —controlling the variables and acting to suppress the simulated

fire in a variety of ways. The system should be adaptable also to serve pre-fire planning purposes and to train fire inspectors and other

personnel. If possible, an adaptive capacity should be built into such a system, making use of the principles being realized from artificial

intelligence studies. Thus, the know-how and experience of the person

running the simulation might thereby be used to improve it in a moreor-less automatic way.

Research Areas : How close is the technology to meeting these

requirements? Thrust two suggests that models themselves are not yet

adequate to this task. How many variables must go into such models? Can

they be designed so that users and modelers can test and evaluate them

against real situations to ensure their credibility? Research areas could

57
include factoring in effects of wind, suppression, ventilation, and so forth.

Moreover, another basic challenge yet to be met is the development of

computer graphics and video disk displays that can realistically simulate

the confounding conditions, such as smoke and steam, associated with a rapidly changing fire. So far only simple systems can be run on fairly

sophisticated computers—eventually the converse must be true:

sophisticated systems must be run on simple (cheap) microcomputers.

Training Application Issue : Because a major use of simulation would be

for training fire fighters, it might be worth exploring whether other

successful applications, such as the simulation systems developed by the

Defense Department, airlines, and other agencies, have provided know-how

adaptable to the training of fire fighters.

Steps and Estimated Cost for Implementation. First, USFA should take the

lead in establishing the requirements for building such a system, and

attention should be given to planning a tiered simulation system—one that

includes very simple elements and highly sophisticated ones. The task

itself should be undertaken under contract, perhaps funded by NBS for six

months at the cost of $125,000, and done by systems engineers working

closely with users (representatives from the fire service community).

Second, under an NBS contract for about $500,000, modelers must make a critical inventory of existing models to see how they stack up against the

requirements for the simulation system. Third, as part of this, critical

gaps must be identified by the modelers, under NBS, over six months for

$150,000.

Fourth, a simulation process will be synthesized from existing models in an effort directed by USFA and that involves technology-oriented people from

the academic sector over an 18-month period, costing about $400,000.

Fifth, a prototype will be built by representatives of the simulator

producing industry, with modelers and users serving as advisors. This,

too, could be a USFA-directed project, costing about $2 million over 18

months. Sixth, again the critical techlnology gaps must be filled by the

modelers, such as those at NBS, over 12 months at a cost of $250,000.

Seventh, an enhanced prototype with new features can be developed and

readied for marketing. Earlier steps are to be repeated as necessary in a seventh and final step that should go forth in several 6-month cycles, each

costing about $200,000.

B. GENERAL COMMENTS

Impediments : Besides limited financial resources, the group identified

two major impediments that well could interfere with reaching these and

other goals.

First, the fire service is its own impediment. Historically, fragmented

into virtually countless regional, urban, and rural organizations, the

needs of the fire service community often cannot be articulated—or met

because there is no efficient way to do so.

58
Second, the U.S. Fire Administration has recently been an institutional

impediment. A central organization is needed to assess, amass, and

evaluate technology and research—and to help make it available to the fire

service community. (JSFA has been handicapped in meeting such needs by its

owv. system and by its dependence on annual appropriations. There is a need

for the reprogramming of present USFA funds and for new initiatives.

Recommendations : Although the group considered making several general

recommendations, it settled on urging the Joint Council of Fire Service

Organizations to become the leader of the fragmented fire service community

and thus help it overcome its problems with technology transfer. Having a stronger central organization would aid the community in building the

communications infrastructure it clearly needs.

Maintaining Momentum : The group recommends that a smaller continuing

group be convened to review the final report emerging from this Conference

and its recommendations. The need for and the enthusiasm surrounding the

initiatives recommended above are great. Let us not lose that momentum.

Real Time Extinguishment and Hazard Analysis

Co-Chairmen - Alan Brunacini

James Kerr

Recorder - Jeffrey L. Fox

Panel Members - Richard Custer

Joseph Donovan

Raymond Friedman

Ken Henry

David Hoover

Paul Jocek

George Kahl

Paul Lukus

Larry Peitrzak

Charles Philpot

Charles Van Rickley

59

NATIONAL FIRE RESEARCH STRATEGY CONFERENCE

Report of the

Investigation and Litigation Workshop

at the July 22-25, 1985 Meeting

A. INTRODUCTION

The Investigation and Litigation workshop of the National Fire Research

Strategy Conference was charged with the responsibility to discuss how

research might lead to improved procedures for experts trying to

investigate and/or understand specific fires of interest. This would

include procedures used by fire and arson investigators, liability lawyers,

codes and standards writers, government regulators, product manufacturers,

etc. , for reconstructing a fire and determining the key factors that

influenced its ignition, growth and hazards.

The committee immediately set out to develop a "mission statement" or purpose, describing in broad terms what it hoped to accomplish:

To reduce the incidence of repetitive fire, determine future research

and planning needs, and provide sounder data for the litigation

process through improved investigative procedures, more extensive fire

investigations, better methodology for fire reconstruction, and a better understanding of fire ignition and growth and human behavior.

The committee also reached one initial understanding concerning its

direction. Committee members feel that it would be nearly impossible to

attempt to tackle the problems with litigation, as it refers to fire. The

committee recognizes that the litigation process is driven by legal

prerogatives that set it aside from other processes. But, the committee

believes that the methodologies and necessary information gathering remain

the same for fire investigation and litigation. Therefore, suggestions

pertinent to fire investigations are equally applicable to fire litigation.

The second main understanding was the critical need for more fire research

in non-arson fires. Members of the committee believe that although the

overwhelming majority of fires are accidental, rather than arson,

accidental fires are rarely investigated with the same degree of

thoroughness as arson, unless there is a large loss of life and/or dollars.

The committee members 'further agree that until a larger percentage of

accidental fires are sufficiently investigated, progress in the area of

fire prevention may be limited due to a lack of public awareness of the

problem of accidental fires and a lack of an information base for programs

to prevent these fires.

The committee divided the subject of "investigation/litigation" into four

distinct recommendations which follow:

1. To improve the quality of fire investigation through a better

understanding of fire physics and chemistry and the psychology of

human behavior, before, during and after a fire, and to provide the

proper training to achieve this goal.

61
2 , To implement and develop the advanced methodologies and investigative

aids needed by those involved in the investigation and litigation

processes and identify and/or create collection agencies for

obtaining this information.

3. To expedite the means by which information and data are analyzed and

disseminated to the fire service community and to the public,

underscoring the need for fire prevention and investigation.

4. To increase resources used to investigate accidental fires,

establishing prioritized investigations based on the number of fires,

fatalities, dollar loss and other identified factors.

The following portions of this report will suggest strategies for achieving

each of these objectives and specific actions that may be taken to reach

these goals.

B. STRATEGIES

I. Fire—Evaluation and Education

To improve the quality of fire investigation through a better understanding

of fire physics and chemistry and the psychology of human behavior, before,

during and after a fire and to provide the proper training to achieve this

goal.

The first strategy necessary to implement this goal is to determine the

information available and the information needs for improved fire

investigation from all appropriate sources. One way to achieve this goal

is to go directly to the associations and organizations which are critically involved in fire research and prevention. Four key sources are

the National Fire Academy, the International Association of Arson

Investigators, the National Fire Protection Association and the Society of

Fire Protection Engineers. In addition, more than 200 additional

organizations can provide some critical information in this area. These

groups include research organizations, legal societies, government agencies

and insurance groups.

A second strategy is to create the atmosphere for quality fire

investigation, securing top level local government support for quality fire

investigations. To achieve this goal, one must address the problem of

economic support. The committee determined that it is essential for the

fire community to develop a cost/benefit analysis which will convince the

local hierarchy—government administrators —of the need for fire

investigation in accidental fires, as well as those presumed to be arson.

In addition, a group such as the International Association of Fire Chiefs

or the National Fire Protection Association could sponsor a symposium on investigation, targeting city administrators, district attorneys, and the

insurance industry, to show the financial, civic and social benefits of

fire investigation.

62
And, if there is administrative support for fire investigation, in all

probability, resources and information will reach everyone within the fire

service community.

A third strategy underlying this goal is to integrate the knowledge of

human behavior in fire circumstances into the investigative process. The

committee agreed that it was necessary to develop a systematic approach for

determining human behavior in connection with fire, through standard

interview procedures.

To achieve this goal, the committee recommended the identification of

organizations and educational institutions, such as the National Fire

Academy; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; the Federal Bureau of

Investigation; the University of Washington; or the University of Maryland

with expertise in the area of interviewing processes to develop and

standardize a basic interview process to be used in fire investigations.

The fourth strategy is to integrate information concerning the physics and

chemistry of fire into the investigative process. This would insure the

necessary technology and information transfer from the scientific

laboratory to the end users, i.e., the fire investigators and fire

fighters.

There are a variety of ways in which this can be achieved. First, the

committee called for funding of centers that can provide "user friendly"

technical information, such as Worcester Polytechnic Institute Center for

Firesafety Studies, the University of Akron, and the National Fire

Protection Association to name a few.

Second, the Center for Fire Research should establish mechanisms for

"popularizing" fire chemistry and physics research. A minimum requirement

would be to provide a layman's translation of the Center for Fire Research

technical reports.

Third, organizations such as Underwriters Laboratory, Factory Mutual, the

Center for Fire Research and Southwest Research Institute should share

large scale fire demonstrations/videos/films with fire investigators.

Fourth, the Center for Fire Research should be urged to develop a computer

based "expert system" to be used by fire investigators. This system would

prompt fire investigators on key investigative questions.

The fifth strategy is to improve the accuracy of predictive techniques for

fire phenomenon and human behavior. The first step in this process is to

establish a panel of fire investigators to prioritize their predictive

needs. This should increase the accuracy of predictive techniques for fire

phenomenon and human behavior.

The sixth and final strategy is to develop proper educational programs for

fire investigators. To do this, two steps are necessary:

1. An educational task force should be created to coordinate the proper

curriculum for training and education of fire investigators with the

National Fire Academy and other educational institutions.

63
2. Current fire investigator certification programs should be studied. A

national certification program should be recommended, as a result of

the study.

II. Methodologies and Investigative Aids

To implement and develop the advanced methodologies and investigative aids

needed by those involved in the investigation and litigation processes and

identify and/or create collection agencies for this information.

The first strategy to reach this goal is to establish an inventory of

available tools —information and investigative aids —to be used in fire

investigation.

The first way to achieve this is to create a panel of experts, both within

and outside the fire community, sponsored by the National Bureau of

Standards, to determine the inventory of tools that could be used in fire

investigation. This panel would make recommendations on which tools are effective in the investigation process.

An additional approach would be to develop a handbook compiling information

on materials' properties and behaviors that are useful in fire

investigation.

The second strategy is to identify current investigative aids and

procedures in need of standardization and/or dissemination to the field.

To achieve this goal, another panel of experts should be established by the

National Bureau of Standards, which would determine methods of

standardization for computation and measurement tools used in the fire

investigation process. At the same time, it is necessary for a group, such

as the National Fire Protection Association or the National Bureau of

Standards, to compile information on investigative aids and standardization

of their use.

III. Analysis and Dissemination

To expedite the means by which information and data are analyzed and

disseminated to the fire service community and to the public, underscoring

the need for fire prevention and investigation.

To achieve this goal, the primary strategy is to develop a way to analyze

data currently being collected in a timely, uniform manner, and to

disseminate it to all interested parties as an aid in the identification of new fire threats and trends.

