NBS

PUBLICATIONS AlllOb Pb0fi7fi

NBSIR 84-2896

Fire Safety Evaluation System for

National Park Service Overnight

Accommodations

H.E. Nelson

A.J. Shibe

B. M. Levin

S.D. Thorne

L.Y. Cooper

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

National Engineering Laboratory

Center for Fire Research

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

June 1984

Issued September 1984

•QC

100

,U56

84-2396

1934

Sponsored by:

National Park Service

Department of Interior

Washington, DC 20240

NBSIR 84-2896

~t?

FIRE SAFETY EVALUATION SYSTEM FOR

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE OVERNIGHT

ACCOMMODATIONS

H.E. Nelson

A.J. Shibe

B. M. Levin

S.D. Thorne

L.Y. Cooper

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

National Engineering Laboratory

Center for Fire Research

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

June 1984

Issued September 1984

Sponsored by:

National Park Service

Department of Interior

Washington, DC 20240

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

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler, Director
..

'

. \ . ", -

' '

' '

.

' 1

: ; ' /

. ,

‘ -! .V

!

-

• i •=

• V- ..
Preface

This report describes a new Fire Safety Evaluation System for Overnight

Accommodations. It was developed specifically to identify alternative

combinations of widely accepted fire protection systems and building

design features that provide a level of fire safety equivalent to that

required by the Life Safety Code for related occupancies. This work

is an extension of research conducted by the Center for Fire Research

with support from the Department of Health and Human Services towards

development of a Fire Safety Evaluation System for Board and Care Homes.

The Facility Fire Safety Performance Group, Center for Fire Research,

National Engineering Laboratory, National Bureau of Standards, performed

the research described in this report under the sponsorship of the National

Park Service.

iii
Table of Contents

Page

List of Figures v

Abstract 1

1. Introduction 2

2. Background 3

3. Equivalency Concept 3

4. System Development 5

4.1 Fire Safety Parameter Identification 5

4.2 Fire Safety Factor Quantification 7 4.3 Redundant Safety Subsystem Creation 7 4.4 Calibration 9

4.5 Professional Judgment Review and Critique 9

5. Development of the Cabin Classification 10

6. System Field Testing 11

7. Training Aids 13

8. Atrium 14

9 . Summary 14

10. References 16

Appendix A. Fire Safety Evaluation System for National Park Service

Overnight Accommodations 34

Appendix B. An Interim Buoyant Smoke Control Approach (For Atrium-Like

Arrangements) 77

Appendix C. NBS Delphi Panel 87

Appendix D. Peer Consulting Panel 93

Appendix E. National Park Service Buildings Surveyed by Melott .... 94

IV
LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1. Preliminary Selected Safety Parameters 17

Figure 2. Sample Delphi Form-Large Facilities 18

Figure 3. Sample Delphi Form-Small Facilities 19

Figure 4. Facility Fire Safety Requirements Worksheets 20

Figure 5. Individual Safety Evaluations-Large Facilities 21

Figure 6. Individual Safety Evaluations-Small Facilities 22

Figure 7. Base Case Safety Parameter Values-Small Dormitories 23

Figure 8. Base Case Individual Safety Evaluations-Small Dormitories ... 24

Figure 9. Base Case Safety Parameter Values-New Large Facilities 25

Figure 10a Base Case Individual Safety Evaluations-New 1 Story

Large Facilities 26

Figure 10b Base Case Individual Safety Evaluations-New 2-Story

Large Facilities 27

Figure 10c Base Case Individual Safety Evaluations-New 3-6 Story

Large Facilities 28

Figure 11. Base Case Safety Parameter Values-Existing Large Facilities . . 29

Figure 12a Base Case Individual Safety Evaluations-Existing 1 Story

Large Facilities 30

Figure 12b Base Case Individual Safety Evaluations-Existing 2-Story

Large Facilities 31

Figure 12c Base Case Individual Safety Evaluations-Existing 3-6 Story

Large Facilities 32

Figure 13. Equivalency Requirements-Small Dormitories 33

Figure 14. Equivalency Reauirements-New Large Facilities 33

Figure 15. Equivalency Requirements-Existing Large Facilities 33

v

Abstract

A fire safety evaluation system for overnight accommodations has been

developed and is ready for use in evaluating the fire safety of National Park

Service residential accomodations. The system can be used to determine

combinations of widely accepted fire safety equipment and building construction

features that provide a level of safety equivalent to that required by the

widely accepted Life Safety Code of the National Fire Protection Association.

The system will provide flexibility in meeting fire safety requirements for

both the renovations of existing facilities and the design of new facilities.

An approach for controlling smoke from fires in atrium-like arrangements is

presented and documented in an appendix. It can be used to determine smoke

(exhaust) fan capacity and placement. It is based on the physics of the buoyant

hot gas plume produced by the fire.

1
1. Introduction

Providing an acceptable level of fire safety in overnight guest and staff

facilities has been a major concern of the National Park Service. Many of

the structures (some of which are considered historic) were built before the

present day fire codes and have inherent fire code deficiencies such as unprotected combustible construction, highly flammable interior finish,

unprotected vertical openings, and deficient exit systems. Consequently,

upgrading these facilities to meet all the requirements of any recognized

code would be costly and would require major renovation work. In the case

of historic structures, the problem is magnified since any alteration or addition must respect the historical integrity of the facility.

At the request of the National Park Service, the Center for Fire Research

at the National Bureau of Standards, has developed a Fire Safety Evaluation

System for National Park Service Overnight Accommodations. The Fire Safety

Evaluation System (FSES) is designed to assure the same level of fire safety

as is obtained by meeting relevant portions of the Life Safety Code published

by the National Fire Protection Association. [1] ^ The relevant portions are Chapter 20, Lodging or Rooming Houses for small dormitories (16 or less residents),

and Chapters 16 and 17, New and Existing Hotels for large facilities. The FSES

offers more flexibility than strict conformance with the specifications in

the Life Safety Code. Use of the FSES permits some code deficiences to exist

provided : these deficiencies are compensated for in other areas of fire safety

which exceed requirements specified by the Life Safety Code. In this way, the

FSES identifies combinations of widely accepted fire safety designs and systems

which provide a level of safety equivalent to or greater than that achieved

by meeting all the specifications in the Life Safety Code for New or Existing

Hotels (or for Lodging and Rooming Houses in the case of small dormitories)

.

The Fire Safety Evaluation System for the National Park Service Overnight

Accommodations (FSES) is presented as Appendix A of this report. It is in a format

that permits its adoption as fire safety requirements. Any decision made by

the National Park Service regarding its adoption should largely consider whether

1. Numbers in brackets refer to literature references listed at the end

of this report

2
the level of safety provided by the occupancy Chapters 16 (New Hotels)

,

17 (Existing Hotels) and 20 (Lodging and Rooming Houses) of the Life Safety

Code (used as the base standard of the FSES) is acceptable. If it is decided

that a higher level of safety or that a lower level of safety is preferable,

the FSES can be adjusted accordingly.

2 . Background

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

has previously developed a Fire Safety Evaluation System for Health Care

Facilities (FSES/HC) [2], The original FSES was designed as an equivalent

alternative to Chapter 10 of the 1973 Life Safety Code for Health Care Facilities.

Appendix C of the 1981 Life Safety Code contains a slightly modified version of

the FSES/HC for use with the 1981 Code [1], Similarly, CFR has developed a Fire Safety Evaluation System for Multifamily Housing [3]

,

Board and Care

Homes [4], and now, Overnight Accommodations.

At the time of the National Park Service request for a Fire Safety Evaluation

System for Overnight Accommodations, the development of the FSES for Board and

Care Homes (FSES/B&C) was nearly complete. The National Park Service request

prompted the NBS staff to initiate preliminary field inspections of overnight

facilities in national parks to determine their degree of similarity to Board

and Care Homes. Based on visits to four national parks (Yosemite, Glacier,

Shenandoah and Yellowstone) and a consideration of the characteristics of the

facilities in those parks, it was decided to pattern the FSES /Overnight

Accommodations after the FSES/B&C. Data acquired from these inspections

resulted in modification and refinement of the FSES/B&C to insure a high

degree of similarity between the two systems. It should be noted that

sections 4.1 to 4.4 of this report, on System Development, refer to activities

originally conducted for the FSES/B&C.

3 . Equivalency Concept

Equivalency, for the purpose of this evaluation system, refers to fire

safety equal to or greater than that prescribed by the Life Safety Code.

Specifically, occupancy Chanters 16, 17 and 20 were used as the basis for

equivalency. In order to create the most up-to-date version of the FSES

3
as possible, projected requirements for the 1984-85 edition of the Life

Safety Code were incorporated into the system. Consequently, few changes

or adjustments should be required to update the FSES to meet equivalency

to the 1984-85 edition of the Life Safety Code when it is published.

The development of this equivalency system consisted of:

(1) Identifying all the factors, (i.e., building characteristics

and fire safety features) which significantly contribute to

life safety with respect to fire.

(2) Quantifying or assigning a numerical weight to each of these factors.

(3) Creating redundant safety subsystems within the system to assure that

failure of any one fire safety feature or method will not create an unacceptable decrease in fire safety.

(4) Seeking professional judgment review and critique.

(5) Calibrating to the requirements in the Life Safety Code.

(6) Providing sufficient field testing of the system.

Once these tasks were accomplished, and the Fire Safety Evaluation System was completed, it could be used to:

(1) Evaluate the level of life safety in an existing facility.

(2) Compare the existing level of life safety in a facility to the level

of safety specified by the Life Safety Code.

(3) Determine alternative solutions which upgrade an existing facility

to the level of safety prescribed by the Life Safety Code.

(4) Design fire safety feature combinations for new facilities to provide

the level of safety prescribed by the Life Safety Code.

4
When the original Fire Safety Evaluation System for Health Care Facilities

(FSES/HC) was developed, the whole approach was novel, and, therefore, to some extent suspect. To allay apprehensions, the technical report by Nelson

and Shibe [2] gave a detailed justification for the structure of the system.

Although the approach is no longer novel and unfamiliar to fire experts, the

background descriptions in the Nelson and Shibe report apply equally in

explaining the methodological basis for the new FSES/Overnight Accommodations.

4 . System Development

As stated earlier, development of the fire safety evaluation system

consisted of six operations: fire safety parameter identification, fire

safety factor quantification, redundant safety subsystem creation, professional

judgment review and critique, calibration, and system testing. The tasks

involved in system development were heavily dependent on professional judgment.

The professional judgment of the project staff was supplemented and supported

in a formal manner. Two consulting panels were formed to provide this support:

the Delphi Panel and the Peer Consulting Panel. In addition, an outside

consultant applied the system to a variety of residential buildings in the

National Parks to judge the system's effectiveness.

Delphi Panel . A group of 13 experts from the Center for Fire Research,

served as the Delphi panel with Harold Nelson of the project staff as Chairman. They provided guidance in the selection of preliminary numerical

values representing the relative importance of various fire safety features

of buildings and of fire safety hazards. Details regarding the function and

composition of this panel is contained in Appendix C.

Peer Consulting Panel . NBS staff worked in close cooperation with a group

of experts in the areas of fire protection engineering and architecture

to provide advice to the staff and in-depth review of their work. See

Section 4.5.

4 . 1 Fire Safety Parameter Identification

The fire safety parameters are measures of the building characteristics

and fire protection features that bear upon the safety of the people who

5
may be in the facility at the time of a fire. The safety parameters,

selected by the project staff, were determined by examining the specific

code requirements for existing hotels, and lodging or rooming houses,

(Chapters 17 and 20 of the 1981 Life Safety Code), and by evaluating the

impact of various elements of the code. The selected safety parameters

were modified first by the NBS Delphi Panel and later by the Peer Consulting

Panel. The preliminary safety parameters are shown in Figure 1.

For each safety parameter, two or more levels or categories were defined.

Each category corresponded to a condition specifically identified as a level of performance in the Life Safety Code and/or likely to be encountered

in existing lodges and dormitories, and each category differed from all

other categories in a significant way. For example, one parameter was defined as "Manual Fire Alarm" and the three categories are: No Alarm;

Manual Fire Alarm without Fire Department Notification; and Manual Fire

Alarm with Fire Department Notification.

Figures 2 and 3 show the preliminary "matrix" form of the breakdown of the

safety parameters for the facility classifications. The safety parameters

are designed to constitute a complete assembly of all of the basic building

factors determining the level of safety in an overnight accommodations

facility for which equivalency could be expressed.

Note: the "cabin" classification applies to a type of facility that

is not specifically addressed by the 1981 Life Safety Code,

and therefore, for which no equivalency exists. However, it

has been included in this evaluation system due to the presence

of a large number of this type of occupancy in National Park

Service jurisdictions. For a more detailed discussion see section 5 .

0

.

In addition to the safety parameters and their subcategories illustrated

in Figures 2 & 3 , there is an additional series of items required by the

Life Safety Code for which no equivalency could be expressed. These items,

illustrated in Figure 4, relate primarily to building utilities or building

services and are covered in the Facility Fire Safety Requirements Worksheet

6
section of the Fire Safety Evaluation System for Large Facilities. Only

two subcategories are defined for these items: "Met" and "Not met".

4 . 2 Fire Safety Parameter Quantification

The goal of the NBS research effort was to develop a system for evaluating

the fire safety of a building by obtaining weighted sums of the point

values of the individual safety parameters. Therefore, each subcategory

of each parameter had to be assigned a point value. In order to provide

the best available consensus judgment and experience in determining the

preliminary values, the Delphi panel was established.

Each member of the panel was provided with copies of an initial matrix

similar to the ones shown in Figures 2 and 3. Each person then evaluated

the relative importance (i.e., assigned a point value) with respect to fire

safety of each item in the entire matrix of parameter categories without

consultation with other members of the panel. The members of the Delphi

Panel were advised that the goal of the project was to develop a system that was similar to the Fire Safety Evaluation System for Health Care Facilities.

See Appendix D for a more detailed discussion of this operation and its

methodological base.

4 . 3 Redundant Safety Subsystem Creation

A basic principle of fire protection is that there must be a redundancy

of protection so that the failure of a single protection device or method

will not result in failure of the entire safety system. In addition, the

development of a redundant approach, as used in this safety evaluation

system, avoids the pitfall of traditional approaches sometimes used in

grading systems where all of the elements are considered mutually exclusive

of each other and a single total score determines acceptability. It is

possible under such a system to fail to detect the absence of a critical

element. The evaluation system establishes redundancy on the basis of

in-depth coverage of the principal fire safety methodologies. The original

redundant methodologies used in the system were those related to fire safety

through General Fire Safety, and the subsystems: Fire Development, Fire

7
Containment, Emergency Egress, and Emergency Refuge. As the project progressed,

the values assigned to Fire Development and Fire Containment were quite

similar and the two were combined to form a single redundancy system, Fire

Control.

The original redundant methodologies were chosen after analysis of

residential fire safety decision trees, especially the National Fire

Protection Association's Fire Safety Concepts Tree [5] [6].

The decision tree approach divides fire protection into two groups of

elements: "Manage Fire" and "Manage Exposed". Those elements related

to "Manage Fire" (i.e., the control of fuel and arrangement, compartmentation, other mechanisms of containing fire and its impacts, and extinguishment and other means of terminating fire development) were incorporated

into Fire Control.

"Manage Exposed" (i.e., the provision of safe location of refuge either

by evacuation or by establishment of safe areas of refuge) was subdivided

into two redundancy methodologies: Emergency Egress and Emergency Refuge.

Each member of the Delphi panel judged the importance of each safety

parameter relative to the separate fire safety methodologies of Fire

Development, Fire Containment, Emergency Egress, and Emergency Refuge.

The Delphi results were processed and analyzed by the project staff at

NBS and then reviewed in subsequent conference meetings of the Delphi

panel. By this process, the parameters that have a significant impact

on each of the redundant methodologies were identified. It was found

that many of the parameters affect more than one of the methodologies.

In the judgment of the panel. Sprinklers, Separation of Living Units,

Vertical Openings, and Protection of Hazardous Areas impact on all four.

Figures 5 and 6 (Table 2 of the evaluation worksheets found in Appendix A)

show the breakdown in terms of which parameters apply to which methodologies, where Fire Development and Fire Containment are combined as Fire

Control.

8
A. A Calibration

Once the basic framework for the system was established, it was necessary

to determine the level at which code equivalency is achieved for each of

the facility classifications (base code). This was accomplished by "scoring"

the Life Safety Code requirements of Chapter 16 for New Hotels, Chapter 17 for

Existing Hotels and Chapter 20 for Lodging and Rooming Houses using the

evaluation system. (Figures 7 and 8 illustrate this process for small

dormitories and Figures 9-12 for large facilities). Since requirements

for new and existing hotels vary with the number of stories, the evaluation

score varied accordingly. The results of this "scoring", illustrated in

Figures 13, 1A and 15, were incorporated into the evaluation system as the

equivalency requirement values for achieving safety equivalent to the Life

Safety Code.

A . 5 Professional Judgment and Review

In order to provide an independent in-depth review of the work of the

staff, and to provide to the project the insight of experts, the Peer

Consulting Panel was formed. The members of the group were carefully

selected so that competence in a wide variety of areas relative to fire

protection were represented. The panel first met after the staff had

developed a preliminary form for rating the structure and after preliminary

values for the parameter categories were assigned based on the advice of the

Delphi panel.

The modus operandi was for the panel to raise questions or to make suggestions.

The staff would carefully consider the questions and suggestions, make changes

as seemed appropriate, and would present the changes to the panel at its next

meeting. Due to the many interrelations and interactions throughout the

system, non-trivial changes were made only after careful study.

It should be emphasized that the role of these panels was not confined to

review and critique of a largely completed system, but, rather, involved

participation in the development of the system at important junctures.

9
The panel met 5 times for 2 or 3 days each during 1980 and 1981.

While the contributions of the panels were invaluable and strongly influenced

the final product, the responsibility for the system remained with the program

staff

.

In addition to the formation of the Peer Consulting Panel, the staff made

use of a computer program to aid them in evaluating the proposed system

and analyzing potential proposed changes. This program generates all

alternative combinations of building safety features that the system

will indicate as acceptable. (To simplify the computer output, the

following combinations are not printed: the combination is the same

as one that is printed except that for one or more parameters, the

point score is higher than in the printed combination. When reviewing

the printed combinations, these unprinted combinations are obviously

acceptable, and printing them would make the output harder to analyze.)

Since the evaluation system is theoretically capable of evaluating each

of over 600 million combinations of the 11 safety parameters for large

facilities, it is important that the only combinations passing the system

are those that provide a satisfactory level of fire protection. By using

the computer output, the evaluator can review all acceptable solutions for

upgrading a given building configuration, and can be assured that the

selection of combinations to be reviewed is the complete set and not an unintentionally biased subset. The printouts of the combinations of

safety features can be analyzed by an experienced individual to establish

acceptability of solutions. From the computer printout, it is easy to

determine those combinations that just miss being acceptable solutions.

The computer generated building configurations were used by the staff and

the Peer Consulting Panels to evaluate if the system gives acceptable

evaluations. The computer analysis was used as part of an iterative process

of changing and checking in an effort to refine the system.

5 . 0 Development of the Cabin Classification

The "cabin" classification applies to a type of facility that is not

specifically addressed in the Life Safety Code. Cabins could be required

10
to meet the provisions of Chapter 20, Lodging or Rooming Homes. However,

some of the requirements do not apply: for example, those related to

unprotected vertical openings and those related to sleeping rooms above

the level of exit discharge. The requirement for a manual alarm system

does not appear to be appropriate, A special system was developed based

on those parts of Chapter 20 that are relevant and appropriate.

The cabin evaluation form (Figure 11) is similar in format and scope to

those developed for Large Facilities and Small Dormitories. The terms

and definitions used for the cabin parameters are essentially the same as those found in the other occupancy classes. Therefore, no glossary has

been included with the form.

