NISTIR 6582 

Benefits and Costs of Research: A 

Case Study of Fire Dynamics 

Simulation 

Barbara C. Lippiatt 

Office of Applied Economics 

Building and Fire Research Laboratory 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8603 
NISTIR 6582 

Benefits and Costs of Research: A 

Case Study of Fire Dynamics 

Simulation 

Barbara C. Lippiatt 

Office of Applied Economics 

Building and Fire Research Laboratory 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899 

January 2002 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Donald L. Evans, Secretary 

Technology Administration 

Phillip J. Bond, Under Secretary for Technology

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director
iii

Abstract 

The Fire Safety Engineering Division at the National Institute of Standards and Technology 

(NIST) has analyzed the interactions of sprinklers, draft curtains and roof heat and smoke vents 

using newly developed fire modeling software. The software, Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS), 

provides means to simulate fire growth and suppression in spaces protected with automatic fire 

sprinklers. At the request of National Fire Protection Research Foundation (NFPRF), the NIST 

Building and Fire Research Laboratory (BFRL) assisted in the planning and analysis of industry 

funded large-scale tests that involved the three fire protection systems. Three fire protection 

devices were required in warehouses by the Uniform Fire Code (UFC), a prescriptive model 

code serving over one-third of the Nation: sprinklers, draft curtains, and roof vents. Some 

property owners considered these multiple requirements to be outdated, overly conservative, and 

costly. Yet the traditionally-accepted way to evaluate the validity of proposed code changes 

involves an extensive series of expensive, time-consuming, full-scale tests. In some cases, 

typical variations in series of large-scale tests have prevented conclusive results to be drawn 

from pure empirical studies. BFRL, working with industry, provided FDS simulations before 

each of a limited series of full-scale tests to help design the tests to return the most information 

possible. The simulation/testing approach proved successful. It yielded enough scientific 

evidence to help convince UFC code officials to remove draft curtain requirements from 

sprinklered warehouse facilities. A benefit-cost analysis shows BFRL’s contribution yielded a 

Present Value Net Savings ranging from $186 million to $377 million, a Savings-to-Investment 

Ratio from 50.24 to 100.61, and an Adjusted Internal Rate of Return from 25.1 % to 28.7 %. 

The three economic measures of worth indicate that the FDS application was an economically 

worthwhile effort. 

Key words: Building economics; economic analysis; fire protection; fire simulation; impact 

evaluation; life-cycle costing; safety; warehouse facilities. 
iv

Acknowledgments 

This report could not have been completed without the help of others. The author wishes to 

thank David Evans and Kevin McGrattan of the NIST/BFRL Fire Safety Engineering Division 

for their support and for providing the background, insights, and industry contacts necessary to 

complete the economic analysis. Deserving thanks for their time and willingness to share 

expertise are interviewees Rick Mulhaupt of the National Fire Protection Research Foundation, 

William Tomes of TVA, Inc., Craig Beyler of Hughes Associates, Kenneth Linder and Todd 

Schumann of GE Industrial Risk Insurers, and Dave Nuss, NFPA Regional Manager. Deserving 

special thanks is Robert Chapman of the NIST/BFRL Office of Applied Economics who led four 

earlier BFRL impact studies, laying an excellent foundation for launching this study. The author 

has liberally borrowed from his approach, data sources, and result presentation format. Also 

deserving thanks are Harold Marshall and Stephen Weber, also of the Office of Applied 

Economics, for their comments that inspired many improvements. 
v

Contents 

Abstract.............................................................................................................................. iii 

Acknowledgments.............................................................................................................. iv

List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... vi 

List of Figures and Exhibits.............................................................................................. vii 

1. Background and Introduction ..........................................................................................1 

2. Benefits, Costs, and Stakeholders....................................................................................3 

2.1 U. S. Fire Protection Industry ....................................................................................3 

2.2 Fire Dynamics Simulator ...........................................................................................8 

3. Data and Assumptions ...................................................................................................11 