There are three basic means to this end. First, it is necessary to

assemble an organization involved in the collection, analysis and

dissemination of data to bring about a more expeditious process. Second,

it is advisable to establish a task force whose mission will be to direct

the uniform analysis of the National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS)

data. Third, it is essential to create a task force which will determine

the most effective methods to be used to reap the full benefits of this

data base.

64
Some members of the committee indicated a pressing national need for a systematic approach to investigative information gathering on a second,

more intrusive level of information. These members called for

investigations to go beyond the level of detail provided in the National

Fire Incident Reporting System. NFIRS can identify general areas of

interest, such as solid fuel heating fires, but do not provide the

specifics that may be necessary to effect appropriate prevention measures.

Other members of the committee pointed to the practical realities, which

they believe make this goal difficult. Fire investigation resources are limited, and additional paperwork would prove burdensome for the already

overworked fire investigator. Without a significant increase in resources,

these members believe that this second level of investigation would be

another hardship on the local level.

IV. Accidental Fires

To increase resources used to investigate accidental fires, and to

establish prioritized investigations based on the number of fires,

fatalities, dollar loss and other identified factors.

All members of the committee shared the strong belief that one of the

biggest problems in fire investigation is the nearly exclusive emphasis on

the investigation of arson-related fires, rather than accidental and

suspicious fires. All stressed the need for fire investigation in every

instance in which it is practically feasible. The ideal goal called for

fire investigation of every fire, although the committee did recognize that

time and economics might make this impossible.

Once again, the committee called for public recognition of the benefits of

fire investigation. The committee recommended that a task force be created

to develop the kind of cost/benefit analyses which will convince local

administrators of the need for the investigation of all fires. Local

government resistance to accidental fire investigations was targeted as a major barrier to this achievement.

C. CONCLUSION

It is the conclusion of this committee that if the specific actions

recommended are followed to the degree practical and Dossible, an improved

investigative and litigative process will develop. This improved process

should lead to a better understanding of fire causes, both the physical and

human aspects. This knowledge should then result in the identification of

intervention steps that will reduce the incidence of fire.

65
Investigation and Litigation

Co-Chairmen - Michael O'Mara

Jack Sanders

Recorder - Deborah Auerbach-Deutsch

Panel Members - Yves Alarie

Irwin Benjamin

Thomas Daly

Ronald Darrah

Philip DiNenno

David Evans

Gordon Hartzell

Beatrice Harwood

John Keating

Walter Smittle

John White

G. Crawford Wiestling

Rexford Wilson

66
NATIONAL FIRE RESEARCH STRATEGY CONFERENCE

Report of the

Research for Fire Safety and Survival

of the July 22-25, 1985 Meeting

A. INTRODUCTION

Definition and Scope

The charge given to the workshop on Research for Fire Safety and Survival was

to "discuss specific research that would provide an improved scientific and

technical base for fire safety programs directed at people at risk in fires

and those directly responsible for their safety; that is, building occupants,

experts who train the public in fire safety and building owners and managers."

The above description of the workshop's charge was accepted by the workshop

members with one modification. It was agreed to add "fire fighters" to the

list of those affected by the fire safety programs.

Survival was viewed as a product or outcome of the response of the environment

and people's responses to their specific situations under discrete conditions

of fire development. The question was raised as to whether the emphasis

should be on making the environment safe or whether strong consideration

should be given to enabling persons to take responsible actions for their own safety. It was concluded that it is equally important to address both aspects

for survivability.

The scope of the discussion included the topic of fire prevention since

obviously if fire is prevented, survivability is insured (other workshops were

not likely to cover the topic of fire prevention). Since the topic was "survival", the workshop was concerned with research related to "life safety"

as opposed to concern over property damage.

Where We Are

In general it was felt that the state of the art in understanding fire safety

survivability is severely limited. This situation results in a lack of the

necessary building blocks or basic principles to permit rigorous analysis or quantification of many of the factors relevant to life safety. This weakness

is demonstrated, for example, in the fire community's inability to agree on factors such as tenability limits, or to address global issues of integration

of hazard, occupant behavior, and facility response. It requires direct

attention if significant progress is to be made in developing broad, effective

strategies for fire survivability.

General Issues of Policy

There are numerous policy issues which appear to serve as barriers to progress

in this area. Some of them are not unique to this topic. For instance, the

general public is not well educated in this area, and as a result does not

perceive fire safety as a major issue. Traditional modes of communicating

this knowledge are felt to be inadequate. Further, people are dominantly

67
conditioned by their daily activities and routines, and therefore cannot

always be relied upon to take appropriate actions in emergencies. And

finally, major advancements in research and resulting technology are seldom

perceived to be cost/beneficial—at least initially. In a society where

competition for available resources is excessive, the perceived cost/benefit

relationship is important.

Unique to the area of survivability are factors such as human behavior,

individual tolerance, and so forth. It is the group's perception that human

behavior research has been treated without serious priority, and as a result

it is not viewed in the fire research community as a popular research area.

Rationale

A crucial step in arriving at proposed research thrusts involved

identification of the broad, dominant elements or factors associated with

survival. In somewhat traditional fashion, elements were identified as:

prevention

warning

protection

escape and rescue

These general elements were discussed in detail, relative to the dominant

issues for survival. Figure 1 provides a brief outline of key variables or factors associated with each element. Extensive discussions of each of these

topics resulted in identification of eight broad research thrusts.

B. RESEARCH THRUSTS

The following list of general research thrusts reflects the consensus of the

workshop members regarding the major areas where research is needed to improve

survival in fire.

1. Epidemiology of fire incidents

2. Fire and burn education/training

3. Use and reliability of detection and suppression devices

4. Improved active protection devices

5. Integrated hazard/evacuation/refuge models

6. Performance and assessment methodologies for code requirements

7. Equipment and methods to improve fire fighter survival

8. Strategy implementation for fire fighter safety

Each of the general research areas has been expanded upon according to the

conference format. Specific research topics within the general thrust are identified and relevant policy factors are outlined. The following sections

of this report present this formatted information.

68
I . Epidemiology of Fire Incidents

thrust: Develop improved quantitative information and understanding of fire

deaths and injuries.

Current Situation : Autopsy studies cn fire deaths are being collected and a standard autopsy protocol is being evaluated. However, no directed studies

have been initiated on civilian fire injuries. The U.S. Fire Administration

has contracted for the development of an emergency medical treatment protocol

for fire victims with the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP).

The goal of the autopsy study/protocol is to determine "why" people die in

fires. The "why" includes: (1) what toxic product(s) cause deaths, (2) the

materials that produced the toxic product(s), (3) compliance of the structure

with existing codes and (4) factors which might have changed the outcome.

The goal of the injury study is to determine: (1) the cause of the injury,

(2) the type of injury, (3) compliance of the structure with existing codes,

(4) factors which might have changed the outcome (reduced/eliminated the

injury) and (5) the factors that led to survival.

Proposed Goal : This information should be fed back into the Life Safety Code

or other performance standards, existing or proposed.

Needed Action/Research Elements :

Autopsy Study: Initiate a thorough review of the present autopsy

protocol/study to determine if it provides the appropriate information. Of

particular concern, do the results correlate toxicological information with: cause and type of fire, applicable codes and standards, and fire detection and

suppression systems?

Injury Study: Initiate a fire injury study as a means to understand for a number of incidents the cause of the injury, the effectiveness of fire protective (warning) systems, the role of products contributing to the injury and

why victims survived.

Performers/Present Situation : FEMA/U.S. Fire Administration presently funding

ACEP to do develop treatment protocol.

International Association of Fire Fighters is conducting an autopsy study

using a standard post mortem protocol.

What should be done : Injury study must be done in cooperation with medical

community and fire services. Broader interest in funding and support for this

research area is needed.

69
Priority Factors and Challenges:

Autopsy Study

Priority Factors:

Importance: High.

Probability of success: High

Cost: $ 100K

Time: 4-5 years

Technical Challenges: Correlate results of Autopsy & Injury Studies to

requirements of applicable codes and standards. Technology exists today - no major breakthrough needed.

Technology Transfer: Information and knowledge should be used to evaluate

existing codes, standards, materials, and detection and suppression hardware

Injury Study

Priority Factors:

Importance: High.

Probability of success: Very difficult

Cost: $200K

Time: about 5 years

Technical Challenge: Major difficulty is to get medical community involved

and the cooperation of the fire victims. The need for scientific or engineering breakthroughs is not currently apparent.

II. Fire and Burn Education/Training

Thrust : Develop basis for specialized/targeted education and training.

Current Situation : In the United States today there is a failure to

appreciate the risk from fire and burns. Such injuries are preceived as rare events, hence there is a need to motivate and educate people to be more concerned about fire and burn education.

Even though there are programs directed to target audiences, many times the

content is not tailored and specific enough to meet the needs of specific

populations. There is also a lack of technical basis upon which to evaluate

fire and burn educational programs.

Proposed Goals :

Improve understanding of how people react to fire situations.

Establish evaluation programs for all fire and burn education programs.

Perform needs assessment of different target populations based on built

environment and occupant characteristics.

70
Develop technical and implementation strategies to reduce burn injuries.

Reduce fires due to arson with special emphasis on juvenile firesetters.

Needed Action/Research Elements :

Significant resources must be allocated to develop better methods of

evaluation, tailored specifically to fire and burn education programs.

There is a need to design survival strategies for specific populations and

occupancy configurations, i.e., children, elderly, handicapped, one and two

family dwellings, multi-family residential occupancies, places of public

assembly.

In the area of juvenile firesetters, model programs must be formulated based

on technical and sociological input, and made available to communities

throughout the country.

There continues to be a need to provide the fire service, building managers

and others who disseminate information with more appropriate, useful techniques .

The public needs to be made aware of fire and burn hazards, e.g. , clothing

ignitions, and gasoline, propane and other high hazard factors that are routinely found in everyday life.

Performers/Present Situation :

1. Program Evaluation Researchers (Universities)

2. Developers of educational programs (NFPA, ISFSI)

3. USFA

4. Insurance Companies

5. Program Disseminators (schools, building managers, etc.)

Priority Factors :

Importance: High. Failure to properly develop and convey educational and

training technology that will measure impact of people behavior will result in

unilateral reliance on design and protection strategies—a very unrealistic

posture.

Probability of success: If financial and institutional resistance to developing and providing programs can be overcome, probability of success should oe high.

Cost: Baseline costs $100 - 200K per year

Time: 3-5 years

71
Technical Challenges : Improvement of evaluation/data collection methods.

Development of method for evaluating the effectiveness of in place programs

and for training experts to use the new methods. Development of technical

basis for selecting content uniquely tailored to specific populations.

Technology Transfer : The output from this effort would be directed

specifically at organizations which train educators, and local organizations

which implement such programs.

Barriers : Mechanisms must be identified for funding and dissemination of such

programs. Techniques must be identified and implemented that overcome typical

cultural problems in successful implementation of such programs in neighborhoods .

Action : This is a highly specialized area involving many actors. It is

recommended that USFA and NFPA jointly plan a follow-up strategy session to

examine this topic in further detail.

III. Use and Reliability of Detection & Suppression Devices

Thrus

t

: Develop strategies for effectively implementing state-of-the-art

detection and suppression devices, and methods for identifying failure modes.

Current Situation : State-of-the-art detection and suppression device

technology can provide a reasonable level of life safety protection. However,

these systems are not in wide use. The reasons appear to be largely economic

and attitudinal. For example, the cost of retrofitting existing structures is

high, and experience with systems in place has shown that they are not

properly maintained. Very little is known about other modes of failure, and

as design demands on these devices are relaxed, sensitivity of performance to

failure thresholds will become critical.