The cabin accommodations evaluation system has been purposely devised

so that any single room cabin will pass the equivalency test if an acceptable smoke detector is present. Conversely, a cabin accommodation

of any configuration (that is, with one or more rooms) will fail if it

contains no smoke detection. The cabin accommodation system should be applied

to each unit of any one story facility where each unit has a direct exit at

grade to the outside (e.g., 1-story motels).

6.0 System Field Testing

In order to substantiate the appropriateness of using the FSES for

evaluating the fire safety of a facility and to uncover difficulties

in the use of the system, extensive field testing of the system was

undertaken. Specifically, the field test had the following objectives:

(1) Identify areas where the FSES/Overnight Accommodations could be

improved.

(2) Determine if there are problems in applying the FSES/Overnight

Accommodations to the wide variety of residential buildings

found in the National Parks.

(.3) Identify any points which were not clear or possibly conflicting

in the explanatory material accompanying the FSES Overnight

Accommodations worksheets.

11
Two extensive field test projects were conducted; one for Board and

Care Homes, the other for National Park Service Overnight Accommodations.

The Board and Care Home field tests included 151 facilities in eight

geographically dispersed states. The work was carried out through

grants to the State Fire Marshal’s offices in five of the states, through

a grant to the Department of Health in one state, and by the voluntary

contribution of the American Health Care Association in two states. The

National Park Service Overnight Accommodations field tests included over

80 large facilities, motels, and dormitories and 20 cabins (identically

designed and constructed cabins were not counted twice) from 5 different

National Parks (Yosemite, Crater Lake, Mt. Rainier, Glacier, and Yellowstone).

The actual field testing was conducted by Ron Melott through a grant from the

National Bureau of Standards to the University of Washington, and was carried

out with the cooperation of the National Park Service and its concessioners.

The results of the field tests helped in improving and refining the system

for evaluating the buildings. While the computer analysis permitted the

determination of all combinations of fire safety features that are acceptable, a focused analysis of those combinations found in the field

led NBS staff to suggest additional changes for consideration by the

Peer Consulting group. Furthermore, the comments, suggestions and

information provided by the field investigation led to refinements in

the definitions, and the development of the FSES/User's Guide (see Section 7.0,

Training Aids) . The information also led to the inclusion of a category

under the smoke detection parameter for Small Dormitories—a system of

hallway detection augmented by single station detection in bedrooms. All

of these additions and changes were approved by a consensus of the Peer

Consulting Panel and the NBS staff.

A wide range and variety of National Park Service guest and staff accommodations

were studied by Melott to determine the applicability of the FSES to these

facilities. Appendix E contains the list of facilities. Based on the data

furnished by Melott and upon Melott ’s recommendations, the NBS staff concluded

that the FSES can be used to measure fire safety for the entire range of

buildings providing overnight accommodations to guests and staff in the

National Parks. (This applies only to the residential portions of buildings

whose main function is providing overnight accommodations).

12
7 . 0 Training Aids

Once the development of the FSES/Overnight Accommodations was complete,

it was anticipated that a majority of potential users would undoubtedly

need training, more readable documentation, and possibly other assistance

to fully appreciate and understand the fire safety procedures and alternatives

expressed in the FSES documentation. Therefore, several tasks were undertaken

to minimize these learning difficulties. These tasks included: development

of the User’s Guide ; a three-day technology transfer seminar for NPS staff;

and development of a video tape self-instructional guide.

The User's Guide was published as National Bureau of Standards Report

No. NBS-GCR-83-427 , "User's Guide for the Application of Table 1 - Safety

Parameter Values for the Fire Safety Evaluation System for National Park

Service Facilities," by K.E. Bush, H.L. Bradley and H.D. Hicks.

It was developed to provide definitions, explanations, and background

information for the application of the FSES for Overnight Accommodations. It

clarifies and describes fire safety-related terminology which may be unfamiliar

to some users. It also provides, through expanded text and illustrations, suggestions for the reasonable and uniform application and interpretation of the

evaluation system. So that the reader may easily differentiate between the

text of the FSES and the text of the expanded explanations and background

information, two different type faces were used in the document. The text of

the FSES is printed in the elite (small) type and the expanded explanations and

background information are printed in orator (large) type.

In order to familiarize park service personnel and Park Service Concessioners

in the application of the FSES, a technology transfer seminar was conducted

for NPS on October 26-28, 1982 at the National Bureau of Standards. The

seminar, attended by over 40 people from various parks across the nation,

focused on case studies.

The need for additional training tools in the area of fire safety led to the

development of a video tape self-instructional guide on the application of

the FSES. The self-instructional guide explains to the viewer how to

13
use the forms and User's Guide, and gives the viewer an opportunity to

evaluate 3 sample overnight facilities at his or her own pace. The guide was the result of an NPS/NBS joint effort.

8.0 Atriums

A portion of the overnight accommodations buildings in National Parks contain

multistory lobbies (atria) or other floor openings that are impractical to

enclose. Such a configuration may have inherent problems related to fire

safety not covered by the Fire Safety Evaluation System. A fire developing

in this space, if left unchecked, will eventually fill the space with smoke,

heat and toxic gases making it hazardous to any occupants. Also, occupants

whose sleeping rooms open directly into such a space would be unable to

exit the building safely. The Fire Safety Evaluation System in Appendix A

permits three approaches. The choice of approach should be made on the basis

of that approach which best suits the operational requirements and which is

least costly. The first approach is to accept the charge for vertical openings

in parameter 10. The second method is to meet the Life Safety Code requirements

for protection of atriums in exception two of Section 6-2. 2.3.1. (See MultiStory lobby section in Appendix A for instruction.) A third way is to prevent

development of hazardous conditions in such a space through buoyant smoke

control. Appendix B contains a methodology developed by Dr. Leonard Cooper

for designing smoke control/exhaust systems for atrium-like arrangements.

9 . 0 Summary

A method has been developed and described for generating equivalency to

a specified set of occupancy safety requirements. This method is based

on the articulation of levels of building safety and on the redundancy of

safeguards. This method can provide the necessary flexibility enabling

a designer to achieve minimum cost solutions for a specified level of safety.

The described method "Fire Safety Evaluation System for Overnight Accommodations"

is a specific example of an equivalency approach. The system provides equivalency

14
to the minimum life safety requirements for the 1981 Life Safety Code and can

be revised to reflect later editions of the Life Safety Code.

A method is presented for evaluating the safety of atrium-like arrangements

where safety is provided through buoyant smoke control.

Appendix A contains three subsystems for evaluating the fire safety of:

- Large Facilities (Hotels, Motels and large dormitories)

- Small Dormitories

- Cabin Accommodations

15
References

1. National Fire Protection Association, Life Safety Code, 1981. NFPA,

Boston, 1981.

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

Health Care Facilities. National Bureau of Standards Report No.

NBSIR-78-1555-1 , November 1978.

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

Multifamily Housing. National Bureau of Standards Report No. NBSIR-82-

2562. September 1982.

4. Nelson, H.E.; Levin, B.M. ; Shibe, A.J.; Groner, N.E.; Paulsen, R.L.;

Alvord, D.M. ; Thorne, S.D.; A Fire Safety Evaluation System for Board

and Care Homes. National Bureau of Standards Report No. NBSIR-83-2659.

March 1983.

5. National Fire Protection Association, "Fire Safety Concepts Tree," NFPA,

Boston 1980.

6. Watts, J., "The Goal Oriented Systems Approach," NBS-GCR-7 7-103 , National

Bureau of Standards, Washington D.C., July 1977.

16
1. CONSTRUCTION

BUILD I NO HEIGHTS

1 Story

2 Story

3-6 Story Over 6 Story

2. HAZARDOUS AREAS

3 . SMOKE CONTROL

U . MANUAL FIRE ALARM

5. SMOKE DETECTION

6. AUTOMATIC SPRINKLERS

LIVING UNIT PARAMETERS

7. INTERIOR FINISH WITHIN LIVING UNIT(S)

8. INTERIOR ARRANGEMENT

OF LIVING UNIT(S)

9. EGRESS FROM LIVING

UNIT(S)

MULTI-UNIT/EXTRA & INTER UN IT PARAMETERS

10. SEPARATION WALLS

(LIV. UNIT FROM OTHERLIV. UNITS AND/OR

COMMON SPACES)

11. SEPARATION DOORS

12. EMERGENCY MOVEMENT

ROUTES (Quality)

13. EXIT ROUTE

14. INTERIOR FINISH

(EGRESS ROUTES)

15. VERTICAL OPENINGS

Figure 1. Preliminary Safety Parameters

17
"What ia the relative impact on the general (or overall) life safety of the occupants of a hotel or a dormitory type residential structure of each of the items identified in the matrix?

CONSTRUCTION COMBUSTIBLE NONCOMBUSTIBLE

BUILDING HEIGHTS WOOD FRAME ORDINARY HEAVY

UNPROT. PROT. UNPROT. PROT. TIMBER UNPROT. PROT. FIRE RES IS

1 Story

2 Story

3-6 Story

Over 6 Story

2 . HAZARDOUS AREAS STRUCTURALLY ENDANGERING NOT STRUCTURALLY ENDANGERING

NO NO HAZARDOUS AREAS

PROT. SINGLE

PROT. DOUBLE

PROT. NO

PROT. SINGLEPROT. DOUBLEPROT.

CONTROL MANUAL AUTOMATIC BY ZONE BY UNIT CORRIDORS

A. MANUAL FIRE ALARM NO ALARM MANUAL ALARM

w/o F.D. CONN. w/F.D. CONN.

5 . SMOKE DETECTION NONE

SINGLE STATION INTERIOR CONNECTED SYSTEM

LIVING UNITS ONLY UNITS & CORR. LIVING UNITS TOTAL SYSTEM

6. AUTOMATIC SPRINKLERS

NONE LIVING UNITS ONLY CORR. ONLY CORR. & HAB. SPACE TOTAL

LIVING UNIT PARAMETERS

7. INTERIOR FINISH SPECIAL HAZARD FLAME SPREAD RATINGS WITHIN LIVING UNIT(S) <200 >75 <200 >25 <75 l2 5

8. INTERIOR ARRANGEMENT MULTI-LEVEL SINGLE LEVEL

OF LIVING UNIT(S) OPEN

STAIRS

ETC.

LEVELS CUT OFF PARTITIONED UNPARTITIONED

(i.e., Single Room) MANUAL AUTO CLOSING

CLOSING <20 MIN >20 MIN

EGRESS FROM LIVING

UNIT(S) MULTI-LEVEL SINGLE LEVELSINGLE ROUTEMULTI

ROUTE

EACH LEVEL SINGLE ROUTE MULTI ROUTE

MULTI-UNIT/EXTRA & INTER UNIT PARAMETERS

10. SEPARATION WALLS

(LIV. UNIT FROM OTHERLIV. UNITS AND/OR

COMMON SPACES)

NONE OR INCOMPLETE <20 MIN

>20 MIN

<1 HOUR >1 HOUR

11. SEPARATION DOORS NO DOOR

<20 MIN

F.R.

>20 MIN

F.R. >20 MIN

F.R. & CLOSER

12. EMERGENCY MOVEMENT MULTIPLE ROUTES ROUTES (Quality) <2 STANDARD ROUTES DEFICIENT w/o HORIZ. HOR. EXIT DIRECT EXIT

FROM LIVING UNIT

NO D.E. >35' & TRAVEL IS: >150’ 100-150' 50-100’ <50

'

13. EXIT ROUTE D.E.

> 100 ' D.E.

35' -100'

14. INTERIOR FINISH SPECIAL HAZARD FLAME SPREAD RATINGS

(EGRESS ROUTES) <200 >75<200 >25<75 <25

15. VERTICAL OPENINGS OPEN (OR INCOMPLETE ENCLOSURE)

THRU 4 OR MORE FLRS 2-3 FLRS 1 FLR <1 HR >1 HR<2 HR >2 HR ENCLOSED

Figure 2. Sample Delphi Form-Large Facilities

18
"What 1 s the relative impact on the general (or overall) life safety of the

occupants of a detached single family (or rooming house) type of structure

of each of the items identified in this matrix?"

Building

Heights WOOD FRAME ORDI11ARY HEAVY

UNPROT. PROT. UNPROT. PROT. TIMBER UNPROT. PROT. FIRE RES.

1 Story

2 Story Over 2 Story - HAZARDOUS AREAS STRUCTURALLY ENDANGERING

NO

PROT. SINGLE

PROT. DOUBLE

PROT.

NOT STRUCTURALLY ENDANGERING

NO

PROT. SINGLEPROT. DOUBLE

PROT. NO HAZ. AREAS

SMOKE CONTROL NO comoLSMOKE PARTITIONS MECHANICALLY ASSISTED AUTO MANUAL AUTOMATIC BY ZONE BY UNIT CORRIMiBS

MANUAL FIRE ALARM NO ALARM

MANUAL ALARM

w/o F.D. CONN v/F.D. CONN~

SMOKE DETECTION NONE SINGLE STATION INTER. -CONNECTED SYSTEM

AND ALARM

AUTOMATIC

SPRINKLERS NONE LIVING UNITS CORR. ONLY

ONLY

CORR. & HAB. SPACE TOTAL

LIVING UNIT PARAMETERS

INTERIOR FINISH WITHIN LIVING UNITS

-F . S . =FLAME SPREAD RATINGSSPECIAL HAZARD

FLAME SPREAD RATINGS

<200 >75 <200 >25 <75 1

Aro vn

INTERIOR ARRANGEMENT multi-level SINGLE LEVEL

OF LIVING UNIT(S) OPEN STAIRS

ETC.

LEVELS CUT OFF MANUAL

CLOSING AUTO CLOSING

<20MIN >_20 MIN

EGRESS FROM LIVING MULTI-LEVEL SINGLE LEVEL

unit(s) SINGLE ROUTE

MULTI ROUTEEACH LEVEL

SINGLE ROUTE MULTI ROUTE

Figure 3. Sample Delphi Form-Small Facilities

19
Considerations Met

Not

Met

Not

Applic.

A. Building utilities conform to the requirements of

of Paragraph 7-1 of the Life Safety Code.

B. The air conditioning, heating, and ventilating

systems conform with Paragraph 7-2 of the Life

Safety Code.

C. Elevator installations are made in accordance

with the requirements of Paragraph 7-4 of the

Life Safety Code.

D. Rubbish chutes, incinerators, and laundry chutes

are installed in accordance with Paragraph 7-5 of

the Life Safety Code.

E. An emergency organization meeting the requirements of Section 31-6 of the Life Safety Code

exists and is functional.

Figure 4. Facility Fire Safety Requirements Worksheet

,

20
SAFETY PARAMETER FIRE CONTROL

ISll

EGRESS PROVIDED

|S2l

REFUGE PROVIDED

[S3)

GENERAL FIRE

SAFETY PROVIDED

|S4)

1. CONSTRUCTION

2. HAZARDOUS AREAS *2

3. MANUAL FIRE ALARM *2

4. SMOKE DETECTION

& ALARM

42 42

5. AUTOMATIC

SPRINKLERS

42 (*2]A

6. SEPARATION OF

BEDROOMS/SUITES

42

7. EXIT SYSTEM 42

8. EXIT ACCESS

9. INTERIOR FINISH 42

10. VERTICAL OPENINGS 42

11. SMOKE CONTROL

TOTAL si= S2

= S3= S4=

NOTE: A - Use full value if Safety Parameter 1 is based on Type V (OOO), Type III (200) or Type II (000) construction. Divide by 2 (-5-2) in all other cases.

Figure 5. Individual Safety Evaluations-Large Facilities

21
PARAMETER

FIRE

CONTROL EGRESS REFUGE

GENERAL

SAFETY

1. CONSTRUCTION

2. HAZARDOUS AREAS -i-2

3. MANUAL FIRE

ALARM -r2 (1) A

4. SMOKE DETECTION

& ALARM H-2 ~2

5. AUTOMATIC

SPRINKLERS + 2

6. INTERIOR FINISH -i-2

!v!;X;;v!vavX

7. SEPARATION OF

SLEEPING ROOMS

8. EGRESS FROM

DWELLING

TOTAL S, = Sj = Sa = s« =

A - Max value of manual fire alarm for egress is 1.

Figure 6. Individual Safety Evaluations-Small Facilities

22
Table 1 . Safety Parameter Values — Small Facilities

Parameter Parameter Values

1 CONSTRUCTION

FIRE RESISTANCE

Exposed

Structural

Members

Protected

(20 Min.)

Fire Resistant

(1 Hour)

© 1 3

2. HAZARDOUS AREAS

Double Deficiency Single Deficiency

None or No Deficiency

-7 -4 ©

3 MANUAL FIRE ALARM

None w/o F. D. Notif. w/ F.D. Notif.

0 0 2

4. SMOKE DETECTION

& ALARM

None Limited Warning/

Single Lev. Det.

Warning to All Bedrooms Total Coverage

System Every Lev. Det. Plus Det. in Each Bedrm.

-4 0 “0

“

3 4

5. AUTOMATIC

SPRINKLERS

Non-Sprinklered Sprinklered

8

6. INTERIOR FINISH

Flame Spread Ratings

>75 <200 >25 < 75 <25

© -1 0

7. SEPARATION OF

SLEEPING ROOMS

Unprotected Vertical Opening Protected Vertical Opening -D

None or Incomplete

Smoke

Resisting

None or Incomp.

Smoke

Resisting 20 Min. 20 Min.

Auto Closing

-6 — 4{0)C -2 © 1(0)A 2(0)A

8EG

R

ES

S

EGRESS

ON ALL

SLEEPING

LEVELS

< 2 Remote Routes

2 Remote Routes

Unseparated

2 Remote Routes

Separated

Direct Exit from w/o Alt. Each Bedrm.

Means

w/Alt.

Means

-1 0 1(0)B 2(0 )B 3(0)8

EGRESS

NOT ON ALL

SLEEPING

LEVELS

Primary Route Not Protected Primary Route Protected < 2 Remote Routes

2 Remote

Routes

<2 Remote Routes

2 Remote

w/o Alt. Routes Means

w/Alt. Means

w/o Alt. Means

w/Alt.

Means

-4 -3 0 -1 © 2(0)8

NOTES:

A — Use (0) if parameter 1 is 0 and parameter 5 is 0. B — Use (0) if parameter 7 is based on a “no door” situation. C — Use (0) if door is 20 min. and has automatic closer. D — Consider 1 level building as having a protected vertical opening.

Figure 7. Base Case Safety Parameter Values- Small Dormitories

23
Table 2. Individual Safety Evaluations

PARAMETER

FIRE

CONTROL EGRESS REFUGE

GENERAL

SAFETY

1. CONSTRUCTION 0 0 0

2. HAZARDOUS AREAS

0 "2

0 0 0

3. MANUAL FIRE

ALARM " 2

0.5

(1)A

1

4. SMOKE DETECTION

& ALARM * 2

i 2 " 2

i 2

5. AUTOMATIC

SPRINKLERS 0 " 2

0 0 0

6. INTERIOR FINISH - 2 -1.5 -3

7. SEPARATION OF

SLEEPING ROOMS 0 0 0

8. EGRESS FROM

DWELLING 0 0

TOTAL s' = 0.0 Sl = 3.0 s>= 1.0 s‘= 0.0

A - Max value of manual fire alarm for egress is 1.