4. Baseline Analysis of Economic Impacts........................................................................17 

5. Sensitivity Analysis of Economic Impacts ....................................................................24 

6. Future Directions ...........................................................................................................28 

References..........................................................................................................................29 
vi

List of Tables 

Table 1. Fire Protection Benefits and Costs by Stakeholder ..............................................5 

Table 2. FDS Benefits and Costs by Stakeholder...............................................................9 

Table 3. Warehouse Floorspace Affected by Uniform Fire Code Change in Millions of 

 Square Meters per Year (million ft2/yr).....................................................................18 

Table 4. Baseline Analysis: Present Value Savings Attributable to BFRL, in 2000 

 Dollars........................................................................................................................19 

Table 5. Present Value Investment Costs to BFRL, in Millions of 2000 Dollars .............20 

Table 6. Sensitivity Analysis: Present Value Savings Attributable to BFRL based on 

 Pessimistic Draft Curtain Savings, in 2000 $ ............................................................25 

Table 7. Sensitivity Analysis: Present Value Savings Attributable to BFRL based on 

 Optimistic Draft Curtain Savings, in 2000 $ .............................................................26 

Table 8. Summary: BFRL Contribution to Cost Savings from Removal of Draft Curtain 

Requirements from Uniform Fire Code, 1996-2020..................................................27 
vii

List of Figures and Exhibits 

Figure 1. Total Warehouse Floorspace by Year of Construction ......................................12 

Exhibit 1. Summary of Economic Impacts of BFRL Research on Fire Dynamics Simulation

....................................................................................................................................21 
1

1. Background and Introduction 

Through the development of products like the Fire Dynamics Simulation (FDS) software the 

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) seeks to help fire protection engineers 

design fire safety systems tailored to individual buildings. FDS packages the latest advances in 

computer technology with the latest in computational fluid dynamics and fire safety engineering, 

producing software that simulates fire growth and suppression in facilities protected with 

automatic fire sprinklers and other fire protection features. These developments are intended to 

help design fire safety systems of the future that are more effective and economical. 

The need for the NIST FDS software stems from significant industry pressures. The cost of fire 

safety systems installed in the United States exceeds $21 billion annually.1 Property owners are 

anxious to provide more cost-effective protection for their facilities against the risk of fire 

without compromising safety. However, local fire safety requirements are based on prescriptive 

codes enforced by local authorities. The traditionally accepted way to evaluate the performance 

of new fire safety systems, justify prescriptive code changes, and demonstrate the acceptance of 

cost-effective new technology, involves expensive, time-consuming full-scale testing. 

For warehouse size facilities, full-scale fire testing typically costs between $50,000 and $75,000 

per test. A series of nominally a dozen full-scale tests is often required to fully evaluate the 

performance of a proposed fire safety system. In some cases, even a series of 12 tests proves 

inconclusive; there is no guarantee a testing series will yield the scientific evidence required to 

enable a code change or validate an existing code. Furthermore, the testing involves many weeks 

of work to set up elaborate equipment, often an extensive period of taking data, and finally, time 

to analyze and understand the results. The availability of powerful new computers has the 

potential to reduce the costs of full-scale fire testing in two ways. First, simulation studies can 

substitute for some experiments by permitting extrapolation of conditions not actually observed. 

Several hundred different combinations of variables such as room configuration, load of 

combustible materials, and air flow can be simulated in a short period of computer time, 

reducing the need for the full-scale tests to a carefully selected set of critical ones. Computer 

modeling can also be used to target the most critical parameters for further full-scale testing, thus 

making more effective use of the full-scale tests. Thus, the computer is a valuable tool in fire 

research, both to study conditions that are too expensive to test extensively experimentally, and 

to assist in the design of data collection efforts that are carefully targeted to return the most 

information within a limited budget. 