Proposed Goals : Broad scale use of detection and suppression systems to

improve life safety and reduce property loss. Primary targets are residential

occupancies

.

Needed Action/Research Elements :

Provide basis for determining/predicting failure modes. Develop approaches

and perform cost/benefit analyses for universal as well as targeted implementation. Clearly identify and rank barriers to use. Ascertain the extent and

relative degree of influence of each of the barriers, such as life cycle

costs, lack of or misinformation about performance, lack of social responsibility, absence of incentives (insurance, codes, public programs), and absence

of clear cut cost/benefit analyses.

Develop and protect strategies to overcome existing barriers.

Monitor benefits as they accrue from increased use.

Performers : Work done by economic, psychological, and educational

communities. Funds provided by device manufacturers and material suppliers

and/or U.S. Fire Administration.

72
Priority Factors:

Importance: High

Probability of success: High

Cost: $3 million (research cost only)

Time: 5 years

Technical Challenges : Reliability/failure mode identification

Technology Transfer : This process is ongoing.

Barriers: The key barriers to implementation are cost and social attitudes.

IV. Improved Active Protection Devices

Thrust : Develop basis for improved active protection devices for life safety.

Current Situation : While state-of-the-art protective devices are effective,

improvements would assist in usage and improved life safety protection.

Proposed Goal : Improved effectiveness of protection devices leading to

decreases in life and property losses.

Needed Action/Research Elements :

Basic to any research in this area is the need to develop sufficiently

accurate methods to predict hazard development and the role of detection and

suppression. This is required in order to rationally determine what improvements are needed. The state-of-the-art protection devices can be improved in

a number of ways. Exploratory research is needed to consider novel protection

systems and suppressants. One improvement would be to reduce the false alarm

rate of detectors without reducing their ability to provide timely warning.

Another would be to provide greater reliability, security and resistance to

tampering. Future models could even be self-maintaining. Assess the need for

a standard sound (quality and quantity) and effective audibility levels, as well as explore novel means of communication.

Develop needed information for improvements of sprinkler head design,

location, response time, etc.

Identify and develop sprinkler system specifically designed for and made

cost/effective for retrofitting.

Develop methods for failure mode analysis and conduct pilot studies.

Develop the technical basis and the performance criteria for an integrated

smoke control strategy for various occupancies for use within entire fire

scenario context. Consider trade-off and performance aspects with other

protection devices.

Performers : NRC Canada, National Bureau of Standards, Factory Mutual Research

Corporation, other research labs and universities

73
Priority Factors:

Importance: Medium

Probability of Success: High

Cost: $500K/yr

Time: 5-10 years

Funding Sources : Hardware Industry, Insurance, Building Code Organizations

Technology Transfer : Information and methods developed under this thrust

would be directly incorporated in codes and standards, and received by hardware designers as guidance in equipment development.

Barriers : A major barrier to achieving the goals of this thrust is the availability of experts necessary to develop the technical understanding of the

physical processes involved.

Action : A lead agency (NBS) should develop a broad framework for

characterizing/identifying the interrelationships of dominant relevance in

measuring fire hazard development, and the effects of responding detection and

suppression devices. This framework should be used to systematically prioritize and pursue segments of the research as broader issues of funding and resources permit.

V. Integrated Hazard/Evacuation/Refuge Models

Thrust : Develop integrated models for formulating evacuation/ref uge

strategies

.

Current Situation : Many people are using inappropriate survival strategies

for particular buildings. Knowledge regarding whether or not to evacuate is

not well founded, and the extent to which fire safety is over or under

designed is not determinable —and seldom of interest until someone is injured

or killed in a fire.

Proposed Goals : Develop technical basis and methods to permit rational

selection of appropriate evacuation/ref uge strategies based on the capabilities of occupants, occupancy hazards, the building layout and fire protection

systems. This requires a high level of system integration.

Needed Action/Research Elements :

To select optimal strategies, integrated, comprehensive analytically based

models of fire incidents are needed. The models must include probable human

responses and physical, mental, and sensory limitations, building hazards,

layout, fire protection features, furnishings, measures of tenability, smoke

movement and all other elements that affect the probability of survival

through detection, evacuation and refuge.

Review past fires with emphasis both on those who died and those who lived .

Validate innovative fire survival concepts, strategies, and products.

74
Performers

:

NBS , FMRC and university researchers will do the work in the

rields of physics, chemistry, system safety analysis and computer modeling.

\BS and universities will do the work in psychology. NFPA and USFA will do

the work in statistics and data collection.

Priority Factors:

Importance: High. Code writers need models to refine and quantify

equivalency judgments. Fire protection engineers, architects, and the fire

service need models to improve life safety through better designed buildings.

Building users need the model to select the best survival strategies for

particular people in a particular building.

Probability of success: Ultimate success depends on acceptance from the

regulatory authority having jurisdiction. Probability of success in

developing the technical basis is high providing there is adequate funding.

First comprehensive models should be available in 5 to 10 years.

Technical Challenge : Generally, models need to be based on better empirical

data. Models of human behavior need improved data for input and improved

techniques and algorithms for computer modeling. Behavioral input must be

provided by fire investigations and targeted studies that identify response

behaviors and associated probabilities.

Integration of models for human behavior, hazard development and facility

response is a complex challenge involving basic studies of phenomena, human

factors, and tenability as well as detailed efforts in numerical procedures

and user friendly computer software.

Technology Transfer : Fire Safety Evaluation Systems can be increasingly based

on empirically-derived quantitative models, and, thereby, rely less on expert

judgment. Evaluation systems can be used by local jurisdictions and building

designers (architects and engineers).

Building owners and managers and fire service personnel can base their fire

emergency plans on alternative strategies evaluated using the model. In

addition, an important avenue for application involves design engineers, and

major codes and standards groups.

VI . Performance and Assessment Methodologies for Code Requirements

Thrust : To develop a methodology for evaluating and describing code

requirements in performance terms.

Current Situation : The technical basis and impact of many building code

requirements are unknown. In fact, much of the present code is based on a combination of folklore and intuition. As a result, it is difficult (if not

impossible) to directly evaluate on a scientific basis the adequacy of a code,

"trade-offs", alternate designs, and proposed changes. In most cases, such

assessments are made on the basis of intuitive judgment. Such judgements ire

quite subjective and difficult to defend in a scientific sense.

Proposed Goal : The objective is to develop a scientific basis for evaluatir. ;, and describing code requirements in performance terms.

75
Needed Action/Research Elements : This research involves three distinct

elements:

1. Defining current code requirements,

2. Developing integrated computer models for assessing the impact of specific

requirements, and

3. Developing a methodology for evaluating and describing code requirements

in performance terms.

Performers : A fire modeling group has been established within the Center for

Fire Research. This group has the modeling capabilities but probably lacks

building code expertise. Other multi-disciplinary organizations with extensive fire modeling capabilities may also be able to undertake this work. In

any event, direct input from the model building code organizations (BOCA,

SBCCI, ICBO and NFPA) will be necessary. Furthermore, peer review by other

affected interests will also be required.

Priority Factors :

Importance: This methodology is needed by policy makers, designers, and

enforcement personnel so that informed fire safety decisions can be made on a technical rather than intuitive basis.

Probability of success: Difficult. This research has a relatively high

probability of success provided that integrated computer models are developed

and adequate funding is secured. A potential problem may be the institutionalization of current code requirements.

Cost: $350K

Time: 5 to 10 years

Technical Challenge : Development and validation of multiple purpose computer

models to permit broad comparisons of design options in a quantitative manner.

Technology Transfer : This methodology will provide the basis for a great deal

of "technology transfer" in the areas of:

code and standards development

engineering design methods

enforcement

product development

VII . Equipment and Methods to Improve Fire Fighter Survival

Thrust : Develop technology base and measurement techniques to improve fire

ground measurement and assessment of real time hazard development; examples

include combustion product generation and transport, and structural collapse.

Explore applications of automated fire fighting equipment to avoid fire

fighter exposure.

76
Current Situation: There are no reliable methods or equipment currently

available to accurately assess the state of a developing fire relative to fire

Tighter safety. Ranking fire officers typically employ judgment in directing

tactics

.

Proposed Goal : Reduce risk of fire fighter injuries and deaths due to

combustion product inhalation, building structural collapse, and related

hazard insults.

Needed Action/Research Elements :

Basic research must continue in order to develop sufficient understanding of

facility fire dynamics to permit development of reliable simulation

techniques

.

User friendly computer models applicable to fire ground activities must be

developed and validated.

Innovative measurement techniques must be developed to permit real time

monitoring of a developing fire.

Technology development for automated fire fighting tactics (e.g., robotics)

for major fire insults.

Performers:

Research - Segmented Research Activities at: NBS, FMRC , FAA, and DOD (Navy/NRL)

Funding - Multiple Sources: USFA, DOD, FAA, IAFF/IAFC and FEMA

Priority Factors : Fire fighters are routinely injured or killed on the fire scene due to such factors as building collapse, large scale fire insult

(explosions) and so forth. Successful completion of focused research in this area could revolutionize fire tactics, reducing or virtually eliminating fire

fighter casualties due to these causes.

Such capabilities are within reach, but require a serious advocate. A

significant portion of the effort involves transfer of computer and robotics

technology from other areas, and development of measurement methods consistent

with other primary fire research activities.

Cost: $350K

Time: 3-5 years (first generation)

Technical Challenge : Development of real time measurement techniques

conducive to fire ground applications. Development of applicable/ functional

robotics capabilities for specialized fire fighting.

Barriers/Issues /Roles & Actions : The significant barrier to accomplishing the

objectives of this thrust lies in identification of a lead sponsor which,

recognizes the direct and intrinsic value of these efforts.

77
A candidate lead agency is FEMA, where alternative applications are conceivable in disaster tactics. Research to provide the hazard development

component and measurement techniques should be done at NBS and its associated

grantee network. While some expertise in robotics exists at NBS, a major

source of this technology can be found in DOD , at some level of development.

Implementation of this thrust (e.g., technology transfer) will require commitment from the fire service, and defrayment of expenses associated with new

training. It will also require cooperation among research groups, private

sector equipment developers, and the fire service. A lead agency such as FEMA, USFA, or NFPA is best suited for this difficult responsibility.

Action Item : Identify lead organization and level of interest.

VIII. Strategy Implementation for Fire Fighter Safety

Thrust : Identify training, education and control/feedback methods to insure

implementation of state-of-the-art or novel safety equipment and practices by

fire fighters.

Current Situation : There exists equipment that meets stringent standards for

protection. Many times this equipment is under-utilized or improperly

utilized in hazardous situations. The life style of many fire fighters is not

healthful (lack of fitness, inappropriate diet). Most municipalities do

little to combat these practices. There is a need for greater emphasis on leadership training for fire service managers so they can reduce the

occurrence of these problems.

Proposed Goals :

Improve effectiveness of fire suppression activity as it relates to the safety

of personnel.

Instill "safety and health" consciousness at every level of the fire service.

Greatly increase the cost effectiveness of the fire service by reducing health

and safety related costs.

Needed Action/Research Elements :

Incorporate human behavior elements such as attitude and human factors into

general training and education techniques which are unique to fire ground

tactics and behavior.

Develop basis for "effective" training methods; identify cultural barriers.

Develop framework for cost/benefit analyses for local municipalities to

enhance resource allocation and priority for these programs.

Priority Factors :

Importance: High. Fire fighter safety records are at an unacceptable level

throughout most of the U.S.