Figure 8. Base Case Individual Safety Evaluations- Small Dormitories

24
Table 1. SAFETY PARAMETER VALUES-LARGE FACILITIES

SAFETY PARAMETER

INSTRUCTION COMBUSTIBLE NONCOMBUSTIBLE

BUILDING HEIGHT

TYPE V TYPE V mu p

TYPE III 12001

TYPE III

12111 P

TYPE IV 12HHI TYPE II '0001 TYPE 11 inn pTYPE 1 & II '2221

1 STORY (-([ 1 3) 0 -21 ) a 0 0 -2( ! a 2 2

2 STORY -6Tf* <°) -6| ) a 0 0 -5| ] a 2 2

3-6 STORY -8| ) a -2 -8) )3 0 -2 -81 ) a 2

2. HAZARDOUS AREAS

3. MANUAL FIRE ALARM

4. SMOKE DETECTION

& ALARM

5. AUTOMATIC

SPRINKLERS

6. SEPARATION OF BEDROOMS SUITES

7. EXIT SYSTEM

8. EXIT ACCESS

9. INTERIOR FINISH

EXIT ROUTES ROOMS SUITES

10. VERTICAL OPENINGS

11. SMOKE CONTROL

PARAMETER VALUES

WITHIN BORMS SUITES OR ON EXIT ROUTES

OOUBLE DEFICIENCY SINGLE DEFICIENCY -7

NO ALARM

OH) l,m

NONE OR INCOMPLETE m

-410|

NONE W

-4

ELSEWHERE IN BUILDING

OOUBLE DEFICIENCY SINGLE DEFICIENCY —4( —7) b

MANUAL ALARM

w o F.D. NOTIF. TU

SINGLE STATION

UNITS IN EACH BEDROOM

j.I.m

0 ( 2 )

BORMS/SUITES

ONLY

2(0) C

NONE OR INCOMPLETE

-6

SINGLE OR EXPOSED ROUTE -6

w/ F.D. NOTIF.

0(-4) b

NONE. OR NO

DEFICIENCY M

INTERCONNECTED SYSTEM COVERING CORRIDORS

& COMMON SPACES

w/o BORM/

SUITE DETECTORS

SINGLE STATION BDRM/SUITE

0ET>6«IRS

INTERCONNECTED BDRM/SUITE

DETECTORS

2(0] e -ML- 5

CORRS.. COMMON

SPACES

4(0) C

BDRMS/SUITES. CORRS.. COMMON SPACES

TOTAL

BUILDING

TOTAL BUILDING STANDARO SPECIAL

8 10 COMPLETE SEPARATION OF BR SUITES FROM CORRIDOR -LEVEL OF PROTECTION IS ITEM 5 IS - 6 & DOORS w o AUTO. CLOSERS SMOKE RESISTING 20 MIN -1 g og

ITEM 5 IS - 6 OR DOORS ARE ALL w DOOR CLOSERS SMOKE RESISTING

1 g

1 -HR WALLS. 20 MIN DOORS

3(4) f, MULTIPLE ROUTES

-2

DEFICIENT w o HORIZ. HORIZ. EXIT SMOKE PROOF STAIRS 31

MAX DEAD END NO DEAD END >35' & TRAVEL IS:

*100' >35'=100' V CJ1 G3 1 OO'-1 50" 50 -100- * 50'

-6!0]d -4(0] d -2 -1 (°) 2

DIRECT EXIT

F LAME SPREAD RATINGS

>75 = 200 >25=75 = 25

>75 = 200 = 75 >7^s^0 = 75 >25 = 200 = 25

-3|0| m -i(0]m 1 1 2

OPEN I0R INCOMPLETE ENCLOSURE! ENCLOSED (h)

CONNECTS 5 OR MORE FLRS 3-4 FLRS 2 FLRS. <30 M >30 M <1 Hr >1 Hr

-10 -7 -2 -1 1(0)b

NONE

SMOKE PARTITIONS

PASSIVE MECHANICALLY ASSISTED

3

NOTES:

a- Use (-1 « height in stones)

if building is sheathed with

plaster, gypsum board or similar materials.

b- Use | I in multi-story

buildings if item J is based

on Type V 10001. Type III 12001 or Type II (000 1 without Note " a

" and item 5 2 4.

C* Use | ) if item t is based on Type V 10001. Type III |200| and Type II (000).

d- Us if item 7 is -6.

6* Use | ) if item g

is based on "None or Incomplete", or "Walls or Doors" are « 20 mm. and item 5 is 5 4.

f- Use | | if separations between bedroom, suites

also meet criteria.

g- Rate separation different than actual construction

as follows:

- "Smoke Resisting." if parameter 5 is « 6: parameter t is V|000 ). 111(2001 or III000I; and Note a does not

apply.

- "20 min," if Note a applies and separation

is 20 min or more.

- "20 min,” if parameter 5

is : 6 and separation

is « 20 min.

h- Use 0 in 1 story buildings

that have no vertical openings.

j- Use ( ) where less than 15 guests are accommodated and item 1 is not based on

V1000I, 111(2001 or ll|000|

k* 30 min. in existing bldgs

l~ Use | | where item 7 is 4

in buildings not over 3

stories.

fTI* Use | ) where item 5 is £

p- Use this column for indicated type regardless

of sheathing if item 5

is 10

Figure 9. Base Case Safety Parameter Values-New Large Facilities

25
Table 2. Individual Safety Evaluations

SAFETY PARAMETER FIRE COKTROL E

(Si)

GRESS PROVIDE

|S2l

D REFUGE PROVIDED

[S3)

GENERAL FIRE

SAFETY PROVIDED

(S4)

1. CONSTRUCTION

-i ! 1 -1 -1

2. HAZARDOUS AREAS 0 *2 0 0 0

3. MANUAL FIRE ALARM -2 1 2 2

4. SMOKE DETECTION

& ALARM

—2

* 1.5 3

jl9l

1.5 3

5. AUTOMATIC

SPRINKLERS 0

42

0

(*2)A

q 0

6. SEPARATION OF

BEDROOMS/SUITES 2

I1—

CM 2 2

7. EXIT SYSTEM 0 *2 0 0

8. EXIT ACCESS n n

9. INTERIOR FINISH *2

0

U

0

u

0

10. VERTICAL OPENINGS *2

0 0 0 0

11. SMOKE CONTROL

2 2 2

TOTAL Si= 3.5 00 CM II 00 o S3= 4.5 rii 0° o

NOTE: A • Use full value if Safety Parameter 1 is based on Type V (000), Type III (200) or Type II (000) construction. Divide by 2 (-=-2) in all other cases.

Figure 10a. Base Case Individual Safety Evaluations-New 1 Story Large Facilities

26

I
Table 2. Individual Safety Evaluations

SAFETY PARAMETER FIRE CONTROL

(S,)

EGRESS PROVIDI

|S2)

0 REFUGE PROVIDED

(S3)

GENERAL FIRE

SAFETY PROVIDED

(S4)

1. CONSTRUCTION 0 1 o 0

2. HAZARDOUS AREAS 0 i-2 0 0 0

3. MANUAL FIRE ALARM *2

1 2 2

4. SMOKE DETECTION

& ALARM

42

1.5 3

42

1.5 3

5. AUTOMATIC

SPRINKLERS 0 *2

0

i«i*

0 0

6. SEPARATION OF

BEDROOMS/SUITES 2

11—

•1® CM 2 2

7. EXIT SYSTEM 0 t2 0 0

8. EXIT ACCESS 0 0

9. INTERIOR FINISH *2 0 0 0

10. VERTICAL OPENINGS -2 0 0 0 0

11. SMOKE CONTROL 2 2 2

TOTAL Sl= 4,5 $2= 8.0 s3= 5.5 rii UD O

NOTE: A - Use full value if Safety Parameter 1 is based on Type V (000), Type III (200) or Type II (000) construction. Divide by 2 (4-2) in all other cases.

Figure 10b. Base Case Individual Safety Evaluations -New 2 Story Large Facili'

27
Table 2. Individual Safety Evaluations

SAFETY PARAMETER FIRE CONTROL

(Si)

EGRESS PROVIDED

(S2)

REFUGE PROVIDED

(S3)

GENERAL FIRE

SAFETY PROVIDED

(S4)

1. CONSTRUCTION 2 2 2

2. HAZARDOUS AREAS

0

.«2

• n 0 0

3. MANUAL FIRE ALARM *2 1 2 2

4. SMOKE DETECTION

& ALARM

-2

* 1.5 3

-*-2 1.5 3

5. AUTOMATIC

SPRINKLERS 0

—2' L

0 o

illCM < 0

6. SEPARATION OF

BEDROOMS/SUITES 2

-5-2 1 2 2

7. EXIT SYSTEM 0 *2 0 0

8. EXIT ACCESS 0

li§p$ 0

9. INTERIOR FINISH *2 0 0 0

10. VERTICAL OPENINGS -s-2 0 0 0 0

11. SMOKE CONTROL 2 2 2

TOTAL S]~ 6.5 S2= 8.0 S3

= 7.5 S4= U.O

NOTE: A - Use full value if Safety Parameter 1 is based on Type V (000), Type III (200) or Type II (000) construction. Divide by 2 (-=-2) in all other cases.

Figure 10c. Base Case Individual Safety Evaluations -New J3 Story Large Facilities

28
Table 1. SAFETY PARAMETER VALUES-LARGE FACILITIES

SAFETY PARAMETER

INSTRUCTION COMBUSTIBLE NONCOMBUSTIBLE

BUILDING HEIGHT

TYPE V TYPE V mi 1 p

TYPE III (2001

TYPE III

12111 P

TYPE IV I2HHI TYPE II '0001 TYPE II 11111 P

TYPE 1 & II (222!

1 STORY 0 -21 ) a 0 0 -2( ) a 2 2

2 STORY J7 0 -6( ) a 0 0 -5( ) a 2 2

3-6 STORY -8 rf'a -2 -81 ) a -2 -81 I a 2 2

2. HAZARDOUS AREAS

3. MANUAL FIRE ALARM

4. SMOKE DETECTION & ALARM

5. AUTOMATIC

SPRINKLERS

6. SEPARATION OF BEDROOMS SUITES

7. EXIT SYSTEM

8. EXIT ACCESS

9. INTERIOR FINISH

EXIT ROUTES ROOMS SUITES

10. VERTICAL OPENINGS

11. SMOKE CONTROL

PARAMETER VALUES

WITHIN 80RMS SUITES OR ON EXIT ROUTES

DOUBLE DEFICIENCY SINGLE DEFICIENCY -7

NO ALARM

o(i) i,m

NONE OR INCOMPLETE m

-4(0|

NONE 51

-4

ELSEWHERE IN BUILDING

OOUBLE DEFICIENCY SINGLE DEFICIENCY -4(-7| b

MANUAL ALARM

w o F D. NOTIF. w/ F D NOTIF. 6) 3

SINGLE STATION

UNITS IN EACH BEDROOM

j.I.m

0 ( 2 )

BORMS/SUITES

ONLY

2 ( 0 )'

NONE OR INCOMPLETE

-6

SINGLE OR EXPOSED ROUTE -6

0[-4jb

NONE. OR NO

DEFICIENCY E

INTERCONNECTED SYSTEM COVERING CORRIDORS

i COMMON SPACES

w/o BDRM/

SUITE DETfCiQRS

SINGLE STATION BDRM/SUITE

DETECTORS

INTERCONNECTED BDRM/SUITE

DETECTORS ©)9 3(0] e 5

CORRS.. COMMON

SPACES

4(0) C

BDRMS/SUITES. CORRS.. COMMON SPACES

TOTAL

BUILDING

TOTAL BUILDING STANDARD SPECIAL

8 10 COMPLETE SEPARATION OF BR SUITES FROM CORRIOOR LEVEL OF PROTECTION IS: ITEM 5 IS - 6 & DOORS w o AUTO. CLOSERS SMOKE RESISTING -1 g

20 MIN Og

ITEM 5 IS - 6 OR DOORS ARE ALL w DOOR CLOSERS SMOKE RESISTING 1/flTMW |l-HR WALLS. 20 MIN DOORS

1 g S2SK1

MULTIPLE ROUTES V

DEFICIENT w o HORIZ. HORIZ. EXIT SMOKE PROOF STAIRS -2 CO 2 2

314] f,

MAX. DEAD END NO OEAD END >35’ & TRAVEL IS:

>100' *35' = 100' *150' 100-150 50 -100' * 50'

-6|0ld -4|0| d -2 -1 isL 2

OIRECT EXIT

FLAME SPREAD RATINGS *75-200 *25=75 = 25 *75- 200 - 75 *75^200 = 75 *25 = 200 = 25

-3(0) m -K0)m {Di 0

)

1 1 2

NONE 31

OPEN IOR INCOMPLETE ENCLOSURE] ENCLOSED (h)

CONNECTS 5 OR MORE FLRS 3-4 FLRS. 2 FLRS. <30 M ?30 M <1 Hr Hr

-10 -7 -2 -1 CO K0)b

SMOKE PARTITIONS

PASSIVE MECHANICALLY ASSISTED

2 3

NOTES:

3- Use (-1 i height in stories)

if building is sheathed with

plaster, gypsum board or similar materials.

b- Use ( ) in multi-story

buildings if item 1 is based

on Type V (0001. Type III 12001 or Type II 10001 without Note ' a

" and item 5 14.

C* Use ( ] if item 1 is based on Type V (0001. Type III |200| and Type II (000).

d- Use | ) if item 7 is -6.

6- Use ( ) if item g is based on

''None or Incomplete", or "Walls or Doors" are « 20 min. and item 5 is i 4

f- Use | ) if separations between bedroom suites

also meet criteria.

g- Rate separation different than actual construction

as follows:

- "Smoke Resisting," if parameter 5 is « 6. parameter 1 is VIOOOI,

111(2001 or 11(000); and Note a does not

apply

- "20 min." if Note a applies and separation

is 20 min or more.

- "20 mm," if parameter 5

is 2 6 and separation

is - 20 min.

h* Use 0 m t story buildings

that have no vertical openings

j- Use | | where less than 15 guests are accommodated ana

item 1 is not based on

VIOOOI: 111(2001 or ll|000|

k~ 30 min. in existing bldgs

I* Use | ) where item 7 is 4

in buildings not over 3

stories m- Use | | where item 5 is — 6

p- Use this column I or indicated type regardless

of sheathing if item 5

is 10

Figure 11. Base Case Safety Parameter Values-Existing Large Facilities
Table 2. Individual Safety Evaluations

SAFETY PARAMETER FIRE CONTROL

|S|]

EGRESS PROVIC

|S2l

IED REFUGE PROVIDED

(S3)

GENERAL FIRE SAFETY PROVIDED

(S4)

1 . CONSTRUCTION -1 Hi "I -1

2. HAZARDOUS AREAS 0 *2 0 0 0

3. MANUAL FIRE ALARM v2 1 2 2

4. SMOKE DETECTION

& ALARM *2 i 2

-*-2 1 2

5. AUTOMATIC

SPRINKLERS 0 *2 0 l*2)A

o 0

6. SEPARATION OF

BEDROOMS/SUITES 2 1 2 2

7. EXIT SYSTEM 0 v2 0 0

8. EXIT ACCESS 0 0

9. INTERIOR RNISH f2 0 0 0

10. VERTICAL OPENINGS v2 0 0 0 0

11 . SMOKE CONTROL 0 0 0

TOTAL $1 = 3 S2= 5 S3= 2

S4= 5

NOTE: A - Use full value if Safety Parameter 1 is based on Type V ( 000 ), Type III

( 200) or Type II

( 000) construction. Divide by 2 (-5

- 2 ) in all other cases.

Figure 12a. Base Case Individual Safety Evaluat ions -Existing 1 Story Large Facilitie:
Table 2. Individual Safety Evaluations

SAFETY PARAMETER FIRE CONTROL

(Si)

EGRESS PROVIDED

|S2l

REFUGE PROVIDED

(S3)

GENERAL FIRE

SAFETY PROVIDED

(S4)

1. CONSTRUCTION -2 -2 -2

2. HAZARDOUS AREAS 0 *2 0 0 0

3. MANUAL FIRE ALARM *2 1 2 2

4. SMOKE DETECTION

& ALARM « i 2

*2 1 2

5. AUTOMATIC

SPRINKLERS 0

-=-2

• 0 O

ill 04 <c 0

6. SEPARATION OF

BEDROOMS/SUITES 2

-2-2 ml

1 2 2

7. EXIT SYSTEM 0 t2 0 0

8. EXIT ACCESS

I'XvXvX'lw 0 0

9. INTERIOR FINISH t2 0 0 liilBlllll 0

10. VERTICAL OPENINGS *2 0 0 0 0

11. SMOKE CONTROL 0 0 0

TOTAL Sl= 2 S2= 5 S3= 1 S4= L\

MOTE: A - Use full value if Safety Parameter 1 is based on Type V (000), Type III (200) or Type II (000) construction. Divide by 2 (-5-2) in all other cases.

Figure 12b. Base Case Individual Safety Evaluations- Existing 2 Story Large Facilities

31
Table 2. Individual Safety Evaluations

SAFETY PARAMETER FIRE CONTROL

ISl)

EGRESS PROVIDEO

(S2l

REFUGE PROVIDED

(S3)

GENERAL FIRE

SAFETY PROVIDED

(S4)

1. CONSTRUCTION 0 0 0

2. HAZARDOUS AREAS 0

CM 0 0 0

3. MANUAL FIRE ALARM -5-2 1 2 2

4. SMOKE DETECTION

& ALARM

-5-2 1 2

<

—

1

CM 2

5. AUTOMATIC

SPRINKLERS 0

-5-2 0 (-5-2JA 0 0

6. SEPARATION OF

BEDROOMS/SUITES 2 *2 1 2 2

7. EXIT SYSTEM •;*X*x’x*;Xy 0 *2 0 0

8. EXIT ACCESS 0 0

9. INTERIOR FINISH -5-2 0 0 0

10. VERTICAL OPENINGS 5-2 0 0 0 0

11. SMOKE CONTROL 0 0 0

TOTAL Sl = 4.0 S2= 5.0 S3= 3.0 rH CD O

NOTE: A - Use full value if Safety Parameter 1 is based on Type V (000), Type III (200) or Type II (000) construction. Divide by 2 (v2) in all other cases.

Figure 12c. Base Case Individual Safety Evaluations-Existing 3-6 Story Large Facilities

32
Control

Requirement

<Sa )

Egress

Requirement

(S b )

Refuge

Requirement

(Sc )

General Fire

Safety Requirement

(Sd )

0.0 3.0 1.0 0.0

Figure 13. Equivalency Requirements Small-Facilities

Building

Height

Control

Requirement

(Sa )

Egress

Requirement

(Sb)

Refuge

Requirement

(Sc )

General Fire Safety

Requirement

(Sd )

1 Story 3.5 8 4.5 8

2 Story 4.5 (4.5) 8(6) 5.5 (3.5) 9(7)

3-6 Story 6.5 (6.5) 8(6) 7.5 (5.5) 11(9)

Use values in () for 2 or 3 story motel type facilities.

Figure 14. Equivalency Requirements-New Large Facilities

Building

Height

Control

Requirement

(S a )

Egress

Requirement

(S b)

Refuge

Requirement

(Sc )

General Fire Safety

Requirement

(S d )

1 Story 3 5 2 5

2 Story 2 5 1 4

3-6 Story 4 5 3 6

Figure 15. Equivalency Requirements-Existing Large Facilities

33
APPENDIX A

Fire Safety Evaluation System for

National Park Service Overnight Accommodations

Table of Contents

Classification of Facilities 35

Large Facilities (Hotels and Dormitories) 37

Worksheets 37

Glossary 42

Motel Type Facilities (Two or Three Stories) 57

Multistory Lobbies (Or Other Atria) 60

Small Facilities 63

Worksheets 63

Glossary 67

Cabin Accommodations 76

34
CLASSIFICATION OF FACILITIES

This document contains the worksheets, instructions, and glossary material

necessary to apply the Fire Safety Evaluation System to guest and dormitory

accommodations in National Parks. The evaluation system presented here

divides these overnight accommodations into three separate classifications

as follows:

1 . Large Facilities (Hotels and Dormitories) .