In 1996, basic FDS research at NIST reached a level of maturity permitting development of a 

practical application intended to take advantage of the benefits of computer simulation. The 

application involved simulating the interactions among sprinklers, draft curtains, and roof vents 

in warehouse facilities.2

 All three fire protection devices were required in warehouses by the 

 

1

 Ramachandran, G. 1998. The Economics of Fire Protection. London: E & FN Spon, p 18. Annual averages for the 

years 1991-1993 were converted to 1998 dollars using the U.S. Department of Labor’s Consumer Price Index 

reported at http://stat.bls.gov/cpihome.htm. 

2

 McGrattan, K. B., Hamins, A., and D. W. Stroup. 1998. Sprinkler, Smoke and Heat Vent, Draft Curtain 
2

Uniform Fire Code (UFC), which serves as a model code (or one which many local jurisdictions 

adopt) for about one-third of the Nation. Draft curtains are rows of barriers (typically made of 

sheet metal) hung vertically from warehouse ceilings to contain the flow of smoke and heat and 

direct it to roof vents. There was some concern among property owners and sprinkler 

manufacturers, however, that not only was the UFC requirement for draft curtains in facilities 

protected with automatic fire sprinklers unnecessary and unduly expensive, but that draft 

curtains actually hindered the performance of fire sprinklers. But the traditional route for testing 

the validity of their claims, and collecting the scientific evidence necessary to convince code 

officials to remove draft curtains requirements, involved prohibitively expensive and perhaps 

inconclusive full-scale fire testing. The Fire Safety Engineering Division of the NIST Building 

and Fire Research Laboratory had an opportunity to use its newly developed FDS software to 

help a National Fire Protection Research Foundation (NFPRF) consortium of industrial facilities 

owners, fire sprinkler manufacturers, and roof vent manufacturers reduce the expense of fullscale tests, provide greater understanding and confidence in the measured results, and potentially 

save property owners millions of dollars in draft curtain costs. 

The NIST Building and Fire Research Laboratory (BFRL) Office of Applied Economics was 

asked to estimate the economic impact of this application of the FDS research, that is, of 

simulating the interactions among sprinklers, draft curtains, and roof vents in warehouses. The 

measurement of economic impacts of research is a major objective of NIST. Measuring 

economic impacts is essential to BFRL to help select the "best" among competing research 

programs, to evaluate how cost effective are existing research programs, and to defend or 

terminate programs on the basis of their economic impact. 

This is the fifth in the current series of impact studies prepared by BFRL.3

 This study follows the 

same basic approach as the others by: (1) identifying the benefits, costs, and stakeholders of the 

FDS program, (2) describing the data and assumptions for the economic impact assessment, (3) 

conducting a baseline analysis of economic impacts, (4) conducting a sensitivity analysis of 

economic impacts, and (5) summarizing results in a standardized BFRL Summary Impact 

Statement. Thus, the results of the FDS economic impact study can be compared to the results of 

the other studies in the BFRL series. 

 

Interaction: Large Scale Experiments and Model Development. NISTIR 6196-1. Gaithersburg, MD: National 

Institute of Standards and Technology. 3

 Chapman, R. E. 2000. Benefits and Costs of Research: A Case Study of Construction Systems Integration and 

Automation Technologies in Industrial Facilities. NISTIR 6501. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards 

and Technology; Chapman, R. E. 1999. Benefits and Costs of Research: A Case Study of Cybernetic Building 

Systems. NISTIR 6303. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology; Chapman, R.E., and 

S.F. Weber. 1996. Benefits and Costs of Research: A Case Study of the Fire Safety Evaluation System. NISTIR 

5863. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology; and Chapman, R. E., and S. K. Fuller. 