78
Probability of success: Good, but highly dependent on motivational factors

within the fire service.

Cost: $100K

Time: 2 years (pilot study)

Technical Challenge : Development and implementation of specialized human

behavioral models.

Technology Transfer : Fire Service

Barriers : The major barrier is the cultural resistance to change and image

impact

.

Action : Develop a pilot study and select lead sponsorship such as USFA/NFPA/IAFF. Determine the adequacy of state-of-the-art human behavior

models for application.

C. CONCLUSION

A focus on survival is a necessary mechanism for determining crucial research

thrusts which will improve the U.S. record on fire safety. This workshop

group has identified some major research thrusts, begun the process of

enumerating more specific areas of research, and identified some policy

factors relevant to the specific research.

It was the collective feeling of the working group that technical issues

associated with survival (life safety) should constitute a major element in

any nationally targeted strategic research plan for fire safety. While the

group is satisfied that the dominant thrusts were identified and addressed,

further consideration should be given to correlation with the extensive list

of research items contained in the conference prework package.

Research for Fire Safety and Survival

Co-Chairmen - Edward Budnick

John Gerard

Recorder - Roseanne Paulsen

Panel Members - Merritt Birky

Delbert Boring

Howard Boyd

Paul DeCicco

Tom Farkas

Norman Groner

James MacDonald

Mary Marchone

William Schmidt

Andrew Sivak

Henry Tovey

79
Figure 1.

NEEDS

PROCESS

rH 3

CO

w

CJ 3

•Ha

bo 3

<3 o • X

510 C* iw fW 3 3 w 3

gw •H

w bO > F» 3 fH C CO bo C 03 3

•H CO o >s

C •H 3

u3 3 •H j3

HC 3 •H

CO

O CJ

W Cl

C 3 co CJ 3- u s H y H 3 03 W

Cd 0) o U > 0) fH 3 fH c 3

32w •H •H 3 0) >w CO

W

a o)X

CJ bo > O a. -a 3 W

W > 3

C/3 3 3 3 3 —CO c -a T*

Cd 3= a.a

w 0) c 03

W

as GW 3 CO CO

C >. S o N CJ

C \ o U2 y 01 cu to c H H 03 3

Cd 3 0) o f-l GW fH

cu CO c c a.

u

u 3 3 GW a.

<i c C0 fO 5 w CO •w

O S 3 w

u <0

B s 9 3 u > 3 W

c/o <u 3 3 3 cr

w

C 33 o

Cdg £ J3 J= 0) CO 03 03 GW o 3 •HW c o 3 3 C 3 3 o w •u C o W 3

•H UJ 3 3 •H

O

a

w 3 C c iW

y

W Wl 3

Cd

O

w o o 3 3 3 3 U fH

CJ 3 3 o •H CJ o W \ 3 3 tW < N fW •u 3 •w 0 4-J w iW <W o 1 •W 3 CJ 3 H W w «r-i 3 3 y

cu 3 3 3 3 3 3 w

y r-H

w > w b0 3 GW W w 3 3 3 •H U 3 3 bfl C 2 3 AJ w a 25 bO CL GW 3 •u C w

i—i W CJ

C c a. 3 c0

U -a •H 30

•H 3 3 bO 3 e CJ 3 w 1U 3 w bO 3)w

H GW

a

ww 3 C •H -X c 0) -G 3 •H r-l CO

a o c 3 o X o 3 r-H

y

N <4-4 •W 3

Cd

W

w o 3 Cw

w o 3 CU o 3 3 U

E- •H a. o 35 iW •H

w 3 3 u 3 J= JC JZ

O s W > y

w i-i fW •H 3 3 y •H •H

CU rW 3 3 • o GW <4-4 3y3

33333Co

a.

GO3wc3e3

JG

to 3 c X W -H 3 3 4J W C >v CO 3 o C fW <y 3 w 3 •W o 3 4J rW 3 s u •H C 3 C w y W 3 * c

bO 3 3 c 3 c bo 3

*H rH fH o 3 o w fW 3 3 3 •H rW w t-4 3 3 3 w 3 H u > 3 3 3 > fW c0 33 3 3 y w y 3 •H W fH C c y 3 -a 3 o 3 3 -a -o 3 CO "3 -O

a. 3 -a 3 fH •H 4-4

C

C 3 •H o w 3 fW CO 3 3 3 3 w —u 3 c a w o W C a. GW W •H M 3 3

5^ 3

bo

H o 3

iW 3

CO o d2

r-H

C

c0 3 J= bo

•H 3 u c

S-i 3 3 •w

o; 3 C

W c w

4-1

y 3 bo 3 c > 3 •H 3 s 3 •H 3 3 C

•H

W

G 3 w

a fWy 33 bO o CU 3 33 c H •H 3 GW 3 w 3 2 4J o GW w y

Cd c0 3 y 3 3 3 33 > O 3 bO 33 C

Cd 3 T3 l 1 w

O 3

aS T3

O 3 w

O

cu 0)

U

w a. 3

80
APPENDIX A

NATIONAL FIRE RESEARCH STRATEGY CONFERENCE

July 23-25, 1985

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

Dr. H. Adams, Jr.

Technical Director

Man-Made Fiber Producers Association

1150 17th Street, NW.

Washington, DC 20036

(202) 296-6526

Dr. Yves Alarie

Professor of Respiratory Physiology

and Toxicology

Graduate School of Public Health

University of Pittsburgh

4200 Fifth Avenue

Pittsburgh, PA 15213

(412) 624-3047

Mr. Norman J. Alvares

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

P.0. Box 5505

L-442

Livermore, CA 94550

(415) 423-3175

Ms . Maryanne Bach

Minority Technical Consultant

Subcommittee on Science, Research

and Technology

Committee on Science and Technology

2319 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515 • (202) 225-8123

Mr . Ken Backman

National Fire Protection Association

Batterymarch Park

Quincy, MA 02269

(617) 770-3000

Mr. D. R. Bahnfleth

President, American Society of

Heating, Refrigerating & AirConditioning Engineers, Inc.

ZBA Incorporated

23 East Seventh Street

Cincinnati, OH 45202

(513) 421-3363

Mr. Robert Barker

Administrative Assistant

Office of Congressman Judd

. Gregg

308 Cannon House Office

Building

Washington, DC 20515

(202) 225-5206

Mr. Jack S. Barritt

Director of Engineering

Research

Industrial Risk Insurers

85 Woodland Street

Hartford, CT 06102

(203) 525-2601

Mr. Irwin A. Benjamin

Benjamin/ Clarke Associates

10605 Concord Street

Kensington, MD 20895

(301) 949-1414

Dr. Merritt M. Birky

National Transportation Safety

Board

800 Independence Avenue, SW.

Washington, DC 20594

(202) 382-6785

81
Mr. John A. Blair

Standards Development Manager

DuPont Company

Chestnut Run - 713

Wilmington, DE 19898

(302) 999-3293

Mr. R. Michael Boardway

Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation

Technical Center

Granville, OH 43023

(614) 587-7228

Honorable Sherwood Boehlert

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Science, Research

and Technology

Committee on Science and Technology

U.S. House of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515

(202) 225-3665

Mr. Delbert F. Boring

American Iron & Steel Institute

4937 W. Broad Street

Columbus, OH 43228

(614) 878-6600

Mr. Howard Boyd

Chairman, Joint Council of

Fire Service Organizations

4018 Leal and Lane

Nashville, TN 37204

(615) 297-3303

Mr. Clyde Bragdon

Administrator

U.S. Fire Administration

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Washington, DC 20472 • (301) 447-6771

Mr. Richard Brooke

Section Manager of Material

Sciences and Regulatory Affairs

Borg Warner Chemical

Technical Center

Washington, WV 26181

(304) 863-7055

Mrs. Carryefaye Brown

Professional Staff Member

Subcommittee on Science,

Research and Technology

Committee on Science and

Technology

2319 Rayburn House Office

Building

Washington, DC 20515

(202) 225-8844

Chief Alan Y. Brunacini

City of Phoenix Fire Department

620 West Washington Street

Phoenix, AZ 85003

(602) 262-6297

Dr. John L. Bryan

Professor, Department of Fire

Protection Engineering

University of Maryland

College Park, MD 20742

(301) 454-2424

Mr. Edward Budnick

Center for Fire Research

National Bureau of Standards

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

(301) 921-3242

Mr. Nicholas P. Chergotis

P.0. Box 197

Shrewsbury, NJ 07701

(201) 842-6318

82
Ms. Joyce E. Chidester

Program Analyst

Fire Safety Systems, Incorporated

2100 M Street, NW. , Suite 305

Washington, DC 20037

(202) 296-1873

Dr. William Christian

Manager

Research and Technology Development

Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.

333 Pfingsten Road

Northbrook, IL 60062

(312) 282-8800 x2249

Dr. Frederic B. Clarke

President

Benjamin/Clarke Associates, Inc.

10605 Concord Street, Suite 501

Kensington, MD 20895

(301) 949-1414

Dr. Edward V. Clougherty

Department Chemist

Boston Fire Department

115 Southampton Street

Boston, MA 02118

(617) 442-4575

Mr. Bert M. Cohn

Senior Vice President

Gage Babcock & Associates, Inc.

135 Addison

Elmhurst, IL 60126

(312) 530-1494

Mr. Arthur E. Cote, P.E.

Assistant Vice President - Standards

National Fire Protection Association

Batterymarch Park

Quincy, MA 02269

(617) 770-3000

Dr. Paul A. Croce

Arthur D. Little, Inc.

Acorn Park

Cambridge, MA 02140

(617) 864-5770 x3353

Mr. Richard L. P. Custer

Associate Director

Center for Firesafety Studies

Worcester Polytechnic Institute

Worcester, MA 01609

(617) 793-5593

Mr. Thomas G. Daly

Director of Life Safety

Hilton Hotels Corporation

9880 Wilshire Boulevard

Beverly Hills, CA 90210

(213) 278-4321

Mr. Ronald G. Darrah, President

National Fire Information

Council

San Diego Fire Department

1222 First Avenue

San Diego, CA 92101

(619) 236-6886

Professor Paul R. DeCicco

Polytechnic Institute of New

York

333 Jay Street

Brooklyn, NY 11201

(718) 643-5444

Mr. Philip DiNenno

Hughes Associates, Inc.

Suite 902

2730 University Blvd. West

Wheaton, MD 20902

(301) 949-0505

83
Mr. Joseph L. Donovan

Superintendent, National Fire Academy

Federal Emergency Management Agency

National Emergency Training Center

Emmitsburg, MD 21727

(301) 447-6771 x6789

Mr. Kenneth W. Dung an Professional Loss Control, Inc.

P.0. Box 446

Oak Ridge, TN 37830

(615) 482-3541

Mr. James Eisele

Consumer Product Safety Commission

5401 Westbard Avenue, Room 640

Bethesda , MD 20207

(301) 492-6539

Dr. Howard W. Emmons

Gordon McKay Professor of

Mechanical Engineering

Harvard University

1350 Massachusetts Avenue

Cambridge, MA 02138

(617) 495-2347

Dr. David Evans

Fire Growth and Extinction

Center for Fire Research

National Bureau of Standards

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

(301) 921-3242

Professor Gerard Faeth

Department of Mechanical Engineering

Penn State University

University Park, PA 16802

(814) 865-3743

Mr. Tom Farkas

Safety Regulations Engineer

National Electrical

Manufacturers Association

2101 L Street, NW. Suite 300

Washington, DC 20037

(202) 457-8481

Mr. Philip C. Favro

Favro-McLaughlin & Associates

Suite 4

10112 Fair Oaks Boulevard

Fair Oaks, CA 95628

(916) 962-1053

Mr. Frank J. Fee, III

President

The Reliable Automatic

Sprinkler Company

525 North MacQuesten Parkway

Mount Vernon, NY 10552

(914) 668-3470

Mr. Paul Fitzgerald

Vice President

Factory Mutual Research Corp.