Large facilities include all overnight accommodation buildings for guests or concession staff except for the special cases covered under Small Dormitories

or Cabin Accommodations. The conceptual model for the large facility is a hotel type arrangement with individual guest rooms normally opening onto an interior corridor.

The large facilities documents include special procedures for handling:

a. Portions of large buildings that are not involved with sleeping

accommodations

.

b. Multi-story lobbies (and other atria).

c. Two or three story motel type facilities when such do not involve

any interior or other enclosed corridors. (Single story motel type

facilities without interior corridors are covered under Cabin

Accommodations.

)

2 . Small Dormitories .

The evaluation system for small dormitories is intended to be used only for

staff accommodations (not for guests) . The conceptual model is a structure

similar to a single family dwelling with common living or recreational space

and bedrooms similar to a lodging house. Normally, the maximum number of

persons housed in a facility classified as a small dormitory should be 16 or

less. The restriction limiting the application to staff dormitory results

from the inherent fire safety assumption that the occupants will be a communal

type of group, reasonably familiar with the geography of the building, and

probably will have had some fire evacuation drill training relating to the

dormitory.

3 . Cabin Accommodations (Including Qualifying One-Story Motel Arrangements) .

The cabin accommodation worksheet is suitable for use on buildings that are provided either for guest or staff accommodations. The cabin accommodation

for the purposes of the evaluation system is defined as a one-story living

unit with a private door direct to the exterior and having no access to any

corridors or vestibules that are enclosed and shared by another accommodation.

A living unit is an accommodation that is rented or assigned as a single unit.

Several staff members may share a single living unit. Cabin accommodations

may have private vestibules or open porches provided the exit path from t he

private door is essentially directly away from the building.

35
Cabins may have common walls with other cabins. These common walls may have

doors or shared bathrooms.

Cabins may be more than one room but may not have more than one intervening

room, such as a living room, between any sleeping room and a door leading

directly to the exterior.

Single story motel type structures that conform with the above requirements

may be evaluated as a series of cabin accommodations that have common walls

with other cabin units using the cabin accommodation form.

Note: The cabin accommodations evaluation system has been purposely devised

so that any single room cabin will pass the equivalency test if a smoke

detector is present. The system will also fail any cabin accommodation

without smoke detection. The cabin accommodation system is most useful

for facilities that involve a series of living units or multi-room

living units.

36
Fire Safety Evaluation Worksheet for

Large Facilities

Facility Identification _____

Evaluator Date

First complete Table 1 on page 2. Continue with Table 2 on page 3 and Tables 3 and 4 on page 4. Then return to this page to obtain the Equivalency Conclusions:

TURN TO NEXT PAGE.

PART E. EQUIVALENCY CONCLUSIONS

Complete Tables 1-4 before doing this part.

1. [ ] All of the checks in Table 4 are in the “yes” column. The level of fire safety is at least

equivalent to that prescribed for large facilities*.

2. [ ] One or more of the checks in Table 4 are in the “no” column. The level of fire safety is not shown by this system to be equivalent to that prescribed by the Life Safety Code for

large facilities.

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

Life Safety Code. There are a few considerations that are not evaluated by this method. These must

be separately considered. These additional considerations are covered below.

Facility Fire Safety Requirements Worksheet

Considerations Met

Not

Met

Not

Applic.

A. Building utilities conform to the requirements of

of Paragraph 7-1 of the Life Safety Code.

B. The air conditioning, heating, and ventilating

systems conform with Paragraph 7-2 of the Life

Safety Code.

C. Elevator installations are made in accordance

with the requirements of Paragraph 7-4 of the

Life Safety Code.

D. Rubbish chutes, incinerators, and laundry chutes

are installed in accordance with Paragraph 7-5 of

the Life Safety Code.

E. An emergency organization meeting the requirements of Section 31-6 of the Life Safety Code

exists and is functional.

37
Table 1 . SAFETY PARAMETER VALUES-LARGE FACILITIES

SAFETY PARAMETER

INSTRUCTION COMBUSTIBLE NONCOMBUSTIBLE

BUILDING HEIGHT

TYPE V

(000)

TYPE V mu p

TYPE III [200|TYPE III

1211] P

TYPE IV (2HH)TYPE II 1000]

TYPE II mnp

TYPE 1 & II (222)

1 STORY -21)3 0 -2( ) a 0 0 -2U a 2 2

2 STORY -61 ) 3 0 -6( ) a 0 0 -5() a 2 2

3-6 STORY -8( ) 3 -2 -80 a 0 -2 -8( )3 2 2

2. HAZARDOUS AREAS

3. MANUAL FIRE ALARM

4. SMOKE DETECTION & ALARM

5. AUTOMATIC

SPRINKLERS

6. SEPARATION OF BEDROOMS/SUITES

7. EXIT SYSTEM

8. EXIT ACCESS

9. INTERIOR FINISH

EXIT ROUTES

ROOMS/SUITES

10. VERTICAL OPENINGS

11. SMOKE CONTROL

PARAMETER VALUES

WITHIN BDRMS/SUITES OR ON EXIT ROUTES

DOUBLE DEFICIENCY SINGLE DEFICIENCY -7

NO ALARM

0(1) l,m

NONE OR INCOMPLETE m

-4(0)

NONE

-4

ELSEWHERE IN BUILDING

DOUBLE DEFICIENCY SINGLE DEFICIENCY -4|-7) b

MANUAL ALARM

w/o F.O. NOTIF.

SINGLE STATION

UNITS IN EACH BEDROOM

j,l,m

0 ( 2 )

BDRMS/SUITES

ONLY

2(0) C

NONE OR INCOMPLETE

-6

SINGLE OR EXPOSED ROUTE -6

w/ F.D. NOTIF.

0(-4)b

NONE. OR NO

DEFICIENCY

INTERCONNECTED SYSTEM COVERING CORRIDORS

& COMMON SPACES

w/o BDRM/

SUITE DETECTORS

SINGLE STATION BDRM/SUITE

DETECTORS

INTERCONNECTED

BDRM/SUITE

DETECTORS

2(0) e

3(0) e 5

CORRS , COMMON

SPACES

4(0) C

BDRMS/SUITES, CORRS., COMMON SPACES

TOTAL

BUILDING

TOTAL BUILDING STANDARD SPECIAL

10 COMPLETE SEPARATION OF BR/SUITES FROM CORRIDOR -LEVEL OF PROTECTION IS: ITEM 5 IS -= 6 & DOORS w o AUTO. CLOSERS SMOKE RESISTING 20 MIN

-1 g Og

ITEM 5 IS - 6 OR DOORS ARE ALL w/DOOR CLOSERS SMOKE RESISTING 20 MIN 1-HR WALLS, 20 MIN DOORS

1 g 2(3)f,g 3(4) f,g

MULTIPLE ROUTES

DEFICIENT w 0 HORIZ. HORIZ. EXIT SMOKE PROOF STAIRS -2

MAX. DEAD END NO DEAD END >35' & TRAVE L IS:

>100' >35’5 100’ >150’ 100 -150' 50 -100’ -=50'

-6(0)d -4(0] d -2 -1 0 2

DIRECT EXIT

FLAME SPREAD RATINGS

>75 5 200

-755 200

-3(0) m

75 - 1

( 0)01

255 75

-75 s 200

OH) m

575

5 25

•25 5 200

1

NONE

25

OPEN (OR INCOMPLETE ENCLOSURE] ENCLOSED (h)

CONNECTS 5 OR MORE FLRS 3-4 FLRS. 2 FLRS. <30 M >30 M <1 Hr >1 Hr

-10 -7 -2 -1 0 1(0)b

SMOKE PARTITIONS

PASSIVE MECHANICALLY ASSISTED

NOTES:

2- Use (-1 x height in stories)

if building is sheathed with

plaster, gypsum board or similar materials.

b- Use ( ) in multi-story

buildings if item 1 is based

on Type V (000), Type III |200] or Type II (000) without Note "a ” and item 5 2 4.

C- Use [ ) if item 1 is based on Type V [000), Type III (200) and Type II [000).

d- Use ( | if item 7 is -6.

6- Use ( ) if item g is based on

''None or Incomplete”, or "Walls or Doors” are < 20 min. and item 5 is S 4.

f- Use [ ) if separations between bedroom/suites

also meet criteria.

g- Rate separation different than actual construction

as follows:

- "Smoke Resisting,” if parameter 5 is < 6; parameter 1 is V[000),

111(200) or 11(000); and Note a does not

apply.

- "20 min,” if Note a applies and separation

is 20 min or more.

- "20 min ,” if parameter 5

is > 6 and separation

is *= 20 min.

h- Use 0 in 1 story buildings

that have no vertical openings.

J- Use ( | where less than 15

guests are accommodated and item 1 is not based on

V(000); 111(200) or 11(000)

k- 30 min. in existing bldgs.

I- Use ( ) where item 7 is 4

in buildings not over 3 stories.

ITl- Use | ) where item 5 is 2 6.

p- Use this column for indicated type regardless

of sheathing if item 5

is 10.

38
PART B. COMPUTE INDIVIDUAL SAFETY EVALUATIONS— USE TABLE 2.

1 . Transfer each of the 11 circled safety parameter values on Table 1 to every unshaded block in the line with the corresponding safety parameter in Table 2. Where the block is indicated (-^2)

enter only one-half the value shown in Table 1.

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

3. Transfer the resulting values for Si, S2 , S3 , and S4 on page 4 of this worksheet.

Table 2. Individual Safety Evaluations

SAFETY PARAMETER FIRE CONTROL

|S|)

EGRESS PROVIDED

|S2l

REFUGE PROVIDED

(S3)

GENERAL FIRE

SAFETY PROVIDED

(S4)

1. CONSTRUCTION

2. HAZARDOUS AREAS 42

3. MANUAL FIRE ALARM 42

4. SMOKE DETECTION

& ALARM

42 42

5. AUTOMATIC

SPRINKLERS

42 (t2)A

6. SEPARATION OF

BEDROOMS/SUITES

42

7. EXIT SYSTEM 42

8. EXIT ACCESS

9. INTERIOR FINISH 42

10. VERTICAL OPENINGS 42

11. SMOKE CONTROL

TOTAL Sl = $2= S3= S4=

NOTE: A - Use full value if Safety Parameter 1 is based on Type V (000), Type III (200) or Type II (000) construction. Divide by 2 (-5-2) in all other cases.

39
PART C. DETERMINE EQUIVALENCY REQUIREMENTS—USE TABLE 3.

Transfer the circled values from Table 3 to the blanks marked Sa, St>, Sc , and Sd in Table 4. Table 3a. Equivalency Requirements-Existing Facilities

Building

Height

Control

Requirement

(Sa)

Egress

Requirement

(Sb)

Refuge

Requirement

(Sc)

General Fire Safety

Requirement

(Sd)

1 Story 3 5 2 5

2 Story 2 5 1 4

3-6 Story 4 5 3 6

PART D. EQUIVALENCY EVALUATION

1. Peform the indicated subtractions in Table 4. Enter the differences in the appropriate answer

blocks.

2. For each row check “YES” if the value in the answer block is zero or greater. Check “NO” if the

value in the answer block is a negative number.

Table 4. Equivalency Evaluation YES NO

<*> KT < s-> *

Si Sa &<*> minus 5ST <S„)

S2 Sb

Refuge /e . Required . Provided (S3> mmus Refuge (Sc) >0

S3 Sc

General Required

Fire (S4) minus Gen. Fire (Sd) >0

Safety Safety

*1 II

Return to page (1) of this form.

40
PART C. DETERMINE EQUIVALENCY REQUIREMENTS—USE TABLE 3.

Transfer the circled values from Table 3 to the blanks marked Sa, Sb, Sc , and Sd in Table 4. Table 3b. Equivalency Requirements—New Facilities

Building

Height

Control

Requirement

(S a )

Egress

Requirement

(S b )

Refuge

Requirement

(Sc )

General Fire Safety

Requirement

(Sd)

1 Story 3.5 8 4.5 8

2 Story 4.5 (4.5) 8(6) 5.5 (3.5) 9(7)

3-6 Story 6.5 (6.5) 8(6) 7.5 (5.5) 11(9)

Use values in () for 2 or 3 story motel type facilities.

PART D. EQUIVALENCY EVALUATION

1. Peform the indicated subtractions in Table 4. Enter the differences in the appropriate answer

blocks.

2. For each row check “YES” if the value in the answer block is zero or greater. Check “NO” if the

value in the answer block is a negative number.

Table 4. Equivalency Evaluation YES NO

Control ._ . Required ._ , Provided <S '> minus

Control < S*> s0

Si Sa

Egress . Required ._ . Provided < s*> minus

Egress < s»> >0

S2 Sb

Refuge ._ , Required .... . Provided < S3> mmus Refuge < S‘>

S3 Sc

General Required

Fire (S4) minus Gen. Fire (Sd) >

0

Safety Safety

01 II

Return to page (1) of this form.

41
GLOSSARY FOR EVALUATING A LARGE OVERNITE ACCOMMODATION

(HOTEL OR DORMITORY)

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

Worksheets for determining the suitability of large accommodations. The

instructions for the mechanisms of completing the worksheet are included in

the worksheet itself. They are not repeated in this glossary. This glossary

provides expanded discussion and definitions for the various items in the

worksheet to assist the user when questions of definition or interpretation

arise. To the maximum extent possible, the glossary does not repeat the

definitions already existing in the Life Safety Code but rather references

the appropriate paragraph in the 1981 edition of that Code.

Areas of Application

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

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

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

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

zoning facilities is as follows:

a. Zoning must be such as to divide the building evaluation by units

that consist of one or more complete fire/smoke zones. A fire/

smoke zone is a portion of a building that is separated from all

other portions of the building by building construction having at

least 1-hour fire resistance and/or smoke partitions conforming

to the requirements of section 6-3 of the Life Safety Code for

smoke barriers of at least 20-minute fire resistance. Any vertical

openings (shafts, stairs, etc.) involved must also provide 1-hour

separation (except that stair doors may be 45-minute, Class C

doors) . In facilities completely protected by automatic sprinkler

protection, the above fire resistance requirements do not apply.

The elements separating one zone from another must, however, be

of sound, smoke resisting construction. Doors in zone separations

must be either self-closing or equipped with automatic closers

operated by smoke detectors.

b. Zones may be either adjacent to each other (e.g., separate wings

or building sections) or above each other (e.g., floors or groups

of floors)

.

c. Each zone containing sleeping accommodations for guests, staff, or others must be evaluated using this system with the following

adjustments

:

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

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

42
(2) Where zones are located above each other, the value assigned

to Parameter 1, Construction, is based on the highest story

used for sleeping purposes in that "stack of zones," and the

type of construction of that "stack of zones."

(3) The assignment of values for Parameters 3, Manual Alarms;

7, Exit Systems; and 8, Exit Access, does not consider

conditions in unoccupied spaces in other zones when such are

not involved in any egress paths.

(4) The evaluation of Parameter 7, Exit Systems, includes those

portions of any exit route that transverse another zone. Any exposures or deficiencies pertaining to any part of the

exit route must be taken into account in the evaluation of the

zone.

d. Zones that do not involve sleeping accommodations are evaluated the same as those with sleeping accommodations with the following

variations

:

(1) Any zone not involving sleeping accommodations may be omitted from

the numerical evaluation if all of the following conditions are met

a. The zone is not involved in the exit route from any sleeping

accommodation.

b. The zone conforms to the Life Safety Code requirements

applicable to its use.

c. In any case when the zone is located below another zone

that involves sleeping accommodations, the non-sleeping

zone is protected by sprinklers, smoke detectors, or a combination of these (so distributed and arranged that

any fire in the zone will promptly cause the operation

of the fire alarm in that zone and all zones above that

zone)

.

(2) Alternatively, zones not involving sleeping accommodations may

be evaluated using this system provided any additional egress

capabilities and arrangements appropriate to the specific use

of the space are provided. In such case, the separation

measured in Parameter 6 is based on separation of use spaces

from corridors. Where the zone has no corridor arrangement

(e.g., lobbies, dining rooms, kitchens), a value of "0" is

assigned to this parameter. In evaluating Parameter 4,

Smoke Detection, only those detectors that are part of an interconnected system are to be credited in this evaluation.

Any usable rooms or spaces other than corridors should be

substituted for "bedrooms" or "bedrooms/suites."

Maintenance

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

maintained in a dependable operating condition and a sufficient state of

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

in the evaluation.

43
Safety Parameter Table (General Discussion)

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

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

the time of a fire.

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

each parameter that best describes the condition in the building is to be

identified. Only one value for each of the parameters is to be chosen. If

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

1 . Construction

Construction types are defined by the fire resistance and combustibility of

load bearing framing members, floor construction, and roof construction in

accordance with the following table.

Table 3 Fire Resistance Requirements for Type I through Type V Construction

EXTERIOR BEARING WALLS —

Supporting more than one floor, columns or other bearing walls Supporting one floor only Supporting a roof only

Type I 443 332 222

Type II 111 000

0>

O'0

1 INTERIOR BEARING WALLS —

Supporting more than one floor, columns or other bearing walls Supporting one floor only Supporting a roof only COLUMNS —

Supporting more than one floor, bearing walls or other columns

Supporting one floor only Supporting a roof only BEAMS, GIRDERS, TRUSSES &

ARCHES —

Supporting more than one floor, bearing walls or columns ....

Supporting one floor only ....

Supporting a roof only FLOOR CONSTRUCTION

ROOF CONSTRUCTION 1 Vz EXTERIOR NONBEARING WALLS O' 0

1

Those members listed that are permitted to be of approved combustible material.

Requirements for fire resistance of exterior walls, the provision of spandrel

wall sections, and the limitation or protection of wall openings are not

related to construction type. These items are covered in other parameters

as appropriate.

2,i"H" indicates heavy timber members; see NFPA 220 for requirements.

Reprinted with permission from NFPA 220-1979, Standard on Types of Building Construction, Copyright 1979, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA 02269. This

reprinted material is not the complete and official position of the NFPA on the

referenced subject, which is represented only by the standard in its entirety.

44
Where the facility includes horizontally separate zones, additions, or connected

structures of different construction, the rating and classification of the

structure shall be based on (a) separate buildings if the portions qualify as separate zones or (b) the lower safety parameter point score involved if not.

The story used to determine the parameter value is the highest story used for

sleeping purposes. Story height is based on stories starting with the level

of primary exit discharge or the lowest floor used for sleeping purposes,

whichever indicates the greater number of stories.

In Table 1 of the worksheet for large overnight accommodations, some building

constructions are given a special parameter value if the construction is

"sheathed." Buildings where the interior is fully sheathed with lath and

plaster, gypsum board, or sheathing have equivalent ability to maintain

structural integrity and are considered to meet this requirement.

The safety parameter values for type V(000), type 111(200), and type 11(000)

buildings receive a higher parameter credit if the building is fully sheathed.

This credit is to be given if all portions of the bearing walls, bearing

partitions, floor construction, and roofs (or a roof /loft system if the space

above the highest ceiling is inaccessible and either is provided with draft

stops or other barriers on 30-foot spacing or is provided with heat or smoke

actuated fire detectors that will sound the building fire alarm) , and all

columns, beams, girders, trusses, or similar bearing members either have an inherent fire resistance or are sheathed, encased, or otherwise treated, to

provide approximately 20 minutes or greater fire resistance. Buildings fully

sheathed with sound lath and plaster, gypsum board, or equivalent sheathing

are considered to meet the criteria for this note.

Any type II, III, or V building is given the same point value for the fire

resistive version of the type involved regardless of the actual situation if

the building is fully protected by a "special" automatic sprinkler system as described under Parameter 5, Automatic Sprinklers.

2 . Hazardous Areas

The assignment of charges for hazardous areas is a five-step process.

Step 1. Identify Hazardous Areas . A hazardous area is any space or compartment that contains a storage or other activity that is not a part of normal living space arrangements and possesses the potential

of producing a fully involved fire. A list of typical hazardous

areas is listed under the heading, Exposure, in Figure 2.