1996. Benefits and Costs of Research: Two Case Studies in Building Technology. NISTIR 5840. Gaithersburg, MD: 

National Institute of Standards and Technology. 
3

2. Benefits, Costs, and Stakeholders 

To understand the context within which the market for the FDS program operates, an economic 

profile of the U.S. fire protection industry is developed. The profile identifies and defines all the 

costs and benefits of fire protection, by stakeholder group. It consists of 19 benefits and 27 costs 

across 6 stakeholder groups. Within this fire protection context, a subset of benefits, costs, and 

stakeholders are identified as being affected by the overall FDS research program. Within this 

subset, in turn, the particular benefits and costs affected by the sprinkler/draft curtain/roof vent 

FDS application are identified. These FDS application benefits and costs are the focus of this 

case study and will be studied in some detail in the following chapters of this report. Note, 

however, that the economic profile of the U.S. fire protection industry, as well as the profile of 

the overall FDS program, provide an efficient starting point for future economic impact studies 

of other BFRL fire research efforts and other FDS applications. 

2.1 U. S. Fire Protection Industry 

The benefits and costs of fire protection are of two major types: uncertain and certain. Uncertain 

benefits and costs accrue only when an actual fire occurs. Their amount depends upon the 

probability of a fire occurring and probable damage if a fire occurs. Uncertain benefits and costs 

include direct and indirect fire losses. Direct fire losses consist of property damage to a building 

and its contents. Indirect fire losses are those that occur after a fire has been extinguished, such 

as income losses and distress accompanying death and injury, and profit and employment losses 

arising from business disruption. 

Certain benefits and costs represent a much larger share of the costs of fire protection. They arise 

from activities intended to lower a stakeholder’s uncertain costs--by lowering the probability of a 

fire occurring, lowering probable damage, or by transferring uncertain costs to another 

stakeholder. Examples include insurance premiums, fire services, codes and standards activities, 

and fire protection technology. Fire protection technology includes both active fire protection 

measures such as smoke detection and sprinklering systems, and passive measures incorporating 

protection into the building’s structure, materials, and design. 

There are six major groups of stakeholders, or groups with an economic interest in fire 

protection: property owners, the local community, the insurance industry, fire protection device 

manufacturers, device testing labs, and the Nation. For all stakeholders except the Nation, 

transfer payments are common. For example, property owners pay insurance premiums to the 

insurance industry, and pay property taxes to fund fire services for the local community. Or, a 

large fire may lead to business disruption and its attendant profit and employment losses for one 

local community that are offset by gains for another. While transfer payments such as these are 

important to the private sector and the local community, they are irrelevant for a benefit-cost 

analysis at the societal, or national level. At the national level, a benefit-cost analysis should 

evaluate only the probable reduction in total fire protection costs due to a change in fire safety 

technology.

4

 The FDS economic impact study is a benefit-cost analysis at the national level, 

 

4

 G. Ramachandran, 1998, p. 15. 
4

accounting for the benefits and costs of all stakeholder groups net of transfer payments. 

Table 1 identifies the benefits and costs of fire protection by stakeholder group. In this table, a 

stakeholder’s financial interest (benefit or cost) is denoted by a “B” for a benefit or “C” for a 

cost. Summing all benefits (cost savings) and costs across all stakeholders yields the total net 

cost of fire protection to the Nation. The benefits and costs of fire protection are defined below. 

Uncertain Benefits and Costs 

Direct Fire Losses 

Property Owner Cost. When a fire occurs, the property owner incurs a financial loss from 

property damage that is equal in amount to the insurance deductible, or if self-insured, to the 

entire amount of the damage. 

Insurance Industry Cost. When a fire occurs, the property owner’s insurance company, if any, 

incurs a financial loss from property damage that equals the amount of the damage award, less 

the deductible. 

Indirect Fire Losses—Business Disruption: Profits 

Property Owner Cost. When a fire occurs, a commercial/industrial property owner (or tenant) 

incurs a financial loss from business disruption that is equal in amount to the business 

interruption insurance deductible, if insured for such a loss. If self-insured, the financial loss 

equals the entire financial loss from business disruption. In the extreme, business disruption is 

permanent, meaning bankruptcy. 