1151 Boston-Providence Turnpike

Norwood, MA 02062

(617) 762-4300

Dr. Raymond Friedman

Factory Mutual Research

Corporation

1151 Boston-Providence Turnpike

Norwood, MA 02062

(617) 762-4300

Dr. Richard G. Gann

Center for Fire Research

National Bureau of Standards

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

(301) 921-2963

84
Dr. Paul D, Garn

Director, Center for Fire and

Hazardous Materials Research

University of Akron

Akron, OH 44325

(216) 384-2607

Mr. John C. Gerard

Washington Representative

National Fire Protection Association

1110 Vermont Avenue, MW., Suite 1210

Washington, DC 20005

(202) 667-7441

Mr. Bichard G. Gewain

Chief Fire Protection Engineer

American Iron and Steel Institute

1000 16th Street, NW.

Washington, DC 20036

(202) 452-7194

Mr. Robert Glowinski

National Forest Products Association

1619 Massachusetts Ave. , NW.

Washington, DC 20036

(202) 797-5882

Mr. Douglas A. Greenaway

Director Regulatory Affairs

Building Owners & Managers Association

International

1250 I Street, NW. , Suite 200

Washington, DC 20005

(202) 289-7000

Mr. Olin Greene

State Fire Marshal

3000 Market Street Plaza

Suite 534

Salem, OR 97310

(503) 378-3473

Mr. Norman Groner

100 Oak Rim Way

Los Gatus, CA 95030

(408) 358-3887

Mr. David M. Hammerman, P.E.

Director, Codes Administration

Department of Economic & Community Development

45 Calvert Street

Annapolis, MD 21401

(301) 269-2701

Dr. Gordon Hartzell

Director

Department of Fire Technology

Southwest Research Institute

6220 Culebra Road

P.0. Drawer 28510

San Antonio, TX 78284

(512) 684-5111

Ms. Beatrice Harwood

Consumer Product Safety

Commission

5401 Westbard Avenue, Room 640

Bethesda, MD 20207

(301) 492-6470

Mr. Clayton E. Hathaway

Monsanto

Mail Zone R-3-B

800 N. Lindberg Boulevard

St. Louis, MO 63167

(314) 694-4038

Mr, Ken Henry

Chairperson, Fire Service Issue

Committee

International Society of Fire

Service Instructors

20 Main Street

Ashland, MA 01221

(617) 881-5800

85
Mr. James F. Hoe be

1

Program Manager

U.S. Consumer Product Safety

Commission

5401 West bard Avenue

Bethesda, MD 20207

(301) 492-6554

Mr. David H. Hoover

Director, Operations

Center for Fire and Hazardous

Materials Research

University of Akron

East Exchange Street

Akron, OH 44325

(216) 384-2609

Mr. J. Thomas Hughes

Hughes Associates, Incorporated

Suite 902

2730 University Blvd. West

Wheaton, MD 20902

(301) 949-0505

Mr. Rolf Jensen

Rolf Jensen & Associates, Inc.

104 Wilmot Road

Deerfield, IL 60015

(312) 948-0700

Mr. Paul E. Jocek

General Manager, Automatic

Detection Engineering

Automatic Sprinkler Corporation

of America

P.0. Box 180

2 Corporation Center

Broadview Heights, OH 44147

(216) 526-9900 x266

Mr. Ralph Johnson

President

National Association of Home

Builders Research Foundation, Inc.

P.0. Box 1627

Rockville, MD 20850

(301) 762-4200

Mr. George Kahl

Fire Protection

U.S. Department of State

SA-6 Room 610

Washington, DC 20520

(703) 235-3905

Dr. John Keating

Department of Psychology NI-25

University of Washington

Seattle, WA 98195

(206) 543-2630

Mr. James W. Kerr, P.E.

Federal Emergency Management

Agency

P.0. Box 4073

Falls Church, VA 22044

(202) 646-2654

Mr. Russ Kidder

Executive Vice President

Fire Retardant Chemicals Assoc.

851 New Holland Avenue

P.0. 3ox 3535

Lancaster, PA 17604

(717) 291-5616

Mr. William E. Koffel

Gage Babcock and Associates

301 Maple Avenue West

Suite 2F

Vienna, VA 22180

(703) 938-9132

Mr. Richard P. Kuchnicki

Executive Director

Council of American Building

Officials

5205 Leesburg Pike

Falls Church, VA 22041

(703) 931-4533

86
Mr. Charles Lazzara

U.S. Bureau of Mines

Cochrans Mill Road

P.0. Box 18070

Pittsburgh, PA 15236

(412) 723-6628

Dr. Bernard M. Levin

Center for Fire Research

National Bureau of Standards

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

(301) 921-3246

Dr. T. Skipwith Lewis

Senior Vice President

Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection

and Insurance Company

1 State Street

Hartford, CT 06102

(203) 722-5154

Mr. Paul S. Lukus

138 Dundaff Street

Forest City, PA 18421

(717) 785-3540

Mr. D. Peter Lund, C.A.E.

Executive Director

Society of Fire Protection Engineers

60 Batterymarch Street

Boston, MA 02110

(617) 482-0686

Dr. John W. Lyons

Director

National Engineering Laboratory

National Bureau of Standards

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

(301) 921-3434

Mr. James N. Macdonald

Associate Director

Travelers Companies

One Tower Square

Hartford, CT 06115

(203) 277-5648

Mr. Henry J. Mader

Koppers Company, Inc.

Manager, Codes & Product

Acceptance

1301 Koppers Building

Pittsburgh, PA 15219

(412) 227-2255

Dr. Richard S. Magee

Professor of Mechanical

Engineering

Stevens Institute of

Technology

Castle Point Station

Hoboken, NJ 07030

(201) 420-5560

Ms. Mary Marchone

Division of Fire Prevention

Montgomery County Fire and

Rescue

101 Monroe Street, 12th Floor

Rockville, MD 20850

(301) 251-2440

Mr. Roy Mathers

Security Engineering, Inc.

P.0. Box 9337

Forrestville , CT 01010

(203) 584-9158

Mr. David McCormick

President

Fire Safety Systems, Inc.

2100 M Street, NW. , Suite 305

Washington, DC 20037

(202) 296-1873

87
Mr. Charles McGuire

Office of the Secretary

U.S. Department of Transportation

Room 10232, 400 7th Street, SW.

Washington, DC 20590

(202) 426-4458

Mr. James A. Milke

15925 Dorset Road

Laurel, MD 20707

(301) 454-2424

Mr. Wayne Moore

Automatic Fire Alarm Association

Mass Fire Alarms

14 Mclntire Street

Lowell, MA 01851

(617) 459-4461

Mr. Jonas Morehart

Division of Safety

National Institutes of Health

Room ICO 2, Bui'lding 31

9000 Rockville Pike

Bethesda, MD 20205

(301) 496-1985

Mr. Rick Mulhaupt

National Fire Protection

Association

Research Foundation

Batterymarch Park

Quincy, MA 02269

(617) 770-3000

Mr. L. L. Neibauer

Vice President

Alarm and Detection

Grinnell Fire Protection Systems

Company, Incorporated

1155 DuPage Avenue

Lombard, IL 60148

(312) 495-3400

Mr. Harold E. Nelson

President

Society of Fire Protection

Engineers

Center for Fire Research

National 3ureau of Standards

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

(301) 921-3175

Mr. John H. Nickles

Director of Education & Technical Services

American Fire Sprinkler

Association, Inc.

Suite S— 133, 11325 Pegasus

Dallas, TX 75238

(214) 349-5965

Dr. Michael M. O'Hara

Vice President

Research and Development

B.F. Goodrich Chemical Group

6100 Oak Tree Boulevard

Cleveland, OH 44131

(216) 447-6475

Mr. Anthony O'Neill

Vice President, Technical

Operations

National Fire Protection

Association

Batterymarch Park

Quincy, MA 02269

(617) 770-3000

Dr. Steven Packham

996 South 1500 East

Salt Lake City, UT 84105

(801) 583-2627

Professor Patrick Pagni

Department of Mechanical

Engineering

University of California - Berkeley

Berkeley, CA 94720

(415) 642-0729

88
Mr. Jerome S. Pepi

Vice President, Research and

Development

Grinnell Fire Protection

Systems Company, Inc.

10 Dorrance Street

Providence, RI 02903

(401) 456-5773

Dr. Charles Philpot

Director

Fire & Atmospheric Sciences

Research

U.S. Forest Service

U.S. Department of Agriculture

P.0. Box 2417

Washington, DC 20013

(703) 235-8195

Mr. Larry Pietrzak

Mission Research Corporation

735 State Street

P.0. Drawer 719

Santa Barbara, CA 93102

(805) 963-8761 x224

Mr. Richard M. Plettner, P.E.

Vice President

Ruskin Manufacturing Company

P.0. Box 129

Grandview, MO 64030

(816) 761-7476

Mr. Paul Quigg

U.S. Gypsum Company

700 North Highway 45

Libertyville , IL 60048

(312) 362-9797 x244

Dr. James G. Quintiere

Center for Fire Research

National Bureau of Standards

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

(301) 921-3242

Mr. Martin H. Reiss

Chairman of the Board

The Gamewell Corporation

Ten Gamewell Drive

Medway, MA 02053

(617) 533-4331

Mr. J. Gordon Routley

Phoenix Fire Department

520 W. Van Buren

Phoenix, AZ 85003

(602) 256-3189

Mr. Henry J. Roux

Coordinating Manager

Product Fire Performance

Armstrong World Industries, Inc

Research and Development

P.0. Box 3511

Lancaster, PA 17604

(717) 396-5224

Mr, Jack Sanders

4717 Ocana Place

San Diego, CA 92124

(619) 268-4288

Mr. Philip S. Schaenmar.

President

TriData

1500 Wilson Boulevard

Arlington, VA 22209

(703) 841-2975

Mr. Chester W. Schirmer

President

Schirmer Engineering Corporatio

707 Lake Cook Road

Deerfield, IL 60015

(312) 272-8340

89
Mr. William A. Schmidt, P.E.

Research Staff (03H)

Office of Construction

Veterans Administration

810 Vermont Avenue, NW.

Washington, DC 20420

(202) 389-3289

Mr. Ken Schoonover

Building Officials & Code

Administrators International

4051 West Flossraoor Road

Country Club Hills, IL 60477

(312) 799-2300

Mr. Harry Shaw

Shaw Associates

7632 Indian Hills Drive

Rockville, MD 20855

(301) 869-3228

Mr. Frank Shisler

Mobil Research & Development

Corporation

Paulsboro Research Laboratory

Billingsport Road

Paulsboro, NJ 08066

(609) 423-1040 x2633

Mr. Thomas F. Shoemaker

Office of the Assistant Secretary

for Congressional and

Intergovernmental Affairs

U.S. Department of Commerce

Washington, DC 20230

(202) 377-3663

Professor Merwin Sibulkin

Division of Engineering

Brown University

Providence, RI 02912

(401) 863-2867

Dr. Andrew Sivak, Manager

Bio/Medical Research and

Technology Section

Vice President

Arthur D. Little, Inc.