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

as follows:

a. Structurally Endangering . A hazardous occupancy with sufficient

fire or explosion potential to defeat the basic integrity of the

building framing as defined in Parameter 1.

b. Not Structurally Endangering . A hazardous occupancy with sufficient

fire potential to build to full involvement and present a danger oi

propagating through openings or wall partitions but not possess! in- sufficient total potential to endanger the structural framing or floor decking as defined in Parameter 1.

45
Figure 2 provides an analysis of typical types of hazardous areas relative

to inherent potential structural danger to different classes of structural

systems

.

Step 3. Determine the Fire Protection Provided . The parameter value for

hazardous areas is based on the presence or absence of the fire protection

necessary to control or confine the hazard. Two different types of fire

protection are considered. The first consists of automatic sprinklers or other appropriate extinguishing system covering the entire hazard.* The

second is a complete fire resistive enclosure including the separation

of the hazardous area from any bearing members, partitions separating the

hazardous area from all other spaces, and doors to the space sufficient

to exceed the potential of the fire load involved. Any hazardous space

that has either of these protection systems is classified as having single

protection. Any hazardous space that is both fully enclosed (as described

above) and sprinklered is classified as having both (i.e., double level

protecton) . On this basis, any hazardous area with a fuel load that has

the potential of overwhelming the available structural capability could

as a minimum have a single deficiency as determined in Step 4 below.

Step 4. Determine the Hazardous Area Location . The parameter value also

considers location at hazardous areas in terms of proximity of such areas

to sleeping areas (bedroom/ suites) or to exit routes from such areas, as follows

:

a. Within Bedrooms Or Suites . The hazardous areas are physically

within a bedroom or suite, staff sleeping room, or other room

or space assigned for sleeping use without separating walls or with such separation but having a door or other opening directly

from the hazardous area into the sleeping area.

b. On Exit Route . The hazardous area is physically within an exit

route from a sleeping area without separating walls (or floors)

or is so separated but has a door or other opening that opens

directly from the hazardous area into the exit route.

Step 3. Determine Degree of Deficiency and Assign Parameter Values . The parameter value is finally determined on the basis of the degree of

deficiencies that the hazardous area has in terms of the level of

protection needed.

Figure 3 provides a matrix type table to assist in determining degree of

deficiency to be assessed.

In some situations, more than one hazardous area with the same or differing

levels of deficiency will exist. The charge is based on the single most

serious charge for hazardous area found.

*When the hazardous area is within or abuts an egress route (exit access or exit

system) addressed in Parameters 7 and 8, the credit for sprinklers is not to be

given unless the hazardous area is separated from the rest of the living unit

or the egress route by reasonably smoke resisting partitions and doors.

46
INHERENT

STRUCTURAL

DANGER

FROM

TYPICAL

HAZARDOUS

AREAS o

4-> a- cd 6 o M o

3= a) CO

O

co c rH Pt3 •H aj •u CJ 3 3

oh c >4-1

O

•H

H •H

e> M3 4J

Jh •H CJ O pH aj 3 O pH a ** CO pH 3 co >h v—

o *

CX a) QJ o K

co o cd 4-1 QJ CO 3 3 cd 60 (Q 33 a. rH & M QJ cd g g CO o 3 co c 33 >H O o cd CO 33

*H o o o H 0) CO o a) 3 * CO 4-1 &3 H •rH h cj 60 3 >H B CO Vj Jh

a) •H cd 60 QJ o 3 33 rH M3 •H g > >H cd iH o pH QJ CO rH 3 cd g H o P4 •H 0(3 QJ C3 cd CT3 3 a o 0) 4-1 cd O 3 •H JH B cd QJ o CO CO O PQ Ph r-J H CO q 03

M3

QJ>Ou

Ppa

cdPH rHH

cd rH

•H • B 3

•HO

CO •H

4-> Jh cd o CJ •H hJ MH

33 •H

CO 33 CO

4-> cd •H rH & CJ M3 CO

Oi QJ QJ M3 3

•H •H 1 > B < O H

SC

U QJ (X •U pH QJ oi M3 M3 c

p3 cd • 4J

CO 3 > M3 cd QJ Cd QJ Q) 4-J t-J1 rH u 3

rH cd

O i cd 3

4-1 CO <c! co 3 QJ w 3 O pH 2 -H M3 33 M •H

PH cd 4-J CO pH N CO 33| H cd 3 C> 0) 33 •S q P- B 2 o CO o < p cd CJ N (3 < M3 CM 2 QJ aj o

Jh CD 1 cd CO 4-J cd 3

CNI 4J rH 3

cd CJ

O

QJ 33 E 1 4J CO 3 1 aj 60 CO > M3

T"1 4J pH 3

pH *H oj 3 c CQ 3 g /—\

QJ • 60 33 CJ 3 4-1 4-J •pH 3

4-> c

cd •pH «k aj 33 4-1 £ o 4-J QJ c 3 N 3

pH

CO

QJ &

cd 3

CJ CJ H CO

4-> M3 •

CO

u 4-J QJ cd 3 B 3 •pH O 60 3

M3 QJa

U-4 •

-•

J-i cd O cn

ao

rH c 33

cd o CO 3 •pH M3 4H (44

•pH CO

O > 3

•pH 3) 3

M3

B a. cM O

CJ £ * * 47
• 03U

cON

cO x

4-1ou • d

03 (1) U +J

cO

O

N O*

cO •“ 1 4-1 CO O 4J

CO <H -d

CO 4-1 •H -H s 3

tt)

O

4-1 4-1 O

O- 4-1 d 6 0) a ’I-1 S o X 4-4

(rt 4-1 g a

CO CO 03 4-1 CD o

CD

d

OX CO

CD •H

0)a

O o d d

to co

4-1 4-1 CO CO •H •H

CO CO

CDa

V4

CDa

U

•H •H

4-1 4-1

4-C 4-4 H H1 1 < 1 CQ od

0) •Ho

•H

4-10) O

4-1O

CDa

S-J '60

CD O

CO

cO

CD <

COao

T)

cON

cO X

co

<Da

60

•H

to

48
3. Manual Fire Alarm

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

and does not meet the requirements necessary for a higher

scored category, except that credit for a manual fire alarm is credited

even if no such alarm is present in buildings three stories or less

in height where every sleeping room has a direct exit to the outside.

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

requirements of LSC Section 7-6, including the following features:

(1) Sounding devices (bells, etc.) are of such character and so located as to alert all occupants of the building or fire/

smoke zone thereof endangered by fire.

(2) In addition to the normal requirements, a manual fire alarm

station is provided at the main desk or other convenient

central point, the location being that most continuously

staffed. In buildings where such a location is continuously

staffed at all times, the building is occupied and the building

is completely protected by an automatic sprinkler or smoke

detection system, the operation of which causes the sounding

devices (i.e., fire evacuation alarm) to sound, all other

manual fire alarm stations may be omitted.

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

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

transmits a signal to the fire brigade or fire department which is

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

through a direct connection, an approved central station, a constantly

manned NPS control center, or through other means acceptable to the

Park Service.

4. Smoke Detection and Alarm

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

is given for thermal detectors in habitable spaces except as specifically

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

ambient temperatures can be expected to exceed 120 degrees F or fall below

0 degrees F (such as unfinished attics or cocklofts) as long as separation

to inhabited spaces is at least 20 minutes. The categories under this

parameter are as follows:

a. None . There are no detectors or those that are present do not

meet the requirements for a higher scored category.

b. Single Station, Bedrooms . There is one single station detector

(sounds the alarm only at the responding detector) in each

bedroom or sleeping room.

49
c. Inter-connected Systems . Inter-connected systems are those systems

so arranged that the operation of any detector sounds alarm devices

on other inter-connected detectors or other separate alarm devices

spread sufficiently to alert all of the occupants. Where the systems

are of the total building variety, the credit can be given only if

the building has a manual fire alarm system and the operation of the

detection system sounds the manual fire alarm as though a fire alarm

box on that floor had been operated.

(1) Corridors and Common Spaces Without Bedroom/ Suite Detectors . There is at least one detector spaced every 30 feet in enclosed

corridors and an additional detector in all common spaces

for each 900 square feet or less of floor space. Detectors

may be omitted from common spaces that are both sprinkler

protected and separated from the corridors by automatic

closing doors (as defined in Parameter 6)

.

(2) Corridors and Common Spaces with Single Station Bedroom/ Suite

Detectors . There is one single station detector in each bedroom

or sleeping room plus inter-connected detectors in enclosed

corridors and common spaces spaced as described in (1) above.

Detectors may be omitted from common use areas that are both

sprinkler protected and separated from the corridors by automatic

closing doors (as defined in Parameter 6).

(3) Corridors and Common Spaces with Inter-connected Bedroom/Suite

Detectors . Same as (2) above except bedroom/ suite detectors are inter-connected with corridor/common space detectors. In buildings

in which Parameter 1 is based on a construction where all the

members have a fire resistance rating of at least 20 minutes or more, a system as described in (2) above which has in addition

a thermal detector in each bedroom/suite connected to the

building fire alarm system may be credited in this category.

Detectors may be omitted from common use areas that are both

sprinkler protected and separated from the corridors by automatic

closing doors (as defined in Parameter 6)

.

(4) Total Building Systems . This system includes detector locations

in every bedroom throughout and also provides detector coverage

throughout all corridors, common spaces, hazardous areas,

and other spaces meeting the requirements for an automatic fire

alarm system in accordance with NFPA Standard 72. Heat detectors

are permitted in specific locations by NFPA 72.

5 . Automatic Sprinklers

a. None . No credit is given if there are no sprinklers or if sprinklers,

though present, are not sufficient to qualify for one of the other

categories listed herein.

NOTE: Any space that is to be credited as being protected by automatic sprinklers that abuts a hazardous area which is judged deficient

in accordance with Parameter 2, Hazardous Area, will not be considered

as sprinkler protected unless the hazardous area is also sprinkler

protected.

50
b. Bedrooms/Suites Only . All bedrooms/suites have sprinkler protection

complying with the requirements for light hazard protection in NFPA

Standard No. 13 or other appropriate standard for sprinkler

installations.

c. Corridors and Public Spaces . Sprinkler protection covers all of the

corridors and public spaces that separate, directly expose, or are

in the egress path from the bedrooms/suites (except fire resistive

enclosed non-combustible stairwells) . Sprinklers are installed in

corridors along the ceilings plus one sprinkler head opposite the

center of and inside any bedroom/suite door openings to the corridor.

d. Corridor and Habitable Space . Meets the combined requirements for

b and c , above

.

e. Total . The building is totally sprinkler protected in accordance

with section 7-7 of the Life Safety Code. The system is classified

as '’Special" if it is so arranged that the building cannot be used

for overnight accommodations at any time the sprinkler system is not

in full operating condition.

NOTE: To receive credit for protection of "Corridor and Habitable

Space" or "Total," the sprinkler system must be equipped with an automatic alarm initating device that will activate the building

manual fire alarm system or otherwise sound an alarm sufficiently

audible to be heard in all sleeping areas.

6 . Separation of Bedrooms/Suites from Corridors and Common Spaces

The values assigned in Parameter 6, Separation of Bedrooms/Suites from Corridors

and Common Spaces, are based on the quality of separation between the bedrooms/

suites and the corridor or common space. In the instance where the separation

is credited as 20 minutes or greater fire resistance, a higher value is assigned

if the separation between adjacent bedrooms/suites is also fire resistant.

a. Incomplete . The separation is judged as incomplete if the wall or partition adjacent to the corridor or common space has unprotected

openings (no door, louvers, gaps, or transfer grills) between the

floor and the ceiling. If openings exist above the ceiling level,

the separation is not considered incomplete if the ceiling in the

bedroom/suite is a complete membrane. In this case, the separation

rating is based on the minimum level of smoke or fire resistance

involved in the wall/ceiling system.

Doors adjoining the bedroom/suite to the common space or corridor

may cause the separation to be incomplete if there is some mechanism or obstruction which prevents closing of the door (doors

that have been blocked open by doorstops, chocks, tiebacks, or

51
other devices that require manual unlatching or releasing action

to close the door) ; there is a significant gap between the door

and the jamb; there is no latch or suitable device for keeping the

door closed; or the door contains open louvers.

b. Complete Separation . If the separation is not found to be incomplete

based on the above criteria, the separation is considered to be

complete.

Automatic Closers . A door is considered to have an automatic door

closer if it is equipped with a traditional self-closing mechanism,

or a release mechanism actuated by a smoke detector.

(1) Smoke Resisting . A separation is classified as smoke resisting

if the walls, partitions, and doors separating the bedrooms/

suites from the corridor or common space resist the passage of

smoke. Vision panels may be present without limit to glass

type or size. Conversely, louvers, transfer grilles, operable

transoms, or other air passages that exchange air between

sleeping rooms and corridors cause the separation to be

considered incomplete. Properly installed heating and utility

installations meeting NFPA 90A or other applicable standards

are acceptable under this criteria.

(2) Twenty Minute . The separation between the bedroom/suite and the

corridor or common space is considered to be 20 minutes if it

meets the criteria for smoke resisting and has at least 20-minute

fire resistance capability. This capability is based on standard

fire test ratings for doors, walls, and partitions. This

capability is assumed if walls or partitions are sheathed on both sides with lath and plaster, gypsum board, or equivalent

sheathing and the doors have a fire resistance rating of 20

minutes or more.* Vision panels of wired glass in an approved

frame are allowed under this classification provided the frames

do not exceed 1,296 square inches and both sides of the separation

are protected by automatic sprinklers. The separation is assumed

to be 20 minutes if both sides of the separation are protected by

automatic sprinklers.

NOTE: In non-sprinklered buildings, the credit for 20 minute

separation is given only in buildings that have fire resistive

construction (Parameter 1) or are fully sheathed with plaster,

gypsum board or similar materials.

*Doors made of 1 3 /4-inch thick solid core wood construction, hollow steel, or

an arrangement of comparable construction shall be considered to have 20 minute

or greater fire resistance (the thermal insulation capability of the door is

not considered) .

52
(3) One-Hour Walls, 20-Minute Doors . The separation of the bedrooms/

suites from the corridor or common space is classified as 1-hour

walls, 20-minute doors if it meets the requirement for the

20-minute separation classification and has wall construction that

equals or exceeds one hour if tested in standard fire tests.

NOTE: The credit for 1-hour separation is given only in buildings

that have at least 1-hour fire resistive construction (Parameter 1)

.

7 . Exit System .

Exit systems are the paths of travel from the bedroom/ suite to the outside of any

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

a. Single Route . A single route exists when the occupants of any sleeping

room/ suite do not have either a direct exit as defined in (5), below,

or multiple routes as defined in c, below.

b. Exposed Route . An exit route is exposed if a segment of that route

is the only available route from one or more sleeping rooms/suites

and that segment is not separated from all other rooms or spaces by

walls and doors that equal the separation credited in Parameter 6,

Separation of Bedrooms/ Suites . In determining which rooms or spaces

expose an exit route, any sprinkler protected room or space that is

not a hazardous area (Parameter 2) is not considered as an exposure.

c. Multiple Routes . Multiple routes exist when the occupants of any

bedroom/suite have, either from the bedroom/ suite or through access

in a corridor adjacent to the bedroom/ suite, a choice of two separate

exit routes to the outside of the types listed in paragraph 17-2

of the Life Safety Code.

NOTE: In order to qualify for multiple routes, at least one route

must qualify as unexposed. The unexposed route must be well marked

to guide occupants to it and the facility emergency plan must have

regularly tested procedures for training staff and guiding guests

through the protected routes.

(1) Deficient . An exit route is deficient if it fails to meet any

of the applicable criteria in Chapter 5 of the Life Safety Code.

NOTE: Typical deficient routes include usable exit routes

that may be narrower than minimum requirements, have wrong door

swings, have stairs with no enclosures or deficient enclosures,

involve stairs with deficient doors or door hardware, or lacking handrails, or having insufficient exit marking or lighting, etc.

(2) Without Horizontal Exits (W/0 Horiz.) . An egress system is

based on this charge if there are multiple routes that are not

deficient but it does not include a horizontal exit as defined

below or have acceptable direct exits from each bedroom/sui ce as defined below.

53
(3) Horizontal Exit . In order to qualify as a horizontal exit, the

exit system must be in conformance with section 5-2.4 of the

Life Safety Code. The presence of a single horizontal exit on each floor containing bedrooms/ suites shall be considered as sufficient criteria to meet this criteria provided that the

space created is of sufficient size to provide at least 3 square

feet of accessible space for all of the potential occupants

already present in the space or evacuating to it and has the

required other exit from that space.

(4) Smoke Proof Stairs . Credit for a smoke proof stair may be given

if either the stairway meets the requirements for a smoke proof

stair specified in section 5-2.3 of the Life Safety Code, or has an acceptably designed smoke pressurization system maintaining

a positive pressure in the stairwell sufficient to prevent

intolerable contamination of the stairwell by smoke or other fire

effects. To receive this credit, all exit stairs being evaluated

under this parameter and Parameter 8, Exit Access, must meet the

smoke proof stair requirements.

(5) Direct Exits . To be credited with direct exits, each sleeping room shall have within that unit a door that opens to the exterior

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

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

other exit routes from the sleeping unit.

8 . Exit Access

Exit access is a measurement of the travel distance from the bedroom/ suite to

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

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

The charge for deadend (DE) access shall be made when any corridor affords access in only one direction to a required exit. The calculation of the distance

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

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

9 . Interior Finish

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

interior finish in accordance with ASTM Standard E84, Tunnel Test. The requirements apply to wall and ceiling finish materials as described in section 6-5 of

the Life Safety Code.

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

a flame spread rating >200 or for any material not rationally measured by the

ASTM E84 Test. Materials not rationally measured include foam plastics, asphalt

impregnated paper, and/or materials capable of inducing extreme rates of fire

54
growth and rapid flashover. In any case where these materials are involved,

the resultant risk is considered beyond the capacity of this evaluation

system and will require individual appraisal.

NOTE: 1/4-inch or thicker plywood can be considered as having a flame spread

of 200 or less.

10. Vertical Openings

These values apply to vertical openings and penetrations including exit stairways, ramps, and any other vertical exits, pipeshafts, ventilation shafts,

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

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

of the enclosure if present.

A vertical opening or penetration is classified as open if it is (a) unenclosed;

(b) enclosed but does not have doors; (c) enclosed but has openings other than

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

sustained fire stopping capabilities.

If a shaft other than a credited exit route (i.e., credited as one of the

multiple routes required in Parameter 7 or in determining travel distance in

Parameter 8) is enclosed on all but one floor and this results in an unprotected

opening between the shaft, and one and only one floor, the parameter value

assigned to the shaft shall be 0. If a required egress route is contained in

the shaft, the maximum value assigned to Parameter 7, Exit System, shall be -2.

Enclosed vertical openings are considered to meet the requirements for 30 minute

enclosure if

:

a. The enclosure is of a type of construction that has been proven

by standard test to have 30 minute or greater fire resistance.

b. The enclosure is of any type of substantial masonry construction.

c. The enclosure is of wood or metal stud construction sheathed

on each side with sound, well installed 1/2-inch or thicker

gypsum board, lath and plaster, or equivalent.

11. Smoke Control

Smoke control definitions are as follows:

a. No Control . There are no smoke barriers (or horizontal exits) on the floor; the floor is not served by a smoke proof stairtower; and

no mechanically assisted smoke control systems serve the floor.

b. Smoke Partitions . Smoke partitions consist of installations conforming

to the requirements of section 6-3 of the Life Safety Code extending

across the entire width of the building or so arranged as to combine

a partition in the corridor with existing building elements and subdividing partitions and walls to effectively partition the building

55
into two separate units. The smoke partition must be equipped with

doors in the corridor that are either self-closing or closed by the

operation of smoke detectors located at the door arches or by smoke

detector systems that have been credited as the six-point value in

Parameter 4, Smoke Detection and Alarm. A horizontal exit will

act as a smoke partition and when it exists is credited as both a smoke partition in Parameter 11 and a horizontal exit in Parameter 7.