Local Community Cost and Benefit. As a result of a commercial/industrial fire, suppliers and 

customers of the fire-hit business may lose profits. Most of these secondary losses occur in the 

local community and may be offset by profit gains for another. Another reason for a profit gain 

by other local communities is that competitors of the fire-hit firm may make up for the loss of 

productive capacity by using their excess capacity such that national production, and thus profit, 

does not change. 

Insurance Industry Cost. When a fire occurs, the commercial/industrial property owner’s (or 

tenant’s) business interruption insurance company, if any, incurs a financial loss from business 

disruption that is equal in amount to the financial loss award from business disruption, less the 

deductible. 

Indirect Fire Losses—Business Disruption: Employment 

Local Community Cost. As a result of a commercial/industrial fire, the fire-hit business, its 

suppliers, and its customers may suffer employment losses due to the loss of productive capacity 
5

Table 1. Fire Protection Benefits and Costs by Stakeholdera 

Uncertain Benefits and Costs Certain Benefits 

Indirect Fire Losses 

Business Disruption Death & Injury Fire Protection 

Stakeholder 

Direct Fire Losses 

Profits Employment Income Distress Active Passive

Insuranc

Premium

Property Owner C C C C B,C B,C C Local Community B,C B,C C C B B Insurance Industry C C C C B,C B,C B Fire Protection Device Mfr. C C B B Device Testing Labs C C B B Nation B B aA stakeholder’s economic interest in a fire protection benefit or cost is denoted by a “B,” for a benefit, or “C,” for a cost
6

at the fire-hit business. Most of these employment losses occur in the local community and may 

be offset by employment gains for another. 

Indirect Fire Losses—Death and Injury: Income 

Property Owner, Device Manufacturer, and Testing Lab Costs. Deaths and injuries from a 

commercial/industrial fire can lead to profit losses for the property owner/tenant, fire protection 

device manufacturer, and device testing laboratory in the form of lawsuits brought to compensate 

for income losses of fire victims. 

Local Community Cost. Deaths and injuries from a commercial/industrial fire result in income 

losses for the victims and their families, who are citizens of the local community. Income losses 

due to an injury can be from disruption in employment and from health insurance deductibles. 

Income losses due to a death are from loss of employment, less life insurance payout. Income 

losses may be offset in part or full by lawsuit winnings net of legal costs. 

Insurance Industry Cost. Deaths and injuries from a commercial/industrial fire lead to life, 

health, and business insurance payouts to compensate for loss of income, medical bills, and legal 

costs. 

Indirect Fire Losses—Death and Injury: Distress 

Property Owner, Device Manufacturer, and Testing Lab Costs. Deaths and injuries from a 

commercial/industrial fire can lead to profit losses for the property owner/tenant, fire protection 

device manufacturer, and device testing laboratory in the form of lawsuits brought to compensate 

for the distress of fire victims and their families, and in the form of goodwill losses. Note that at 

the national level, goodwill losses are offset in part by competing firms taking advantage of a 

goodwill loss by increasing their share of the market. 

Local Community Cost. Deaths and injuries from a commercial/industrial fire result in distress 

for the victims and their families, who are citizens of the local community. Distress may be 

offset in part or full by lawsuit winnings net of legal costs. 

Insurance Industry Cost. Deaths and injuries from a commercial/industrial fire may lead to 

business insurance company costs from lawsuit payouts to compensate for distress. 

 

Certain Benefits and Costs 

Active and Passive Fire Protection 

Property Owner Benefit and Cost. Property owners incur the life-cycle costs of active and 

passive fire protection, including purchase, installation, maintenance, and operating costs (e.g., 

water charges). Benefits include reductions in property loss, in insurance premiums, and in 

private fire service costs, as well as tax allowances. Tax allowances include ignoring the added 

property value with additional fire protection, and crediting a percent of purchase and 

installation costs to Federal income taxes. 