Acorn Park

Cambridge, MA 02140

(617) 864-5770

Mr. Walter Smittle, III

State Fire Marshal

2000 Quarrier Street

Charleston, WV 25305

(304) 348-2191

Dr. Jack E. Snell

Director

Center for Fire Research

National 3ureau of Standards

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

(301) 921-3143

Mr. Alan Stevens

Valley Road

Middleboro, MA 02346

(617) 947-8609

Mr. Robert S. Strength

Monsanto Polymer Products

Company

800 North Lindbergh Boulevard

St. Louis, MO 63167

(314) 694-3211

Mr. C. Ross Thomson

Vice President, Fire Research

Canadian Wood Council

85 Albert Street

Ottawa, Ontario KIP 6A4

Canada

(613) 235-7221

90
Mr. Henry Tovey

Senior Research Scientist

Emergency Management Research

Division, NT Room 619

Federal Emergency Management

Agency

Washington, DC 20472

(202) 237-3883

Mr. Charles W. Van Rickley

Deputy Chief

San Diego Fire Department

1222 First Avenue

San Diego, CA 92101

(619) 236-5591

Mr. John A. Viniello

President

National Fire Sprinkler

Association

P.0. Box 1000

Route 22 & Robin Hill Corp Park

Patterson, NY 12563

(914) 878-4200

Honorable Doug Walgren

Chairman

Subcommittee on Science, Research

and Technology

Committee on Science and Technology

U.S. House of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515

(202) 225-2135

Mr. Thomas E. Waterman

Director of Research

Institute for Advanced Safety Studies

5950 West Touhy Avenue

Niles, IL 60648

(312) 647-1101

Dr. John M. Watts, Jr.

Director

Fire Safety Institute

P.0. Box 674

Middlebury , VT 05753

(802) 462-2663

Mr. Jim White

Manager, Fire Technology Section

Research & Development Division

Weyerhaeuser Company

Technical Center, Lab B,

P.0. Box 188

Longview, WA 98632

(206) 425-2150

Chief John White

Division of Fire Prevention

Boston Fire Department

115 Southampton Street

Boston, MA 02118

(617) 442-8000

Mr. G. Crawford Wiestling

Fire Investigator

Fetterly & Purdy, P.A.

808 Nicollet Mall, Suite 800

Minneapolis , MN 55402

(612) 333-2003

Prof. Robert B. Williamson

Department of Civil Engineering

University of California - Berkeley

773 Davis Hall

Berkeley, CA 94720

(415) 642-5308

Mr. Rexford Wilson

FIREPRO Incorporated

Box 145

Wellesley Hills, MA 02181

(617) 237-1153

Mr. James H. Winger

Deputy Director

Center for Fire Research

National Bureau of Standards

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

(301) 921-3143

91
Mrs . Susan Worable

Consumer Product Safety Commission

5401 Westbard Avenue, Room 700

Bethesda, MD 20207

(301) 492-6957

Mr. William J. Young

President

Portland Cement Association

5420 Old Orchard Road

Skokie, IL 60077

(312) 966-6200
APPENDIX B

Brief Summary of Workshop Topics

Overview - This panel will develop Che frameworks to be used in organizing,

integrating and presenting the outputs of the various panels. it will integrate

the findings of the individual panels and develop generalized conclusions that

encompass the more specific conclusions of the other panels. It will also serve

as the communication link among the other panels during their deliberations

.

Materials and Products - This panel will discuss the research that is needed

so that:

1. Manufacturers can efficiently develop and profitably market useful

products while providing a generally accepted level of fire safety.

2. Architects, interior decorators and other professionals can select

building materials and building furnishings that provide any desired

level of fire safety.

Design and Engineering - This panel will discuss the research necessary to

permit designers and engineers to supplement subjective judgment with technical

information. Facts, data and methods would be systematically assembled, to

permit credible measurement of the level of safety inherent in the design and

engineering of facilities, equipment, and vehicles.

Regulator'/ and Risk - This panel will discuss the research that is needed so that

those concerned with providing fire safety can make their decisions to a greater

extent on the basis of technical data and quantified impact. Potential users

include: code officials, standards organizations, insurance companies, corporate

risk managers and their government equivalents.

Real Time Extinguishment and Hazard Analysis - This panel will discuss research

that would assist fire officers in prefire planning of fire fighting activities

and in directing activities at the fire ground by providing technically based

"tools” and guidelines. These "tools" would assist the fire officers in

predicting the relative effectiveness and safety of alternative fire fighting

strategies

.

This panel will also discuss research that would permit manufacturers to design

and produce equipment that would increase the effectiveness of firefighters or increase their safety.

Investigation and Litigation - This panel will discuss how research might lead to

improved procedures for experts trying to investigate and/or understand specif i:

fires of interest. This would include procedures (used by fire and arson investigators, liability lawyers, codes and standards writers, government regulators,

product manufacturers, etc.) for reconstructing a fire and determining the kev

factors that influenced its ignition, growth and danger.

Research for Fire Safety and Survival - This panel will discuss specific resear :h that would provide an improved scientific and technical base for fire safetv

programs directed at people at risk in fires and those directly responsible for

their safety, that is, building occupants, experts who train the public in fire

safety and building owners and managers.

93
APPENDIX C

ABBREVIATIONS USED

ABBREVIATION FULL NAME

ACEP

AIA

AISI

ASHRAE

ASTM

BOCA

BRI

CFR

CP SC

DOD

ESFR

FAA

FAST

FEMA

FM

FMRC

FR

FRCA

HHS

I AFC

IAFF

ICBO

IF STA

ISFSI

LEXIS

MEDLARS

MBS

NCSBCS

NEMA

NFIRS

NFPA

NFPARF

NFPRF

NIH

NRC-Canada

NRL

OLS

PCA

SBCCI

SCA

SFPE

SPI

UL

US

USFA

WPI

American College of Emergency Physicians

American Insurance Association

American Iron and Steel Institute

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and

Air-Conditioning Engineers

American Society for Testing and Materials

Building Officials and Code Administrators

International

Building Research Institute (Japan)

Center for Fire Research

Consumer Product Safety Commission

U.S. Department of Defense

A Fast Response Type Sprinkler

U.S. Federal Aviation Administration

A Model for the Transport of Fire, Smoke and Toxic

Gases (W, Jones)

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Factory Mutual System (Insurance)

Factory Mutual Research Corporation

Fire Resistant (Construction)

Fire Retardant Chemicals Association

Department of Health and Human Services

International Association of Fire Chiefs

International Association of Fire Fighters

International Conference of Building Officials

International Fire Service Training Association

International Society of Fire Service Instructors

LEXIS - A Data System for Laws and Legal Matters

Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System

(National Library of Medicine)

National Bureau of Standards

National Conference of States on Building Codes and

Standards

National Electrical Manufacturers Association

National Fire Incident Reporting System

National Fire Protection Association

National Fire Protection (Association) Research

Foundation

National Fire Protection Research Foundation

National Institutes of Health

National Research Council of Canada

U.S. Naval Research Laboratory

Operation Life Safety

Portland Cement Association

Southern Building Code Congress International

Smoke Control Association

Society of Fire Protection Engineers

Society of the Plastics Industry, Incorporated

Underwriters Laboratories, Incorporated

United States

United States Fire Administration

Worcester Polytechnic Institute

94
APPENDIX D

NATIONAL FIRE RESEARCH

STRATEGY CONFERENCE

BATTERYMARCH PARK

QUINCY, MASSACHUSETTS

AUGUST 28-29, 1984

A REVIEW OF THE NEED FOR RESTATEMENT OF

NATIONAL GOALS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FIRE

RESEARCH IN THE UNITED STATES

95
Table of Contents

Section Tit! e Paqe

A

B

C

D

E

F

Preface 1

Perspective on the Growth of Fire Research 3

Purpose/Objectives/Organizations Participating 5

Thematic Highlights of Discussions During Conference 7

Achievements of the Conference 14

Conference Attendees 13

96
Section A

Preface

Fire Research in the United States has, in 1984, reached a critical

point at which decisions and policies have to be made to ensure its

continuance and to establish directions in light of changing technologies

and economics.

• This is an important time for fire research in the United

States. New developments are making it possible for us to

consider practices in fire protection and fire safety evaluation

that until recently were considered either impossible or

impractical. Simultaneously, technological advances in other

fields are creating exciting new possibilities for further

reduction of fire losses and fire protection costs. Recently

there have been significant shifts in the policies of the

Federal government concerning its role in technology development

and basic and applied research generally and in fire research in

particular. Current Administration policies support a Federal

role in basic and generic applied research, but seek to shift to

private sector and state and local governments re-sponsi bi 1 i ti es

for support of other applied research, and most technology

development. Finally, the total resources available for fire

research are limited.

97
• In view of these factors, we believe that it is essential that

the direction and strategy for fire research, particularly

opportunities for joint or coordinated private and public sector

efforts, be reviewed and that an attempt be made to develop both

guidelines and a strategy for the future.

In order to begin establishing strategies, the National Bureau of

Standards/Center for Fire Research and the National Fire Protection

Association jointly sponsored a meeting of a small group of private and

public sector leaders in fire research August 28-29, 1984, at the NFPA

headquarters, Batterymarch Park, Quincy, Massachusetts.

Taking part were representati ves from industry, trade and

professional associations, academia, research and testing organizations,

federal agencies, and Congress.

We hope the product of this conference will lead to a wider

involvement of interests in a continuing commitment for application of a

planned strategy for fire research in the United States.

98
SECTION B

PERSPECTIVE ON THE GROWTH OF FIRE RESEARCH

Annual fire losses in the U.S. include 6,000 reported deaths and

31,000 injuries. The total cost of fire to the U.S. economy is estimated

to be approaching $30 billion per year, seme $6.8 of which is direct

cost. The U.S. fire death rate along with Canada ranks worst of the

nations of the world which report such data and, in fact, is over twice

the international average.

This situation has existed for some time. Yet, it is widely believed

that with improved knowledge of fire, fire safety education and training,

and cost-effective technologies for reducing the risk of fire, both the

losses and costs of fire in the U.S. can be reduced dramatically, i.e.,

by at least a factor of two or three. Thus, fire research is a crucial

part of national efforts to achieve these savings.

Yet, fire research in the United States has a comparatively short

history, and has traditionally not been accorded the status of a vital

national commitment.

Despite this, there has been much valuable work done in both the

federal and private sectors that has developed a fire research excellence

i n the country.

99
In the late 1950's, the national Research Council’s Committee on Fire

Research recommended a national program of fire research; by 1969 the

committee reported small, but significant progress.

Research into the phenomena and problems of fire has developed and

matured rapidly since the late 1 960 ' s when the National Bureau of

Standards was authorized by Congress to undertake a more comprehensive

2

program of fire research.

Impetus was given when the National Science Foundation, under the

Research Applied to National Needs Program in 1971, began support of a

3

number of fire research projects at major universities.

The report of the National Commission on Fire Prevention and Control

issued in 1972 under the title “America Burning" recommended that the

4

Federal government strengthen its programs of fire research.

When the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act was passed by

Congress in 1974, a greater degree of national coordination occurred, but

this has been tempered by reluctance to assume Federal responsibility for

the Nation's entire fire research efforts.

References

1. A Proposed Fire Research Program. National Academy of

Sciences-National Research Council, Committee on Fire Research,

Washington, D.C., 1959.

2. "Fire Research and Safety Act", Pub. L. 90-259, 1968. U.S. Code,

Cong. & Ad. News.

3. See, for example, NSF/RANN Conference on Fire Research, Harvard

University, Cambridge, MA, June 25-27, 1975, sponsored by the

National Science Foundation.