(1) Passive . The smoke control system is passive if there is not

a specifically designed engineered smoke control system that

will obstruct the leakage of smoke through the barrier.

(2) Mechanically Assisted . The smoke control system is mechanically

assisted if it has a tested engineered smoke control system that

will obstruct the leakage of smoke through the barrier.

56
EVALUATION OF TWO- OR THREE-STORY MOTEL TYPE FACILITIES

THAT DO NOT CONTAIN INTERIOR OR ENCLOSED CORRIDORS

A special adaptation of Table 1 for large facilities has been developed to cover two- and three-story facilities where each sleeping room has a direct

exit to the outside or onto a balcony which in turn exits to grade.

Essentially, the special Table 2 is identical to Table 1 for large facilities

except that those types of measurements and conditions that will not occur in

such a building have been eliminated and the form has been adjusted to recognize

the absence of an enclosed corridor arrangement that can become smoke filled or be a channel for propagation of fire. The following parameters involve terms

not covered in the large facility glossary. The parameters and new terms are

as follows:

Parameter 7. Exit Systems

a. Exit Systems Involve Balconies . This applies to any exit system

where persons making emergency evacuation from a sleeping room

must traverse a balcony or other restricted path that prevents them

from immediately moving away from the building upon leaving their

room.

b. With Single Exit . A balcony system is considered to have a single

exit if there is one normal stairway ramp or direct to grade exit

from the balcony.

c. With Multiple Exits . Multiple exits are considered to exist in

any case where there are at least two reasonably remote stairs,

ramps, or direct exits from the balcony. To be credited as multiple

exits, at least one of these must be to grade without re-entering

the building proper.

d. Deficient . The exits from a balcony are considered as deficient

if there are not at least two exits by way of substantial stairways

with hand rails, ramps, or exit directly to grade that allow passage

to the outside without re-entering the building. Exits are also

considered deficient if there is not some form of continuous night

or emergency lighting. Exit marking is considered necessary only

if the location of at least two exit routes is not obvious from

any sleeping room.

e. Standard . Exits are considered standard if they have substantial

well built stairs, ramps, or direct exits having emergency or continuous night lighting and in good order with a reasonable

pitch. Stairs may be of combustible construction in building of

Type III, Type IV, or Type V construction.

57
Parameter 9. Interior Finish

a. Balcony Ceiling . That portion of the balcony construction that

extends over the walkway. This may consist of weather protection

over a balcony or the underside of a balcony (in relationship to

a lower floor). The balcony ceiling is considered to have flame

spread ratings of greater than 75 if it is of wooden construction.

Parameter 10. Vertical Openings (Inside Building) .

The assignment of charges for vertical openings applies only to those openings

contained within the weather envelope of the building.

If there are no vertical openings within the weather envelope of the building,

assume that the enclosure is at least 1 hour.

In buildings where the interior of the roof is exposed to the top floor, (i.e. , there is no attic, loft, or similar space), the sheathing or lack of sheathing

for the roof, walls, and partitions for the top floor only is ignored in

applying Note a.

58
MOTELS: 2 or 3 story motel type facilities without interior or

enclosed corridors

DETERMINE SAFETY PARAMETER VALUES— USE TABLE 1 Select and circle the safety value for each parameter in Table 1 that best describes the conditions

in the facility. Choose only one value for each of the 11 parameters. If two or more values appear to

apply, choose the one with the lowest point value. Use Tables 2, 3 & 4 for large facilities to complete evaluation.

Table 1. SAFETY PARAMETER VALUES

SAFETY PARAMETER PARAMETER VALUES

1 CONSTRUCTION

BUILDING HEIGHT

2 STORY

Combustible

Type V

( 000) - 6<

3 STORY - 8<

Type V

(111) p

Type III

( 200)

6( )‘ - 8( )‘

Type III (211) p

Type IV (2HH)

Noncombustible

Type II

( 000)

-5( )«

- 8(

Type II (111) PType l&ll

( 222)

Within Bdrms/Suites or on Exit Routes Elsewhere in Building

2. HAZARDOUS

AREAS

Double Deficiency Single Deficiency

-7

Double Deficiency Single Deficiency

-4 -4(-7)

3. MANUAL FIRE ALARM

No Alarm Manual Alarm

w/o F.D. Notif. w/F.D. Notif.

0(1) 2 3

0( - 4)

None, or No No Del.

4. SMOKE DETECTION

& ALARM

None or Incomplete

Single Station Units in Each Bedroom

-4(0)

Interconnected System Covering

All Bedrooms

Total Building

5. AUTOMATIC

SPRINKLERS

None

Bdrms/Suites Only

Total Building Standard Special

10

6. SEPARATION OF

BEDROOMS/SUITES

None or Incomplete

Separation Between Rooms (Inch Doors) Is:

Smoke Resisting 20 Min 1-Hr Walls, 20 Min Doors -6 2g 3g 4g

Exit System Involves Balconies

7. EXIT SYSTEM w/Single Exit w/Multiple Exits Deficient Standard

All Sleeping Rooms

Exit to Grade

Max. Dead End No Dead End 35' & Trave 1 Is:

>100' >35 '<100' >150' 100'-150' 50'-100' <50' -6 - 4 -2 -1 0 2

8. EXIT ACCESS

9. INTERIOR FINISH BALCONY CEILING d

Flame Spread Ratings

>75<200 ROOMS/SUITES >75<200

-3(0) m

<75

1

( 0) m

>25<75

>75<200

0( 1 ) m

<75

<25

>25<200 <25

Open (Or Incomplete Enel.) Enclosed

3 Firs. 2 Firs. <30 M £30 M <1 Hr £1 Hr - 7 -2 - 1 0 1(0) b

10, VERTICAL

OPENINGS

11. SMOKE CONTROL

All Cases

NOTES:

a- Use (-lx height in stories) if building is sheathed with plaster, gypsum board or similar materials.

b- Use ( ) if item 1 is based on Type V (000), Type III (200) or Type II (000) without Note "a” and item 5<4.

g- Rate separation dif- ferent than actual construction as follows:

- “Smoke Resisting,"

if parameter 1 is V

(000), III (200) or II (000) and Note a does not apply.

- "20 min," if Note a applies and separation is 20 min.

- "20 min," if parameter 5 is £6 and sep- aration is <20 min. m-Use ( ) where item 5 is £6 .

p- Use this column for In- dicated type regardless of sheathing if item 5 is 10.

q- If no balcony ceiling

exists, use <25 for balcony ceiling flame spread rating

I* Use ( ) when

Item 7 is 4

59
Evaluation of Fire/Smoke Zones Containing a Multistoried Lobby, Atrium, or Other Floor Opening.

A portion of the overnight accommodations buildings in National Parks contain

multistoried lobbies or other floor openings that are impractical to enclose.

These provide special conditions, and special approaches are available when

evaluating fuel smoke zones that include such arrangements. Any of the

following three approaches are acceptable. The choice of approach should

normally be made on the basis of that approach which best suits the operational

requirements or is least costly. All are considered as satisfactorily providing

equivalency

.

1 . Charge for Vertical Openings

Apply the fire safety evaluation system to the zone assessing the

appropriate negative charges under Parameter 10 for vertical openings and

Parameter 8 for exposure of the egress route. In all other manners, apply

the evaluation approach charging each level as a separate floor but grading

the entire inner connected collection of fire/smoke zones as a single zone.

2 . Life Safety Code Requirements for Protection of Atrium .

Exception number two of Section 6-2. 2. 3.1 of the Life Safety Code prescribes

a protection mechanism for atriums. A multistoried lobby is classed as an atrium. If this approach is followed, the value for Parameter 10, Vertical

Openings, is to be based on that assigned to vertical openings having

protection of less than one hour. The charges in Parameter 8 for exposed

exits apply only to any exposures not related to the atrium. Where

complying with the requirements of the Life Safety Code provides additional

fire protection within the zone, such protection is to be credited in the

evaluation of that zone. The Life Safety Code requirements for the

protection of an atrium or multistoried lobby in an NPS hotel or lodge

are interpreted as follows:

a. These criteria are usable only where the minimum width of the atrium

floor opening is at least 20 feet.

b. All exit stairways are separately enclosed from the lobby or atrium

and egress from the stairs does not involve crossing of or exposure

to the base floor of the atrium.

NOTE: Architectural stairways completely open to the atrium may be

left unenclosed provided that each level of the atrium has at least

two other wall marked and remotely located exit routes that are either

into enclosed stairways or through smoke barriers into a separate

fire/ smoke zone.

c. The occupancy is low hazard. For NPS accommodation facilities this is

interpreted to mean that there are no hazardous areas within the

open atrium system and that any abutting the system are protected

in such a manner as to be graded as no deficiencies under Parameter

2, Hazardous Areas.

60
d. Any fire in the atrium or within any room directly exposing the atrium

(unless such room is fully sprinklered and has at least a 20-minute

or equivalent separation with self-closing doors) will be immediately

obvious to any occupants of the atrium or any persons who may have

to use the atrium as an exit route. This is interpreted as meaning

coverage by automatic smoke detection throughout all such areas except

in the special cases where all of the floors opening on to the atrium

have no hidden spaces or rooms that could contain persons who would

not be instantly aware by their own sight, smell, and hearing of any

fire incident.

e. The building is entirely protected by a sprinkler system meeting the

requirements for total protection in Parameter 5, Automatic Sprinklers.

3 . Buoyant Smoke Control Approach .

If a smoke control/exhaust system is provided and so designed as to maintain

the bottom of any potential smoke layer higher than the head height of any

person who may have to evacuate through the atrium, the entire atrium arrangement may be considered as a single zone with vertical opening protection

equivalent to enclosure of less than one hour and no charges made for

exposed exit routes. (See Appendix B)

61
62
Fire Safety Evaluation Worksheet for

Small Facilities

Facility Identification

Evaluator Date

(Complete one worksheet for each individual residence type structure used as a dormitory for 16 or less persons.)

First complete Table 1 on page 2. Continue with Table 2 on page 3 and Tables 3 and 4 on page 4. Then return to this page to obtain the Equivalency Conclusions:

TURN TO NEXT PAGE.

PART E. EQUIVALENCY CONCLUSIONS

Complete Tables 1-4 before doing this part.

1. [ ] All of the checks in Table 4 are in the “yes” column. The level of fire safety is at least

equivalent to that prescribed for small dormitories.

2. [ ] One or more of the checks in Table 4 are in the “no” column. The level of fire safety is not shown by this system to be equivalent to that prescribed for small dormitories.
PART A. DETERMINE SAFETY PARAMETER VALUES — USE TABLE 1

Select and circle the safety value for each safety parameter in Table 1 that best describes

the conditions in the facility. Choose only one value for each of the 8 parameters. If two or more values appear to apply, choose the one with the lowest point value.

Table 1. Safety Parameter Values — Small Facilities

Parameter Parameter Values

1. CONSTRUCTION / FIRE RESISTANCE

Exposed

Structural Members

Protected

(20 Min.)

Fire Resistant

(1 Hour)

0 1 3

2. HAZARDOUS AREAS

Double Deficiency Single Deficiency

None or No Deficiency

-7 -4 0

3. MANUAL FIRE ALARM

None w/o F. D. Notif. w/ F.D. Notif.

0 1 2

4. SMOKE DETECTION

& ALARM

None Limited Warning/

Single Lev. Det.

Warning to All Bedrooms Total Coverage

Every System Lev. Det. Plus Det. in Each Bedrm.

-4 0 2 3 4

5. AUTOMATIC

SPRINKLERS

Non-Sprinklered Sprinklered

0 8

6 INTERIOR FINISH

Flame Spread Ratings

>75 < 200 >25 < 75 <25

-3 -1 0

7. SEPARATION OF

SLEEPING ROOMS

Unprotected Vertical Opening Protected Vertical Opening -D

None or IncompleteSmoke

Resisting

None or Incomp.

Smoke

Resisting 20 Min. 20 Min.

Auto Closing

-6 - 4(0)C -2 0 1(0)A 2(0)A

8

EG

R

ES

S

EGRESS

ON ALL

SLEEPING

LEVELS

< 2 Remote Routes

2 Remote Routes

Unseparated

2 Remote Routes

Separated

Direct Exit from w/o Alt. Each Bedrm.

Means

w/Alt. Means

-1 0 1(0)B 2(0)B 3(0)B

EGRESS

NOT ON ALL

SLEEPING

LEVELS

Primary Route Not Protected Primary Route Protected

< 2 Remote Routes

2 Remote

Routes

<2 Remote Routes

2 Remote

w/o Alt. Routes Means

w/Alt. Means

w/o Alt. Meansw/Alt. Means

-4 -3 0 -1 0 2(0)B

NOTES:

A — Use (0) if parameter 1 is 0 and parameter 5 is 0. B — Use (0) if parameter 7 is based on a “no door” situation. C — Use (0) if door is 20 min. and has automatic closer. D — Consider 1 level building as having a protected vertical opening.

64
PART B COMPLETE INDIVIDUAL SAFETY EVALUATION — USE TABLE 2.

1. Transfer each of the 8 circled safety parameter values from Table 1 to every unshaded block in the line

with the corresponding safety parameter in Table 2. Where the block is indicated -f-2 enter only V2 the

value shown in Table 1.

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

3. Transfer the resulting values for Si, S2 , S3 , and S< to Table 4 on page 4 of this worksheet.

Table 2. Individual Safety Evaluations

PARAMETER

FIRE

CONTROL EGRESS REFUGE

GENERAL

SAFETY

1 . CONSTRUCTION

2. HAZARDOUS AREAS +2

3. MANUAL FIRE

ALARM -r 2 ( 1 )A

4. SMOKE DETECTION

& ALARM r- 2 r-2

5. AUTOMATIC

SPRINKLERS

+ 2

6. INTERIOR FINISH -r 2

7 . SEPARATION OF

SLEEPING ROOMS

8. EGRESS FROM

DWELLING

TOTAL Si = S2 = S3 = S4 =

A - Max value of manual fire alarm for egress is 1.

65
PART C. DETERMINE EQUIVALENCY REQUIREMENTS—USE TABLE 3.

Transfer the circled values from Table 3 to the blanks marked Sa , Sb, Sc , and Sd in Table 4.

Table 3. Equivalency Safety Requirements

Control

Requirement

(Sa)

Egress

Requirement

(Sb)

Refuge

Requirement

(Sc)

General Fire Safety Requirement

(Sd)

0.0 3.0 1.0 0.0

PART D. FIRE SAFETY EQUIVALENCY EVALUATION

1. Peform the indicated subtractions in Table 4. Enter the differences in the appropriate answer

blocks.

2. For each row check “YES” if the value in the answer block is zero or greater. Check “NO” if the

value in the answer block is a negative number.

Table 4. Fire Safety Equivalency Evaluation YES NO

Control . Required _ Provided (Sl) mmus

Control (Sa) "°

Si Sa

Egress , Required

Provided (S2) mmusEgress (Sb) "0

S2 Sb

Refuge /0 . Required ._ , Provided (Sa) mmus Refuge (Sc) "°

S3 Sc

General Required

Fire (S4) minus Gen. Fire (Sd) >

0

Safety Safety

01 *

II

Return to page (1) of this form.

66
GLOSSARY FOR EVALUATING SMALL FACILITIES

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

Worksheets for determining the suitability of small staff accommodations.

The instructions for the mechanisms of completing the worksheet are included

in the worksheet itself. They are not repeated in this glossary. This glossary

provides expanded discussion and definitions for the various items in the

worksheet to assist the user when questions of definition or interpretation

arise. To the maximum extent possible, the glossary does not repeat the

definitions already existing in the Life Safety Code but rather references

the appropriate paragraph in the 1981 edition of that Code.

Area of Application

The evaluation shall be completed covering the entire unit including spaces

that are not used for sleeping rooms.

Maintenance

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

maintained in a dependable operating condition and a sufficient state of

readiness, and shall be used in such a manner that the intended safety

function or hazard constraint is not impaired. Otherwise, they shall receive

no credit in the evaluation.

Safety Parameter Table (General Discussion)

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

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

the time of a fire.

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

parameter that best describes the condition in the building is to be identified.

Only one value for each of the parameters is to be chosen. If two or more

appear to apply, the one with the lowest point value shall be used.

1. Construction/Fire Resistance

Small facilities are of construction types defined in NFPA 220-1979, Standard

Types of Building Construction, except as modified herein.

Sprinklered Construction. If a building housing a small dormitory is partially

covered by automatic sprinklers, the construction classification is based on the fire resistance of the unsprinklered portion(s) of the building.

Inaccessible Spaces . Unfinished, unused, and essentially inaccessible loft,

attic, or crawl spaces are not considered in determining the construction

classification.

a. Exposed Structural Members . No sheathing or fire resistance rat in/

is required.

67
b. Protected (20 Minutes) . Buildings where the interior is fully sheathed

with lath and plaster, gypsum board, or equivalent protection. Also,

any type of construction where all portions of the bearing walls,

bearing partitions, floor constructions, rooms, and all columns,

beams, girders, trusses or similar bearing members either have an inherent fire resistance or are finished, encased, or otherwise

treated to provide a minimum of at least a 20-minute fire resistance.

Exception: Buildings with only exposed steel or wood serving as columns and support beams (but not joists) located in the basement

area will be considered as fully sheathed.

c. One-Hour Fire Resistance . Buildings conforming with the definition

of Type I, Type II (111), Type III (211), Type IV or Type V (III)

construction.

2 . Hazardous Areas

The assignment of charges for hazardous areas is a four-step process.

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

contains a storage or other activity having fuel conditions exceeding

that normal to a single family dwelling and possessing the potential for

a fully involved fire.

Examples of hazardous areas include, but are not limited to, areas for

storage of food or household maintenance items in wholesale or institutional

type quantities and concentrations; storage area for residents' belongings - areas similar to storage locker facilities in apartment buildings; and

other areas where the quantities of combustible or flammable materials

exceed an amount equivalent to normal household furnishings.

Exception: Areas containing approved, properly installed, and maintained

furnaces and heating equipment, cooking, and laundry facilities are not

classed as hazardous areas on the basis of such equipment.

Step 2. Determine What is Exposed .

a. Exit Route . Hazardous area is on the same floor as; and is in or abuts the exit route.

b. Sleeping Area . Hazardous area is on the same floor as; and is in or abuts the sleeping area (room)

.

Step 3. Determine the Fire Protection Provided .

a. Sprinkler Protection . The hazardous area is protected by sprinklers

or other appropriate automatic extinguishing system.

b . Smoke Resisting Separation . The hazardous area is separated from

sleeping areas and exit routes by a reasonably tight smoke resisting

partition or other smoke resisting barrier including doors.