Local Community Benefit. The local community saves on fire service costs as a result of active 

and passive fire protection. Note that this benefit may transfer to the property owner through tax 

allowances for fire protection. 
7

Insurance Industry Benefit and Cost. Insurance premiums consist of a risk portion and a profit 

portion. The insurance industry loses the profit portion of insurance premium reductions given 

property owners based on their lower risk exposure with active and passive fire protection. On 

the other hand, the lower risk exposure transferred to the insurance industry reduces the 

variability of insurance payouts, resulting in greater profit rates for insurance companies. Thus, 

while insurance revenues may go down, profits may go up. 

Device Manufacturer Benefit. Manufacturers of active and passive fire protection technologies 

earn profit from their sale. 

Testing Lab Benefit. Device testing labs earn profit from testing fire safety systems. 

National Benefit. The increase in public safety from active and passive fire protection measures 

is a societal benefit. 

 Insurance 

Property Owner Cost. In exchange for the transfer of their exposure to the risk of fire loss, 

property owners pay insurance premiums regularly. 

Insurance Industry Benefit. The insurance stakeholder receives regular insurance premiums from 

the property owner in exchange for accepting their exposure to the risk of fire losses. The 

premium consists of a risk portion and a profit portion. 

Fire Services 

Property Owner Cost. Property owners pay property taxes to support local fire services and 

directly fund private fire services. 

Local Community Cost. The local community and its citizens provide funds to the local fire 

service through property taxes and fundraising drives. 

National Benefit. The increase in public safety from local and private fire services is a societal 

benefit. 

Codes and Standards 

Property Owner Benefit and Cost. The property owner benefits from codes and standards 

through reduced death, injury, and property loss; and pays for compliance costs net of active and 

passive fire protection costs. 

Local Community Cost. The local community pays for codes and standards through code 

development and enforcement. 
8

Insurance Industry Benefit. Codes and standards provide information to help the insurance 

industry better manage its risk exposure, a benefit. 

Device Manufacturer Cost. The device manufacturer pays for codes and standards through 

compliance costs. 

National Benefit and Cost. The Nation enjoys a societal benefit, increased public safety, in 

exchange for its code and standard development costs. 

2.2 Fire Dynamics Simulator 

Having defined the benefits, costs, and stakeholders of the fire protection industry as a whole, 

the benefits and costs specifically attributable to the FDS research program may be identified. 

An important simplifying assumption is that the chief benefit of FDS is information. That is, 

FDS provides decision makers with better and more complete information with which to make 

cost-effective fire protection decisions. It is assumed FDS does not change the probability of or 

likely property loss from a fire. Its primary impact is one of cost reduction through better 

information. In other words, a key assumption is that public safety, and thus uncertain costs, is 

held constant while the certain costs of fire protection are reduced.5

Table 2 identifies the certain benefits and costs of FDS by stakeholder group. In this table, a 

stakeholder’s financial interest (benefit or cost) is denoted by a “BFDS” for a benefit or “CFDS” for 

a cost. Those benefits and costs affected by the FDS application to the sprinkler/draft 

curtain/roof vent issue are further identified with an asterisk (“BFDS*” for a benefit and “CFDS*” 

for a cost). 

Active Fire Protection

Property Owner Benefit and Cost. FDS allows for more cost-effective fire protection system 

design through better fire scenario prediction accuracy. In other words, FDS provides more 

precise risk estimates, so system designers need not use the overly conservative risk estimates of 

the past that led to higher system costs. This FDS benefit is relevant to the sprinkler/draft 

curtain/roof vent application because the FDS application tested the utility of draft curtains in 

sprinklered warehouses. Besides the potential for savings in draft curtain costs, further savings 

were at stake because draft curtains limit flexibility in warehouse floor layout. Storage racks are 

not permitted beneath draft curtains. Eliminating draft curtains from sprinklered warehouses 

would thus permit greater efficiency in warehouse floor layout. 