4. "America Burning". The Report of the National Commission on Fire

Prevention and Control, Government Printing Office (U.S.),

Washington-, D.C., 1 973.

100
Fire Research has, however, been greatly advanced by federal agencies

and programs, and much of the work done by universities and individual

researchers would not have been possible but for federal grants and

contracts.

The private sector has also maintained programs in fire research,

much of which is performed by the research facilities of insurance

companies, concerned industries, and trade and professional

associations. The testing laboratories have played a key part in

establishing a core of researchers in this county.

Despite all this activity there has never been a truly coordinated

Mationwide strategy for fire research under which clear priorities could

be articulated, information shared and resources allocated efficiently.

SECTION C

PURPOSE

To bring together some of the principal organizations and individuals

concerned with and about fire research to exchange views and opinions on

the direction that fire research should take.

OBJECTIVES

1. Assess the current status of fire research.

2. Identify factors affecting progress in fire research.

3. Review the technologies that are now available for fire research.

4. Relate needs in fire research to capabilities to fulfill those needs.

5. Recommend a course of action that will lead to development and

implementation of strategies to meet the fire research needs of the

nation.

101
Section C (continued)

ORGANIZATIONS PARTICIPATING

American Iron & Steel Institute, American Society for Testing &

Materials, Armstrong World Industries, Benjamin/Clarke Associates, Borg

Warner Chemical, Center for Fire Research/National Bureau of Standards,

Factory Mutual Research Corporation, National Fire Protection

Association, Penn State University, Schirmer Engineering Corporation,

Society of Fire Protection Engineers, Underwriters Laboratories, U.S.

Consumer Product Safety Commission, U.S. Fire Administration/Federal

Emergency Management Agency, U.S. House of Representatives, University of

Maryland, Weyerhaeuser Company.

Robert \V. Grant

President National Fire Protection Assn.

Honorable Doug W algren

U.S. House of Representatives

(D) Pennsylvania

Dr. Jack E. Snell Director

NBS Center for Fire Research

102
SECTION D

THEMATIC HIGHLIGHTS OF DISCUSSIONS DURING CONFERENCE

The following is a brief sampling from the discussions in the two-day

meeting. The discussions were detailed, highly technical in part, and

sometimes contentious. Discussion topics included research needs, the

fire problem, attitudes, roles, and financing. It reflects the

optimistic outlook that emerged as the discussion proceeded that a new

era in fire research truly is beginning and that the time for collective

action is now.

" There is a need for collective effort; no one organization,

agency, group or industry has either the authority or resources to

mastermind a fire research program that integrates all aspects, creates

free exchange of ideas and technology and provides the output that only

such an integration can produce...."

" This group, while it is representative, certainly does not

include many interests and individuals that need to be involved in the

coordination of a national strategy...."

" When we talk of a national strategy we use the term 'national'

in its broader sense and are not using it as a synonym for 'federal'.

For a coordinated fire research plan to be successful we must include

every interest in its development and in its implementation "

103
"....The federal Involvement Is subject to changes in commitment and

dedication caused by fiscal priorities of the administration of the day.

These changes are based on factors other than the belief in the need for

fire research or a lack of such a belief...."

“....The work done by the National Bureau of Standards/Center for

Fire Research has been the core of progress recently in basic fire

research, and the applied research sponsored by the Federal Emergency

Management Agency has led to the implementation of new approaches in the

field. Many other federal agencies have initiated valuable fire research

centered around their respective responsibilities. The Center for Fire

Research, however, is seen as a vital and essential catalyst to progress

and to the future of fire research in the United States. It is vital

because it offers an independence that is not constrained by a need to

consider market potentials and it is essential because it has the best

resources in terms of facilities and personnel to be at the heart of

progressive scientific research "

"....The Federal Emergency Management Agency is also seen as having a

major role, particularly in the transfer of the results of research to

field applications "

" The private sector, while contributing much, obviously must

consider the relevance of research to its own needs and its overall

stability. Despite these constraints, many industries support fire

research of a general nature in the national interest "

" Academic establishments depend primarily on federal grants and

contracts to become involved or continue in fire research. As these

resources diminish, programs cease and may never resume.

104
This has the effect not only of reducing actiye participation by some of

the most Inquiring and innovative centers of research, but also of

eliminating incentive and opportunity for emerging scientists to pursue

the field of fire research. The long-term result will certainly be a

lack of experienced and qualified researchers in the fire field...."

" Fire research is at a critical point in its history. There have

been quantum advances in the technologies, particularly in those which

can be used for physical measurement and analysis, together with the

almost unlimited capability now afforded by electronics to handle data,

and to resolve complicated problems at a level of sophistication never

before possible "

"....All this means we are closer to breakthroughs in fire research

than at any time in the past. It is, in fact, a time of transition; we

are on the threshold of a new era

"

" What should be our objective? Should it just be to cut the U.S.

fire death rate in half - that would stiTl leave the U.S. as the highest

in the world. Or should we aim to have the lowest? Perhaps a new form

of objective is necessary...."

" Looking at the relative emphasis placed on fire research in

other countries, notably the industrialized nations, we have seen a much

greater governmental influence than in the U.S. Apart from this aspect,

however, it is the overall intensity of research in other countries that

becomes readily apparent and the obvious excitement in those countries

concerning the recent advances in fire technology, much of which had its

conception in the U.S.; this activity indicates that if we reduce our

efforts, the leadership we have given in this transition will pass to

others and once again the U.S. will become the follower in fire research

that, unfortunately , we were several decades ago and the U.S. will lose

significant potential foreign trade opportunities for U.S. products and

engineering services 105
"....Given that research must go on, and not at reduced levels, much

needs to be done to bring all U. 3. -based fire research into focus and

endeavor to identify ways to coordinate, without dictating, so that the

entire fire research of the nation is moving in harmony and is mutually

supportive. . .

.

M

" Fire research is not seen to be just pure or basic research but

rather all-encompassing; it must include finding solutions to the small

but frequent fire problem as well as the occasional but spectacular

incident. It must include the need to deal with the educational and

attitudinal barriers that shape the behavior of people, not only en masse

but individually when faced with fire. It must also focus on the whole

question of determining the level of protection that should be provided,

and on methods of assessment of risk that can be properly and judiciously

accepted or not accepted "

"....Fire Research is in need of a redefinition of its components and

the scope of each. From such a redefinition there would be a logical

structuring of the interactive roles each component can take in an

overall strategy to maximize the impact of fire research. With this

would come a clarification of the best resources and interests that

should be involved in the research in its widest sense

"

"....It is recognized that meeting the needs of the future by

research is more important than the preservation of those methodologies

and practices that, while having done a creditable job in maintaining the

status quo, have not materially reduced the fire problem. It 'is,

however, fair to say that one of the reasons for the lack of greater

impact is that transfer of the products of research to the field for

implementation has not always been possible "

106
" The adaptations of recent technological developments that are

changing fire research and the increased understanding that new methods

can be applied to the fire problem must extend beyond the laboratory into

acceptance and perception by those who deliver fire protection, those who

prescribe levels of protection and those who are to receive protection

from fire. This should be as much a part of the fire research strategy

as the pure chemistry and physical aspects and make sure that delivery is

complete, is equally part of the research needed...."

" Without question, national fire research strategies are needed,

and are needed now. They are essentially part of the new technology

transition, if indeed that transition is ever to occur, and all those who

have an interest should correnit themselves to working to develop the

strategi es

"

107
TYPES

AND

MAJOR

PERFORMERS

AND

SPONSORS

OF

FIRE

RESEARCH

IN

THE

UNITED

STATES

108

*'Ihls

figure,

adapted

from

tables

developed

at

the

conference,

illustrates

where

various

types

of

fire

research

are

carried

out

now

within

the

economy.

The

estimates

of

amount

done

are

based

solely

on

the

knowledge

of

the

participants

and

may

underestimate

research

expenditures

particularly

in

the

Developmental

and

End

Use

categories.
SELECTED

MAJOR FIRE RESEARCH MEEDS

The following list of selected fire research needs was compiled from

inputs provided by participants at the First National Fire Research

Strategy Conference. These topics are not prioritized. Some are

currently being researched; others are not. They are grouped to

illustrate the types of research needed—using the classifications

provided on Figure 1. There are strong interdependencies among many of

these research topics. Subsequent activities and meetings of the

National Fire Research Strategy Conference will include efforts to

transform such listings into a national plan for fire research.

• Basic

1. Fundamental studies of flame ignition, spread, extinguishment,

suppressi on.

2. Mechanisms of material performance in fire (degradation, soot and

smoke formation).

3. Biological and physiological effects of toxic substances from fire.

4. Human behaviors relating to fire.

5. Scientifically-based reference computer fire codes (zone and field

model s)

.

t Appl i ed

1. Quantitative models for fire and smoke hazard prediction.

2. Smoke toxicity measurement and prediction.

3. Predictive and simulation models of human response (decision and

actions) to fi re.

4. Expert systems for fi resafety evaluation of specified facilities.

5. Epidemiology of fires.

6. Field test methods for detectors, smoke control and sprinkler systems.

• Devel opmental

1. Extend application of quick response sprinklers to additional

occupanci es.

2. Furniture, furnishings, solid-fueled heating- devices firesafety.

3. Guide criteria for smoke movement, control, removal.

4. Translation, adaptation and delivery systems for fire research

resul ts.

5. Selection, evaluation/certification procedures for commercial

firesafety computer programs.

6. Products and systems that are more fire-safe.

• End Use

1. Fire and smoke toxicity hazard assessment methods.

2. Means to establish firesafety level and equivalence of alternative

desi gns.

3. Practical fire risk estimation techniques.

4. Firesafety for target groups (elderly, children, etc.).

5. Firesafety and fire protection education.

109
SECTION E

ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE CONFERENCE

In addressing the original intent of the meeting, the attendees

analyzed and identified in some detail each of the five stated objectives

for the conference.

While recommending that a wider involvement of interests will be

required to develop a national strategy for fire research, the following

is a brief summary of the overall conclusions reached in respect of each

objecti ve:

Objective No. 1: Assess the current status of fire research.

The current status of fire research is one of change and transition into

promising new directions. Fire research is now at a critical point.

Major advances are being made in capabilities to predict fire risk and

appraise the impacts of design hazards or safeguards. The transfer of

these advances to the fire protection community is just beginning.

Objective No. 2: Identify factors affecting progress in fire research.

Progress is being positively affected by the advent of new technologies

and new approaches, but reduced financial resources for fire research are threatening such progress.

Objective No. 3: Review the technologies that are now available for fire

research.

Technologies that can change fire research and produce effective

solutions include, for example, physical systems for measurement of

flame, gas production, and other combustion processes; powerful new generations of computers with vastly improved mass information-handling,

analytical and interfacing capabilities; new capabilities for modeling

and prediction of complex phenomena of fire growth and smoke movement

along with behavioral patterns; responses of the humans and the

performance of fire protection technologies, and important new technologies such as expert systems for effectively utilizing these tools

and coupling them with researchers and practitioners.

no
Objective No. 4: Relate needs In fire research to capabilities to

fulfill those needs.

Existing resources--trained professionals, facilities and funding--are

limited. It is not yet clear these are sufficient. Nonetheless,

significant advances can be made provided there is a coordination of

effort involving an overall and dynamic plan in which all interests

participate.

Objective No. 5: Recommend courses of action.