63
Q >1 >" 2 CJ CJ

CO 2 2 2 O PJ 2 2 o »—<

CJ

M

CJ 2 CJ 2 o 2 M M M O 2 Ci* 2 l*A M 2 w 2 H

CJ2HO2

PM 2 Q

Q

Q2w

W 2 >M Z H 2 Ch >-< M CO O CJ CJ

Pd

Mw 2 2

Pm CO

Hw

CO 2 < l-M

M

Pd 2 O CJ

O

O < z M 2 M

w Pm P*A 2 2 2 2 o CO Q Q 2

COQ >-< Sh 2 CJ CJ

uo 2 2 2 2 o 2 2 2 O M M

CJ 2 CJ 2 2 M M O M

CO 2 CO UaQ PH

Pd 2 2 2 5 Q Q M

PdCm

COO2 2

LUh-<

cr • • Ua > O 2 O 2 MH

CO2 Qos 2 Q 2 O

CO

Ci3 2w

pd j

2 M T • >-J • Cm o Ua CJ 2 O 2 2 2

_i 2 Q hH

Q 2

PC CJ 2 O 2

COM 2 O < CO 2 2

cm

w

w 2 2 pd H 2 2 < 2 2 CJ O 2 2 H CJ 2 o 2 2 2 2 t-M CO 2 O 2

CM CO 2 2

CO 2 2 o < H 2 2 2 2 2 2 o -J CJ 2 Pd O o CO 2 2 2

><

CJ2M

CJM2Q

CmO222

cj2QI CO22<

COoM

0)

Vm3

to •H

Cm

69
c. Light Fire Resisting Enclosure . The hazardous area is cut off

from all other areas by construction, including doors that have

approximately 20-minute fire resisting construction (e.g.,

1/2-inch gypsum board on stud partitions and solid-core, 1 3/4-

inch (4.45 cm) wood doors). Doors are either automatic or selfclosing, or the nature of the space is such that the door is kept

closed at all times.

d. Moderate Fire Resistive Enclosure . The hazardous area is cut

off from all other areas (including any floors or attic space over such areas) by at least 1-hour fire resistive construction

and 3/4-hour fire doors. Doors are either automatic or selfclosing.

Step 4. Determine Degree of Deficiency and Assign Parameter Values . The

parameter value is finally determined on the basis of what is exposed and

the level of protection provided. Figure 1 provides a matrix type table

to be used to determine the degree of deficiency to be used in assigning

charges to this parameter.

In some situations, more than one hazardous area with the same or differing

levels of deficiency will exist. The charge assigned is based on the

single most serious charge for hazardous area found.

3. Manual Fire Alarm

a. None . There is no manual fire system or the system is incomplete

and does not meet the requirements necessary for a higher scored

category.

b. W/0 F.D. Notif. There is a manual fire alarm system meeting the

requirement of section 7-6 of the Life Safety Code, or credit can

be given if all of the following conditions are met: (1) there is

a smoke detection system which qualifies for at least two points

under Parameter 4, (2) the smoke detectors are capable of connection

to an approved manual fire alarm box for alarm initiation, (3) at

least one manual fire alarm box is provided on each floor, and (4)

there is at least one or more sounding devices that assure that the

alarm is audible in all sleeping areas.

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

with the requirements of section 7-6 of the Life Safety Code, and,

in addition, automatically transmits a signal to the fire brigade

or the fire department which serves the area in which the building

is located, through a direct connection, an approved central station,

park communications center, or through other reliable means.

4 . Smoke Detection and Alarm

A detection system as used herein is one based on the use of smoke detectors.

No recognition is given for thermal detectors. The detection system categories are as follows:

70
a. None . There are no smoke detectors in the building or, if any are

present, they do not meet the requirements necessary for a higher

scored category.

b. Single Level Detection, Limited Warning . There is one or more

detectors in the building but they do not meet the criteria for

every level detection set forth in c, below. Detectors credited

in this category may be any approved smoke detector and may be

of the single station type. At least one detector must be

located in the corridor or similar common space (lobbies, lounges,

or other spaces that cannot be closed off) in the immediate

vicinity of each separate sleeping area. If there is more than

one sleeping area, each such area must be protected to obtain

this credit.

c. Every Level Detection, Every Bedroom Warning . This credit applies

where there is at least one detector in a single level building

and one detector on each level of a multi-level building that

also meets the following requirements:

(1) At least one detector on each level is located in the

corridor or similar common space.

(2) All detectors necessary in order to meet the requirements

of (1) , above, produce or initiate an alarm audible in all

sleeping areas.

d. Every Level (Item c) Plus Single Station Detection in Each Bedroom . To receive this credit, the requirements of c, above, must be met

in full with the addition of at least one single station detector

in each bedroom or other sleeping area.

e. Total Coverage System . A minimum of a detector in each occupied

room or other habitable space and throughout any basements,

storage areas (other than normal clothing closets) , or combustible

loft spaces. To qualify as a total system, there must be a manual

fire alarm system in the building and the operation of any smoke

detector must automatically operate the manual fire alarm system

evacuation alarm for the entire building.

5 . Automatic Sprinklers

a. Non-Spr inkiered . No credit is given if there are no sprinklers

or if sprinklers, though present, are not sufficient to qualify

for the Sprinklered category.

b. Sprinklered . The building is sprinklered in accordance with

NFPA Standard No. 13 for light hazard occupancy or NFPA 13D,

where appropriate, and is equipped with an automatic alarm

initiating device that will activate the building manual fire

alarm system, or otherwise sound an alarm sufficiently audible

to be heard in all sleeping areas.

71
6 Interior Finish

.

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

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

requirements apply to wall and ceiling finish materials as described in

section 6-5 of the Life Safety Code.

No consideration is included in the Safety Parameter Value for any finish

with a flame spread rating > 200 or for any material not rationally measured

by the ASTM E 84 Test. Materials not rationally measured include foam plastics,

asphalt impregnated paper, and/or materials capable of inducing extreme rates

of fire growth and rapid flashover. In any case where these materials are involved, the resultant risk is considered beyond the capacity of this

evaluation system and will require individual appraisal.

Note: 1/4-inch (.64 cm) or thicker plywood can be considered as having

a flame spread of 200 or less.

Note: Exposed wood open joist construction or other exposed wood

construction areas shall be charged as Class C Interior Finish,

in addition to any charges under Item 1, Construction.

Note: If a space is classified as hazardous under Parameter 2,

Hazardous Areas, no additional charge shall be made as the

result of interior finish in such areas.

7 . Separation of Sleeping Rooms

The classification of separation of sleeping rooms is categorized under the

groups headed "Unprotected Vertical Opening" and "Protected Vertical Opening."

A facility is classed as having protected vertical openings if there are no vertical openings (as in a single level building) or if the vertical openings

are so protected that no primary exit route (as defined in Parameter 8,

Egress) is exposed to an unprotected vertical opening. A vertical opening is

considered protected if the opening is cut-off or enclosed in a manner that

provides a smoke tight separation having fire resisting capabilities of

approximately 20 minutes. Any doors in the cut-off or enclosure need to have

equivalent fire and smoke resisting capabilities and be either automatic closing

on detection of smoke or self closing. Otherwise, this parameter is assessed

on the basis of "unprotected vertical openings."

a. None Or Incomplete . A case where the separation of sleeping rooms from corridors and common spaces is insufficient to meet any of

the other classifications in this parameter.

b. Smoke Resisting . Sleeping rooms are separated from corridors

or other common spaces of the building by walls and doors that are capable of resisting the passage of smoke. There are no transfer

grills, louvers, or operable transoms or other air passages

72
penetrating the wall except properly installed heating and utility

installations. Doors are provided with latches or other mechanisms

suitable for keeping the doors tightly closed. Glass viewing

panels may be used in doors or partitions without limits on size

or type.

c. Twenty-Minute Fire Resistance . Sleeping rooms are separated from

corridors or other common spaces of the building by separations

meeting the requirements of b, above, and have at least 20-minute

fire resistance rating or equivalent. This rating is considered

to be achieved if fire resistance is demonstrated by acceptable

tests or if the partitioning is sheathed on both sides with lath

and plaster, gypsum board, or equivalent sheathing. Doors are considered as having such fire resistance if they are 1 3/4-inch

(4.45 cm) solid core wood construction or any other arrangement

of equal or greater stability and fire integrity. The thermal

insulation capability of the door is not considered. Hollow sheet

steel doors are considered to meet the 20-minute requirement. Any

vision panels are of wired glass, not exceeding 1,296 square inches

(0.836 square m) of area each, installed in approved frames.

Exception: Partitions and doors meeting the requirements of b,

above, where automatic sprinklers are provided on both sides of the

partition.

d . Twenty-Minute Resistance, Doors Automatic Closing on Smoke Detection . Sleeping rooms are separated in accordance with c, above, and the

doors to all bedrooms are automatic closing. Automatic closing doors

are considered acceptable if the doors are self closing or have an arrangement that holds them open in a manner such that they will be

released by a smoke detector operated device (e.g., magnetic or pneumatic hold open device) prior to the passage of significant

smoke from the space of fire origin into the corridor or from the

corridor into the protected room. Smoke detectors for operation of

such doors are either integrated with the door closers, mounted at

each door, or operated from a total smoke detector system covering

both the room and corridor. Any vision panels are of wired glass,

not exceeding 1,296 square inches (0.836 square m) of area each,

installed in approved frames.

8. Egress

a. Egress on All Sleeping Levels . A building shall be considered as having egress on all sleeping levels if (1) the entire building is on a single level or (2) all guest rooms used for sleeping are on

a level having an exit door.

b. <Two Remote Routes Without Alternate Means . A case where the egress

system fails to meet any of the other classifications in this

parameter.

73
c. <Two Remote Routes With Alternate Means . A case where the facility

has at least one primary route and one alternative means of egress,

but fails to meet a higher valued classification in this parameter.

(1) Primary Route . A normal means of egress that may involve

interior or exterior stairs, corridors, doors, or other common means of movement through and out of a residential building.

A primary route is classed as protected if it provides a path

of travel to the outside of the building without traversing

any corridor or space exposed to an unprotected vertical

opening. Also where the sleeping room is above or below the

level of exit discharge, the primary means is an enclosed

interior stairway, an exterior stairway, or a horizontal exit.

Note: Windows, ladders, and other arrangements not considered

normal means of movement do not qualify as primary routes but

may be classed as alternative means as described below.

(2) Alternative Means . Alternative means exist where in addition

to the primary route there is one emergency alternative means

of escape for each sleeping room. This route includes either:

(a) A door or stairway providing a means of unobstructed travel

to the outside of the building at street or ground level.

(b) An outside window in the room operable from the inside

without the use of tools and providing a clear opening

of not less than 20 inches (50.9 cm) in width, 24 inches

(60.9 cm) in height, and 5.7 square feet (.53 square m) in

area. The bottom of the opening is not more than 44 inches

(111.76 cm) above the floor.

Exception: If the bedroom has a door leading directly

outside of the building with direct access to grade, that

door is considered to fulfill the requirements for both a primary route and alternative means for that bedroom.

d. Two Remote Routes . Each bedroom has access to two routes leading to

two separate building exit doorways.

e. Separated Route . The route provides a path of travel to the outside

of the building without traversing any corridor space exposed to

unprotected vertical openings, hazardous areas classed as having

deficiencies in Parameter 2, or common living spaces (e.g., living

rooms, kitchens, etc.).

f. Two Remote Routes Unseparated . A case where two or more remote routes

are present (see d, above), but there are one or more sleeping rooms where all available exit routes fail to meet the criteria for

separated route (see e, above).

74
g* Two Remote Routes, Separated . A case where two or more remote routes

are present (see d, above) and each sleeping room has access to at

least one route qualifying as separated in accordance with e, above.

h. Direct Exit from Each Bedroom . To be credited, each bedroom must have

a door operable by the room occupant (s) that opens directly to grade

without more than one step, or have a ramp to grade, or have an external porch or landing with external stairs or other suitable

access to grade.

75
CABIN ACCOMMODATIONS

CABIN NAME:

PARAMETER PARAMETER VALUES

COMBUSTIBLE

1. CONSTRUCTION UNSHEATHED/COMB. SHEATHED

1 ( 0 )*

GYPSUM BOARD OR OTHER

NON-COMB. SHEATHED

NON-COMBUSTIBLE

2. SMOKE DET.

NONE

LESS THAN EVERY ROOM

EVERY HABITABLE ROOM

(EXCEPT BATHROOMS)-b

BATTERY LINE BATTERY LINE & ALARM POWERED POWERED POWERED POWERED -4 2 3 4 5

COMMON WALL

WITH CONNECTING DOORS

OR OTHER OPENINGS-C WITHOUT OPENINGS

0(2)a

2

3. SEPARATION

FROM OTHER

UNITS

SEPARATE

BUILDINGS

4. EXIT SYSTEM

MULTI-ROOM UNITS

SINGLE EXIT, BEDROOM WINDOWS

NOT USABLE FOR EMERGENCY EGRESS USABLE FOR EMERGENCY EGRESS -1 0

EXTERIOR EXIT DOOR

ON EACH SLEEPING ROOM

SINGLE ROOM UNIT

5. INTERIOR FINISH

MORE THAN 10% UNTREATED WOOD OR OTHER COMBUSTIBLES

0 ( 2 )*

90% OR MORE IS GYPSUM BD, OTHER NON-COMBUSTIBLE

OR FIRE RETARDANT TREATED WOOD

a-lf cabin (including all units with common walls) is sprinkler protected, credit Item 1 as “0," Item 3 as “2,” and Item 5 as “2."

b-For single room units: One smoke detector = Detectors in all habitable rooms.

c-lf Item 3 is “0," detectors in each unit must: Sound a general alarm; activate at least one detector in every other unit with connecting doors or other openings; OR be loud enough to be clearly heard in all sleeping rooms involved.

REQUIREMENTS

MET?

YES

NO

76
*APPENDIX B: AN INTERIM BUOYANT SMOKE CONTROL APPROACH (FOR ATRIUM-LIKE

ARRANGEMENTS)

B1 Introduction

The methodology presented herein can be used to determine smoke (exhaust)

fan capacity, temperature rating, and placement in atriums and atrium-like

arrangements. It is based on the physics of the buoyant hot gas plume

produced by fire. The rate of accumulation of smoke above a fire is

determined by both the rate of burning (rate of energy production) and the

amount of air entrained in the rising plume.

The details of the rate of energy production driving the plume is the least

predictable factor involved. Current research is directed at improving the

ability to predict the actual course and duration of energy released during

a fire. To bridge the resulting uncertainty, this method assumes that the

fire will continue to burn indefinitely at a given energy level to be determined

from full-scale burn experiments.

The intent is to prescribe exhaust capacity based on the maximum energy release

rate likely to occur. This approach results in a conservative overdesign

which is necessary until more detailed prediction of fire development is

available.

The Buoyant Smoke Control Approach is applicable only in buildings that have

automatic sprinkler protection receiving credit for total protection in

Parameter 5, Automatic Sprinklers, or are of Type I or Type II (222) construct i on and are so credited in Parameter 1, Construction.

Data obtained experimentally in full-scale burnout tests of hotel room mockups and in burn tests of typical furniture will be used to ident i f

y

the appropriate design rate of convected energy, Q

c

, used in the calculation

to be described.

*This Appendix was prepared by Leonard Y. Cooper

77
The lowest acceptable level of smoke accumulation, Z , is defined as the

c±6cir

characteristic elevation, above the atrium floor, of the heads of occupants

of the highest floor where evacuation through the atrium is required, unless

this is the lowest floor. In the latter case, Z

c 2ear

i- s equal to 10 feet.*

Application of the method requires that:

1. the smoke reservoir above the Z . elevation have a depth of at clear

least 0.2Z ; clear

2. the length and width of the atrium must not be less than Z ; and

C-L0ciir

3.

the exhaust fan outlet must be at least 10 feet higher than the elevation

of the floor of the highest occupied room requiring egress through

the atrium.

The determination of smoke removal requirements is based on the rate of

energy production developed in full scale tests. From the results of

these tests, the largest potential fire on both the lowest floor level and

the highest floor level in the atrium is to be estimated. The fire at the

lowest level will determine the total amount of fan air movement required,

and the fire at the highest level will determine the highest temperatures to

be handled by the fans.

B2 Procedure for Fan Selection

The fans' size, temperature rating, and means of operation is determined

from Figure B-l by the following procedure:

a. Acceptable Smoke Level . Determine the lowest acceptable level of

smoke accumulation. This is the highest level in which sleeping

accommodations are to be permitted. The vertical distance between

head level (approximately 5 feet above the floor) and the floor

English units will be used throughout this Appendix in order to make it more

readily useable by people who are likely to implement this Fire Safety

Evaluation System.

78
level of the lowest floor in the atrium is the value Z . to be

clear

used in Figure B-l for determining the required rate of volume of

smoke removal. If sleeping accommodations are only permitted on

the lowest floor then Z . =10 feet.

clear

b. Characteristic Fuel . Determine the steady rate of convected energy,

passing into the smoke layer. In Figure B-l, curves are plotted

that relate to the steady rate of convected energy, in units of BTU/s,

of the fire which could threaten the atrium space. The upper sketch

in the figure is meant to indicate that the curves are useful for

describing conditions related to combustibles burning on the atrium

floor or on any balcony open to the atrium space. The lower sketch

indicates that the curves are also relevant in cases of combustibles

burning in rooms which enter onto the atrium space.

c. Exhaust Fan Rate . From Figure B-l determine the exhaust fan

capacity needed to extract smoke at the rate that will maintain

the smoke level at Z - . This rate is found in the base line clear

of the figure and corresponds to the level of z

c ^ ear on the vertical

axis as determined by the solid line characterizing the maximum

anticipated steady rate of convected energy (i.e. the largest

anticipated fire) in the atrium. This is the minimum exhaust

capacity of the fan.

d. Intake Air . Provide intake air openings that will be either

present or automatically activated at the time of emergency smoke

removal. These are to be located at or near the lowest floor

involved to allow for air intake at the rate vented by the fan.

The openings provided need to be large enough so that losses at the

intake do not significantly reduce the fan exhaust capacity.

Standard air handling design criteria are used in making

this calculation.

e. Fan Temperature Rate . Determine the potential temperature of

gases that the fan may be required to handle. To do this, identify

the highest floor of the atrium where balcony combustibles or

79
potentially hazardous room fires are to be found. Determine the

distance from the elevation of this floor to the center line of

the fan (or fan ports if the fan is in a dock or similar arrangement)

.

Determine the intersection of the new Z value with the appropriate

CJ_03.1T ventilation rate curve (solid line) for the maximum rate of convected

energy at that higher level. Estimate the temperature rise by

interpolating between the (dashed) constant temperature rise curves on Figure, B-l. Provide all elements of the exhaust system that are to be above the applicable smoke level with the capacity to

effectively operate at the indicated increase of temperature.

f . Operation of Exhaust System. Design the emergency exhaust system

for direct manual operation and to initiate automatically under

detection of smoke, operation of a manual fire alarm system, or operation of sprinkler protection for any of the spaces exposing

the atrium. The capability to manually start the automatic exhaust

system should be provided both at the main desk or control location,

and at another remote location.

B3 Technical Basis for Figure B-l

B3.1 Background

Q is the rate of energy released by the fire in the lobby or atrium space

portrayed in Figure B-l. If the fire is in the space itself (the upper

sketch in the Figure) , then Q is the total rate of energy released by the

fire. If the fire is in an adjacent space (the lower sketch), then Q is

the flow of enthalpy actually entering the lobby or atrium from the adjacent

space.

Of the total energy release rate, Q, a fraction X ^ is assumed to be radiated

away to the bounding surfaces of the lobby or atrium space. The rest of Q,

i.e., (l-X^)Q=Q

c

, is convected upward in the fire-generated plume depicted

in the Figure. For fires in the lobby or atrium, X^ is typically of the

order of 0.35, while for fires in adjacent spaces, X^_ can be taken as zero provided most flaming combustion is taking place within the adjacent space

and not in the lobby or atrium space itself.

80
The fraction of Q which is transferred to the bounding surfaces of the

space by combined radiation and convection is designated by X. Limited

information is available for values of X, but for the types of lobby or atrium configurations of interest, X would typically range from 0,75

for the X r =0.35 radiating fire of the upper sketch of the Figure to 0.6

for the X r =0, adjacent room, threat of the lower sketch (when significant

flaming out of the doorway and into the atrium or lobby space has not yet

been initiated). The basis for these latter estimates are in References

1 and 2.