The course of action needed is clearly to involve all concerned in

developing and implementing a national fire research strategy that

addresses every aspect of fire research needs, resources and integrated

action. This reflects the most important priority and the commitment of

the participants of this conference.

Action Recommended

Those attending the National Fire Research Strategy Conference,

having reviewed the current status of fire research; having examined many

research needs, together with the availability of facilities and

researchers; and having considered new and advanced technologies;

resolved that the following statement be issued as a collective

indication of intent to pursue the coordination of fire research in the

United States:

A. A coordinated fire research plan should be developed to help achieve

the reduction in fire losses in the United States in accord with the

objectives of the Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974.

The coordinated plan should encompass the following:

1. Development of an accurate identification of needs that is based

on an inventory of completed or current research and prioritization

of those areas requiring further investigation.

ill
2. The Center for Fire Research fulfilling the crucial role of

spearheading and coordinating basic and generic applied fire research

- through independent research within the Center; by provision of

grants, fellowships and technical support to independent researchers

in universities and similar institutions; and by serving as an

objective forum for reviewing and coordinating the national research

effort.

3. Involvement of the academic community to take advantage of its

scientific expertise and to assure a supply of scientists to carry on

needed research into the next century.

4. Development of a plan to assure availability of the funding

necessary to complete the requi red research. The plan should

identify the potential benefits for both society at large and the

specific interests of users of the research.

5. Means to effect transfer of research results to users such as

engineers, designers, fire service and code officials and

standards-devel opi ng organizations to permit implementation of the

results for the public good in the shortest possible time.

6.

' Mechanisms to permit timely feedback from users to keep the plan

dynamic and responsive to changing needs and capable of anticipating

the effects of future technology where feasible.

112
B. That the National Fire Research Strategy Conference be continued and

strengthened by the inclusion of others who have interest and concern

in the matter of fire research and that with such infusion of

additional expertise and support, it undertakes the development of

the coordinated national fire research plan.

113
Section F

National Fire Research Strategy Conference

Attendees

Mr. Clyde Bragdon, Administrator

United States Fire Administration

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Washington, D.C. 20472

Mr. Richard Brooke

Section Manager of Material Sciences

and Regulatory Affairs

Borg Warner Chemical

Technical Center

Washington, West Virginia 25181

Dr. John L. Bryan

Professor and Chairman

Department of Fire Protection Engineering

University of Maryland

College Park, MD 20742

Dr. William Christian

Manager, Research & Technology Development

Underwriters Laboratories

333 Pfingsten Road

Northbrook, IL 60062

Dr. Frederic B. Clarke, President

Benjamin/Clarke Associates, Inc.

10605 Concord Street

Suite 501

Kensington, Maryland 20895

Dr. Gerald Faeth

Department of Mechanical Engineering

Penn State University

University Park, Pennsylvania

Mr. Richard G. Gewain • Chief Fire Protection Engineer

American Iron & Steel Institute

1000 16th Street NW

Washington, D.C. 20036

114
Mr. Robert W. Grant

President

National Fire Protection Association

Batterymarcn Park

Quincy, Massachusetts 02269

Mr. Martin E. Grimes

r ire Protection Management International

39 Indian Ridge Road

Sudbury, Massachusetts 01776

(Representing NFPA)

Mr. Paul Fitzgerald

Vice President

Factory Mutual Research Corporation

1151 Boston-Providence Turnpike

Norwood, MA 02062

Mr. James Hoebel

Program Manager

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

nil 18th Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20207

Mr. Jack Love

President

Factory Mutual Research Corporation

1151 Boston-Providence Turnpike

Norwood, MA 02062

Dr. John W. Lyons

Deputy Di rector

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, DC 20234

Mr. Ramon McNeil

Manager, Fire Technology Unit

Weyerhaeuser- Co.

Technical Center, Lab B P.0. Box 188

Longview, Washington 98632

Mr. Harold E. Nelson

President

Society of Fire Protection Engineers

60 Batterymarch Street

Boston, MA 02110

115
Mr. Joseph G. O’ Grady

Executive Vice President

American Society for Testing Materials

1916 Race Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103

Mr. Arthur E. Cote

Assistant Vice President, Standards

National Fire Protection Association

Satterymarch Park

Quincy, Massachusetts 02269

Mr. Henry Roux

Coordinating Manager

Product Fire Performance

Armstrong World Industries, Inc.

Research & Development

P.0. Box 3511

Lancaster, PA

Mr. Chester W. Schirmer, President

Chairman, NFPA Board of Directors

Schirmer Engineering Corporation

707 .Lake Cook Road

Deerfield, IL 60015

Dr. Jack E. Snell, Director

Center for Fire Research

National Bureau of Standards

81 dg. 224, Room A247

Gai thersburg , MD 20899

Honorable Doug Walgren

Representative, 8th Congressional District

of Pennsylvania

U.S. House of Representatives

Washington, D.C 20515

116
P

u»eo•c

Scenes

from

Z'

-;;<cas5

28-29,

1984

Meeting
APPENDIX E

SUPPLEMENTARY COMMENTS

Attendees of the meeting were invited to

submit additional comments or information

that they thought should be included in

the report. Two workshop participants

prepared supplementary comments.

118
Schirmer

SCHIRMER ENGINEERING CORPORATION

707 LAKE COOK ROAD

DEERFIELD. ILLINOIS 60015-4997

(312)272-8340

FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEERS

SAFETY ENGINEERS

CODE CONSULTANTS

August 7, 1985

Dr. Bernard Levin

Center for Fire Research

Building 224, Room A-263

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Dear Dr. Levin:

Some very short comments regarding the report:

Page 74: The 9th line, the word "and" should be deleted after the word "sensitivity".

Of considerably more importance, the data base referred in this paragraph should more

appropriately be under the leadership of the private sector and in this case I would suggest

the NFPA to avoid the possibility of creation of a data base and data gathering

methodology under a federally funded agency and the possibility of that agency disappearing along with its data collection mission. A private sector organization such as NFPA

will have a considerably greater degree of continuity and therefore should take the lead in

this area as far as actual implementation.

Page 76, under "Building configurations influence on sprinkle/detector sensitivity on fire

growth, add FM as a sponsor.

Optimization of sprinkler response time sponsor should be the same as building configuration inasmuch as this is a part of exactly the same effort. The same is true with regard to

effects of ceiling height, etc. This is a part of building configuration and should not be

duplicated.

I have not reviewed any of the other groups' material inasmuch as frankly I was not there

to listen to the discussion and do not feel that 1 would have any input other then from an

editorial standpoint.

It was an enjoyable experience and I sincerely hope that it will prove productive not only

from the standpoint of NB5/CFR funding but also from the standpoint of developing

meaningful fire research on a coordinated and continuing basis.

Kindest regards,

C. \V. Schirmer, P.E

Pre si dent

119
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES

National institutes of Health

Bethesda, Mar/iana 20205

Building : 31

Room : 1 C02

(301) 496- 2801

Public Health San/ice

August 6, 1985

Dr. Bernard Levin

National Bureau of Standards

Center for Fire Research

Building 224, Room A-263

Ga i thersburg, MD 20899

Dear Bud:

I left the National Fire Research Strategy Conference with mixed

feelings. In seme ways it was great to be among so many prominent

personalities in cur field, but disappointing that the conference could

not have suggested research of a more specific nature. I realize, as the title implies. It was a strategy directed meeting, but It seems to

me that at least seme of the pre-conf erence suggestions would have been

addressed as needing priority treatment by researchers. If one finds

the "strategy”, it Is that we should establish more task forces to talk

about technology transfer.

If anything was identified as a National Fire Problem, It was the

thousands of lives lost each year in this country in residences.

However, the conference barely mentioned It. If the Congress has the

slightest feeling that we are attacking that problem, they should be

disappointed. Since the vast majority of fire deaths occur in poorer

residential settings without even a simple smoke detector, how in the

world will more research help? It would be more cost-beneficial to

give smoke detectors to rural and city fire departments to install in

these poorer residences and have them go around to replace the

batteries each year.

Laying the National Fire Problem aside, there are several areas which

could be tackled under the label of developing better Code provisions:

1. As our handicapped citizens attain more of their mobility goals,

they wiil realize that they are totally dependent upon the elevator

to leave a multistory building and the first thing society does is

to take the elevator out of service.

2. We are experiencing more electrical fires, which if put In combination with Polychlorinated Biphenyls can cause a building to

be closed for years. What would be the Impact of automatic

sprinklers on these electrical fires?

120
Page 2 - Dr. Bernard Levin

3. Our fire alarm systems, except for our schools, border upon

disgrace. Nobody responds to a fire alarm as intended by the Code

writers. Any alarm has to be fol lowed-up by additional

information. Our fire fighters waste precious time telling people

to get out of a building instead of extinguishing the fire.

Unwanted (as opposed to calling them false) alarms are costing us Gearly. A major problem Is that our fire alarm signals are not

standard. The idea that all we need to do is ring a bel ! and

everyone evacuates is absurd.

4. Our "state-of-the-art" Codes for the protection of hospitalized

patients increase the cost of health care and cause many

CDerational problems, but the first sign of smoke in the area triggers an evacuation. The concept of "protection-in-pl ace" is a farce.

I guess these questions are part of what we could call our National

Code Prob I em as contrasted to the National Fire Problem. I am i

n

agreement that we need technology transfer, knowledge based codes, and

the other broad research ideas from the conference; but we should have

been a bit mere specific.

Thanks for taking the time to listen to me. Let’s continue to work

toward a more fire-safe society.

S i ncerel y.

‘OftM N8S-I U* »fV 11441

U.3. OEPT. OF COMM. 1. PUBLICATION OR 2. Performing Organ. Report No. 3, Publ i cation D ate BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET See instructions)

REPORT NO.

NBSIR-85/ 3290 December 1985

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

National Fire Research Strategy Conference

Proceedings July 22-25, 1985

5. AUTHOR(S)

Bernard M. Levin, Editor

6. PERFORMING ORGANIZA i ION (If joint or other than NBS, see in struction s)

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

GAITHERSBURG, MD 20899

7. Contract/Grant No.

8.

Type of Report & Period Covered

Final

9.

SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (Street. City. State, ZIP)

Center for Fire Research, National Bureau of Standards, Gaithersburg, MD 20899

National Fire Protection Association, Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02269

10

.

supplementary notes

_ Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FlPS Software Summary, is attached.

11.

ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most significant information. If document includes a significant

bi bl lograpny or literature survey, mention it here)

The July 22-25, 1985 ,• meeting of the National Fire Research Strategy

Conference was held for the purpose of initiating the development of a coordinated fire research plan to achieve the reduction in fire losses in

the United States in accord with the objectives of the Fire Prevention and

Control Act of 1974. One hundred and seventeen experts from industry,

government, academia, and professional societies were assigned to one of

nine panels or workshops to discuss different application areas of fire

research and the needed research in the respective areas. The areas

included: design and engineering; materials and products; investigation

and litigation; regulation and risk; real time fire extinguishment; and

fire prevention, safety and survival. One panel integrated the findings

of the other panels and developed generalized conclusions. The nine

panel reports and a list of attendees is included in these proceedings.

12. KEY WORDS (Six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only proper names; ana separate <ev wares :/ :e— ,e: conferences; fire data; fire investigation; fire prevention; fire protection

engineering; fire research; fire science; management; proceedings; risk

analysis

13. availability 14. NO. 3F

PRINTED PAGES

Xj Unlimited

i ! For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS 126

Order From Suoerin tendent of Documents. U.S. Government P r innnp Qffiro Wash,

‘ 20402. 15. Price

TIC1 Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA 22161 31 6* Q*'