The phenomena portrayed in the Figure are assumed to have reached a quasi-steady state in that Q

c> the interface elevation of the upper

smoke layer, ^

c ^ ear > and the basic heat transfer characteristics to

enclosure surfaces are all relativelyJ constant. At the Z clear

elevation, the mass flux of the fire products of combustion in the fire

plume is assumed to be small compared to the mass flux of entrained air.

The upper smoke layer is assumed to be well-mixed, and of uniform average

temperature, T. T is, therefore, the temperature of gases exhausted by the

fan, provided that the exhaust outlet is not directly above the fire. In

the latter case the temperature of the exhaust gases would be somewhat

greater than T.

B3 . 2 The Equations

Conservation of mass requires

m

plume ^clear^ ^FAN TM ( 1 )

where the m’s are mass flows.

Conservation of energy requires

( 2 )

81
where is the specific heat of air at constant pressure,

lamb t *ie ambient temperature of lobby or atrium and

AT = T-T , amb ( 3 )

Making us of Eq.(l) and the relation Q

c = (l-A^Q, AT can be written as ^ - (iEr-)Qc /tc

p

A

plume (zclear )] (4)

Assuming T^^ to be 530°R, Reference 3 provides the

following result for m .. (Z , ) plume clear

m

plume

(Z ) = 0.022Q

1/3

Z 5/3 [1+0.19Q 2/3

Z 3/3]

clear c c clear (5)

provided

Z . > clear 0.39Q

2/5

( 6 )

where m is in lb /s, Q is in BTU/s and Z . is in ft. The m c clear

proviso of Eq.(6) is essentially equivalent to the restriction

that, for Eq.(5) to be valid, all flaming combustion is below

the smoke interface. Plots provided in Figure B-l are all

consistent with this restriction.

Using Eq . (5) for m n (Z ), and taking C to be 0.24BTU/(lb °F) & n plume clear p m

leads to

AT = 1000(1 + 5.3Q"2/3

Z

5

(

3 )"1 (1-A)/(1-A ) (7)

c clear r

82
provided Eq.(6) is satisfied. AT in the above is in °R.

The volume flow rate exhausted by the fan, V„.„, can be obtained

FAN

from

m

FAN

FAN (8 )

where p is the average upper layer gas density corresponding

to the smoke temperature, T. Assuming that the absolute pressure

throughout all spaces is essentially constant, and using the perfect

gas law, leads to

P T = P T amb amb ( 9 )

where p . is the density of the ambient air, and where T and T , amb amb are absolute temperatures. Using Eq.(9) in Eq.(8) results in

m. FAN

FAN^ AT_ + 1 ) amb amb

( 10 )

and using Eqs.(l), (4), (5), and (10) finally leads to

* ' ‘1/3 5/3

V

FAN

= [0 ‘°57 + 0 - lo a-X)/(l-X

r

)] Q

c + 0 . 30<£

, V,J (ID

where is in ft /s, and provided Eq.(6) is satisfied.

FAN

"Standard volume" exhaust rate of the fan, is also of

interest. This is the volume flow of the exhausted smoke gases

at T after they have been cooled to the outside ambient temperature

(also assumed here to be T

^

= 530°R).

33
Thus

or

*(SV) = ^FAN = mFAN £_

FAN

amb amb

= V.FAN - (Y~+ 1 ) amb

( 12 )

v

FAN FAN

, AT

530

+ 1 )

(13)

where V is found in Eq.(10) and AT is found in Eq.(7).

FAN

Generating the Plots of Figure B-l

The plots of the Figure B-l were obtained with the use of Eqs.(7)

and (11).

For all calculations the value of (1-A)/(1-A^) was fixed at 0.4. Note

that this is exactly the value of this parameter for A = 0.6, A^_ = 0 fire

scenarios and within a few percent of A = 0.75 A = 0.35 scenarios,

both of which were discussed above.

• 3 3

It is noted that the plots for are in 10 ft /min while Eq.(ll)

* 3

* (SV) is for V_.„ in ft /s. Note that can be estimated from the

FAN FAN

plots of Figure B-l with the use of Eq.(13).

B4 References

1. Cooper, L.Y., A Mathematical Model for Estimating Available Safe

Egress Time in Fires, Fire and Materials, Vol. 6, p. 135, 1982.

84
2. Zukoski, E.E., and Kubota, T. , An Experimental Investigation of

the Heat Transfer from a Buoyant Gas Plume to a Horizontal Ceiling

Part 2. Effects of Ceiling Layer, Cal. Inst. Tech., U.S. Nat. Bur

Stand. NBS-GCR-77-98 , 1975.

3. Guide for Smoke and Heat Venting (Appendix A), NFPA 204M National

Fire Protection Assoc., 1982.

•35
1000

CD

133J Nl (JB3P) Z

06

FAN

VOLUME

IN

1000

CUBIC

FEET/MINUTE
APPENDIX C, NBS DELPHI PANEL

Delphi Method*

The Delphi technique was developed In the 1950's for the purpose of

estimating the probable effects of atomic bombing attacks on the United

States. Since then it has been applied to technological forecasting as well as in areas where judgmental information is required. The Delphi

technique is basically concerned with the utilization of the combined

knowledge of experts to arrive at a consensus opinion where factual

information is incomplete.

The NBS exercise followed a process called Policy Delphi. The basic

premise of the Policy Delphi is that it acts as a precursor to a committee

activity. The Policy Delphi is not a substitute for research studies,

analyses, or staff work. It is, however, an organized method for correlating

views and information pertaining to a specific problem area and for allowing

the respondents representing such views and information the opportunity to

react to and assess differing viewpoints. Because the respondents are anonymous,

fear of potential repercussions or embassassment is removed and no single

individual need commit himself publicly to a particular view until after the

alternatives have been put on the table.

Turoff in "The Policy Delphi"** analyzed committee and Delphi processes.

The study points out that a Delphi followed by a committee session provides

good results in formulating policies.

The study identifies two major areas of problems with large size

committees (i.e., communication and psychological). The communication

difficulties are attributed to the diverse membership. The major lack of

understanding tends to be between the following groups: individuals who

are not familiar with many of the new decision aids coming out of operation

research and system analyses but who have an intuitive feel for the complexities

of the organization, and individuals who have been trained in many of modern

This section was previously printed in Appendix A of "A System for l ire Safety

Evaluation for Multifamily Housing", H.E. Nelson and A.J. Shibe, NBSIR 82-2562,

September 1982.

Murray Turoff, "The Design of a Policy Delphi," Technological Forecasting and

Social Changes 2, No. 2 (1970).

37
management techniques and who are sometimes a little too confident that

these approaches can be applied to every problem. The problems associated

with the operation of committees that tend to reflect psychological characteristics are:

- The domineering personality or outspoken individual that takes over the committee process.

- The unwillingness of individuals to take a position on an issue

before all facts are in or before it is known which way the

majority is headed.

- The difficulty of publicly contradicting individuals in higher

positions

.

- The unwillingness to abandon a position once it is publicly taken.

- The fear of bringing up uncertain ideas that may turn out to be

idiotic and result in a loss of face.

The above problems may also apply to small size committees, except

when the members of the small committee are given sufficient time to consider

and explore the issue, and have assurance that the privacy of their respective

remarks will be respected outside the committee. Under those conditions a small committee may not have the difficulties which have been identified

for the large size committee.

Usually Delphi, whether it is to be conventional or computerized, undergoes four distinct phases. The first phase is characterized by exploration

of the subject under discussion, wherein each individual contributes additional

information he feels is pertinent to the issue. The second phase involves the

process of reaching an understanding of how the group views the issue. If

there is significant disagreement among members, the disagreement is explored

in the third phase to bring out the underlying reasons for differences and

possibly to evaluate them. The last phase, a final evaluation, occurs when

all previously gathered information has been initially analyzed and the

evaluations have been fed back for consideration.

CO
There are two methods of gaining consensus: conventional and computerized.

In the conventional form, a monitor team designs a questionnaire which is sent

to a respondent group. After the questionnaire is returned, the monitor team

summarizes the results, and based upon the results, develops a revised questionnaire for the respondent group to answer. The respondent group is usually given

at least one opportunity to revise its original answers after examining the

group response.

The computerized method replaces the monitor group to a large degree with

a computer which has been programmed to carry out the compilation of the

respondent group results. This process has the advantage of eliminating

delays in summarizing each round of Delphi, thereby turning the process into

a real-time communication system. However, it does require that the information received from the respondents is in a form that can be fed into a computer

and that an algorithm can be provided to analyze the data. The NBS Delphi

Group used the conventional four-phase approach in its evaluation process.

Approach Used in Developing Fire Safety Parameters and Their Values

The Delphi Group

Fourteen individuals from the Fire Safety Engineering Division of the

Center for Fire Research were chosen to act as a "Delphi" group. The experience

of the group members in areas of fire/life safety ranged from six to thirty-five

years. Each individual was briefed about the general nature of the life safety

risk analysis system and was given a detailed description of the safety model.

The individuals were encouraged to seek more information about the system or any individual parameter, if the information given to them was insufficient.

No guidance was provided as to the importance of any redundancy system or individual parameter.
NBS Delphi Group

Benjamin, Irwin

Bright, Richard

Budnick, Edward

Bukowski, Richard

Cooper, Leonard

Custer, Richard

Gomberg, A1

Gross, Daniel

Lee, Bill

Nelson, Harold

O’Neill, John

Parker, William

Peacock, Richard

Vogel, Bertram

Division Chief, Structural Engineer

Senior Fire Protection Engineer

Program Head, Fire Protection Engineer

Program Head, Electrical Engineer

Fire Prevention Engineer

Division Chief, Fire Protection Engineer

Program Head, Fire Protection Engineer

Senior Mechanical Engineer

Fire Protection Engineer

Program Head, Fire Protection Engineer

Fire Protection Engineer

Physicist

Chemical Engineer

Structural Engineer

1

Instructions for Completing of Forms

Each member of the Delphi Group was given five separate but identical forms, one for each of five fire safety functions: (1) General Fire Safety; (2) Fire

Development; (3) Fire Containment; (4) Emergency Egress; and (5) Emergency

Refuge. Delphi members were told the safety requirements should be considered

as they apply to multifamily housing. They were also given a form for Detached

Single Family Type Residential Structures and a form for Hotel/Dormitory Type

Residential Structures to be rated for General Fire Safety. They were instructed

to rate each category of each safety parameter on its effect in providing a safe (or unsafe) facility through the mechanism of the specific safety function.

Each form had a clear statement of the specific safety function to be evaluated.

General instructions for completing the questionnaire were:

1. Evaluate the relative worth of the safety requirement (i.e., parameter

category) on the five fire safety functions and three types of buildings,

one pair at a time, and record conclusions on the appropriate questionnaires .

!•

90
2. Use numerical values to express the level of safety or hazard for

each subdivision of each parameter.

3. The range of numerical values should not exceed (+10) for the highest

level of safety or (-10) for the condition presenting the most severely

hazardous condition. It is not necessary to use both (+10) and (-10)

.

Such should occur only if the safety value of the most important safeguard exactly compensates the risk imposed by the most detrimental

element. If this is not true, the maximum safety value and maximum

risk number should not be identical. Where the parameter's status

neither improves safety nor creates a hazardous condition, a "zero"

value should be assigned.

4. Add additional safety parameters to any of the questionnaires if

required to provide a more complete safety evaluation.

5. Increase the number of parameter subdivisions or categories if the

number shown on the forms is insufficient.

6. Remarks may be made on each of the seven forms.

Analysis of the Questionnaires

1. Forms . The completed forms were checked for completeness, illegible

numbers, and remarks. Where required, individuals were asked to provide

additional information to complete the questionnaire. Figures 2 and 3,

of the main body of this report, show the format used.

2. Preparation of Parameter Values . Each individual was requested to submit

approximately 700 values, which made the process of judging quite

laborious. The values for each safety level were clustered to identify

where major deviations occurred. An individual who supplied values

significantly different from the cluster was asked for the reasoning

behind his choice. Mostly the differences were generated by misinterpretations of the safety parameter functions. The values were then

adjusted by the individuals and the process of preparing a consensus

safety parameter table began.

91
3. Safety Parameter Table . Fifteen safety parameters were chosen to

represent the most important areas of fire safety in multifamily and

hotel/dormitory buildings. Nine safety parameters were chosen for

single family buildings. The individual safety parameter values

were adjusted using arithmetic means. All the values were expressed

as whole, numbers rounded off toward the "conservative" side.

4. Safety Parameter Selection for the Redundancy Systems . It is generally

recognized that not all safety parameters are of equal importance in

providing safety for a particular redundancy fire safety system. To

identify those parameters which provide significant safety levels for

each of the proposed redundancy systems, the following method was used.

For each redundancy system a set of three tables was sequentially

generated. The first table had all the values of each parameter as assigned by the individual Delphi member. The second table was similar

to the first, except numerical values were clustered in six ranks. The

ranks are: High (10-8); Medium (7-4); Low (3-0); Negative Low (-1 to -3);

Negative Medium (-4 to -7 ; and Negative High (-8 to -10) . The third

table ranked the safety parameters according to whether they provided

high safety values or small safety values. Parameters with high safety

values were included in the particular redundancy equation. The low

value parameters were excluded from the equations because their ability

to affect the total safety of a particular redundancy system was marginal.

A number of safety parameters could not be evaluated by this sytem. The

Delphi members could not agree on a general value for those safety

parameters. About one-half of the members assigned high safety values

to those parameters, where the other half assigned low safety values for

the same parameters. Additional Delphi group query did not change their

initial parameter values. To reflect the Delphi group split, the safety

values of those parameters were divided by one-half

.

5. Delphi Group Status . The Delphi group finished its prime assignment to

provide the basic system to be analyzed by the outside Peer Consulting

Panels. The Delphi group also met several times after finishing this

initial assignment to consider adjustments or changes to the system

suggested by the outside consultants or identified through NBS research.

At each meeting the group analyzed the problem and suggested possible

improvements to the system.

92
APPENDIX D

PEER CONSULTING PANEL

William Austin

HUD - Public Housing

Room 6243

410 7th Street, SW

Washington, DC 20411

Donald Belles

Suite 200

101 Cumberland Avenue

Madison, TN 37115

Irwin Benjamin

Benjamin - Clark Associates

10605 Concord Street

Kensington, MD 20895

(Was at Center for Fire Research

when Panel was active)

J. Armand Bur gun

Rogers, Burgan, Shanine & Deschler

521 Fifth Avenue

New York, NY 10017

Arnold Gangnes

Gangnes/Klappenbach Architects

620 Vance Building

Seattle, WA 98101

George Gray

Rutherford Road

RD if 1, Box 184

West Sand Lake, NY 12196

Alfred J. Longhitano

Gage-Babcock Associates, Inc.

105 Kisco Avenue

Mt. Kisco, NY 10549

Robert Lynch

8325 Via De Encanto

Scottsdale, AZ 85258

James K. Meharg, Administrator

Goodwin House

4800 Fillmore Avenue

Alexandria, VA 22311

Ashot Mnatzakanian

President's Committee on Mental Retardation

Room 4025, 7th & D Streets, SW

Washington, DC 20201

Donald L. Moore

Department of HUD

Architect and Engineering

Division

451 7th Street, SW

Washington, DC 20411

Jonas Morehart

Room 4709, HHS North

330 Independence Avenue

Washington, DC 20201

Milton J. Prassas

300 Holiday Drive

Apartment 1701

Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316

Hank Roux

Armstrong Cork Co.

Research and Development Center

Lancaster, PA 17604

James C. Shipley

8110 Hatteras Lane

Springfield, VA 22151

Howard Summers, Jr.

Office of State Fire Marshal

205 North Fourth Street

Richmond, VA 23219

Mayer Zimmerman

D HHS : HCFA

Room 2-F-3 Dogwood E. Bldg.

1849 Gwynn Oak Avenue

Baltimore, MD 21207

93
Appendix E

National Park Service

Buildings Surveyed by Melott

Yosemite National Park

Ahwahnee Hotel

Ahwahnee Bungalows

Yosemite Lodge

Cedar

Maple

Elderberry

Pine

Tamarack

Oak

Curry Village

Stoneman Lodge

819 House

Tent Cabins

Cabins Nos. 1, 24, 36C, 187

Wawona

Wawona Annex

Clark Cottage

Washburn Cottage

Moore's Cottage

Wawona Hotel

Employee Housing

H Dorm

J Dorm

K Dorm

Ozone Dorms

Two unnamed employee dorms

Cabin Dorms

E Dorm

A Dorm

Lost Arrow Dorm

Ahwahnee Dorm

Crater Lake National Park

Crater Lake Lodge

Crater Lake Cabins

Ponderosa Cabins

Sleeping Cabins

Crater Lake Dormitory

Mt. Rainier National Park

Paradise Inn

Ohanapecosh Employee quarters

Guide Service Building (Employee quarters upstairs)

Visitors Center (Employee quarters in basement)

Longmire Employee Housing modular units

YCC Dorm

Building 110

Building 135

Girls Dorm

Longmire National Park Inn

94
Sunrise Lodge

North Block House

South Block House

Ski Dorm

Glacier National Park

Village Inn

Lake McDonald Lodge

Cobb Cottage

Snyder Dorm

Boys Dorms 1 and 2

Johnson Dorm

Garden Court

Lake McDonald Cabins Nos. 7, 8, 9, 12, 13

Lake McDonald Motels (ten unit, twenty unit)

Many Glacier Hotel

Lower (No Place) Dorm

McKinley Dorm

Swiftcurrent (two types of motel units)

Swiftcurrent Cabins

Yellowstone National Park

Windflower Dorm

Snow Lodge

Snow Lodge Cabins

Obsidian Dorm

Hamilton Dorm

Old Faithful Inn

Hamilton General Store Dorms

Columbine Dorm

Old Faithful Lodge

Old Faithful Lodge Cabins

Mammoth Hot Springs Hotel

Hamilton Stores Dorms at Mammoth

Laundry Dorm

Juniper Dorm

Aspen Dorm

Spruce Dorm

Hamilton Photo Shop

Lake Hotel

Sandpiper Dorm

Lake Cabins

Larkspur Dorm

95
NBS-114A (REV. 2»8Q

)

U.S. DEPT. OF COMM. BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET (See instructions)

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

PUBLICATION OR

REPORT NO.

2. Performing Organ. Report NoJ 3. Publication Date

NBSIR 84-2896 September 1984

Fire Safety Evaluation System for National Park Service Overnight Accommodations

5. AUTHOR(S)

H.E. Nelson. A.J. Shibe. B.M. Levin, S.D. Thorne r L.Y. Copper

6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION (If joint or other than NBS. see instructions) 7. Contract/Grant No. NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 8. Type of Report & Period Covered

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

Final

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (Street. City. State. ZIP)

National Park Service

Department of Interior

Washington, D.C. 20240

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

J

Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FIPS Software Summary, is attached.

11. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most significant information. If document includes a significant

bi bl iography or literature survey, mention it here) A fire safety evaluation system for overnight accommodations has been developed

and is ready for use in evaluating the fire safety of National Park Service

residential accommodations. The system can be used to determine combinations

of widely accepted fire safety equipment and building construction features that

provide a level of safety equivalent to that required by the widely accepted

Life Safety Code of the National Fire Protection Association. The system will

provide flexibility in meeting fire safety requirements for both the renovations

of existing facilities and the design of new facilities.

An approach for controlling smoke from fires in atrium-like arrangements is

presented and documented in an appendix. It can be used to determine smoke

(exhaust) fan capacity and placement. It is based on the physics of the buoyant

hot gas plume produced by the fire.

12. KEY WORDS (Six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only proper names; and separate key words by semicolons)

atriums; building construction; fire safety; fire safety evaluation system;

hotels; NFPA 101; residential buildings; smoke

13. AVAILABILITY

Qx] Uni i mi ted

| 1 For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

PH Order From Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

20402.

Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA. 22161

14. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

101

15. Price$13.00

USCOMM-DC 6043-P80