Property owners often finance the full-scale tests that may yield the scientific proof required to 

eliminate overly conservative fire protection requirements. In the case of the sprinkler/draft 

curtain/roof vent application, an industry consortium led by the National Fire Protection 

Research Foundation and including the American Architectural Manufacturers Association, Colt 

Industries, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Home Depot, Industrial Risk Insurers (now 

 

5

 Note that for the sprinkler/draft curtain/roof vent application of FDS, some tests have shown that uncertain costs 

may actually rise with draft curtains in sprinklered facilities because the presence of the curtains causes more 

sprinklers to activate in a fire, causing more sprinkler damage to property. 
9

GE Capital), National Fire Protection Association, three member companies of the National Fire 

Sprinkler Association (Central Sprinkler Company, Grinnell Corporation, and Viking 

Corporation) financed full-scale tests. 

Table 2. FDS Benefits and Costs by Stakeholdera 

Certain Benefits and Costs 

Fire Protection 

Stakeholder Active Passive

Insurance 

Premiums 

Fire 

Services 

Codes & 

Standards 

Property 

Owner 

BFDS*,CFDS* BFDS*

Local 

Community 

 CFDS 

Insurance 

Industry 

 BFDS* 

Fire Protection 

Device Mfr. 

BFDS, CFDS* BFDS

Device 

Testing Labs 

BFDS, CFDS 

Nation BFDS

CFDS*

a

Potential FDS research benefits and costs are denoted by the subscript “FDS.” Those benefits and costs relevant to 

the FDS sprinkler/draft curtain/roof vent application are further denoted by as asterisk following the “FDS” 

subscript (FDS*). Table 1 fire protection benefits and costs are given in gray shading for reference. 

Device Manufacturer Benefit and Cost. FDS can potentially lower manufacturer research and 

development costs by: 

1. Simplifying and speeding up product development. FDS can reduce the number of expensive 

full-scale tests needed from testing laboratories by simulating these experiments, facilitating 

product designs with a greater chance of passing full-scale tests earlier in the testing series. 

Furthermore, since laboratory testing takes time to design and conduct, reducing their 

number will shorten the time-to-market for new products, a key factor in product 

profitability. This benefit does not apply to the FDS application studied here because a new 

product was not at stake.

2. Enabling more effective and reliable products. Fed by better technical information from FDS, 

designers may have more insight with which to design better fire protection technologies. In 

the long run, this may reduce the risk of fire and its associated uncertain costs. In the short 

run, this will lead to increased profit from sales (including foreign sales), as well as fewer 
10

lawsuits from malfunctioning devices. Note that reduced sales of selected product lines, as in 

the sprinkler/draft curtain/roof vent application, must be accounted for in measuring sales 

changes. The FDS application had the potential to reduce installations of draft curtains. 

Testing Lab Benefit and Cost. FDS has the potential to reduce the number of tests required in a 

typical testing series (see Device Manufacturer Benefit above), thereby reducing testing lab 

profit. On the other hand, the number of testing series demanded may increase with their greater 

affordability, thereby increasing testing lab profit. In the context of the sprinkler/draft 

curtain/roof vent study, a single series of five full-scale tests was conducted, rendering these 

offsetting changes in lab profit inconsequential.

Insurance Industry Benefit. FDS can potentially provide better information to insurance 

companies with which to assess risk and set competitive insurance rates, leading to increased 

sales. This is especially important now with strong foreign competition. The FDS application 

indirectly had this impact on the insurance industry. 

Codes and Standards

Property Owner Benefit. FDS potentially generates detailed and reliable information that can 

substitute for and validate full-scale testing results, so that property owners may convince code 

officials of the fire safety of a more cost-effective design. The sprinkler/draft curtain/roof vent 

application had the potential to remove costly draft curtain requirements from the Uniform Fire 

Code. 

Local Community Cost. Since FDS stimulates performance-based solutions, there will be a 

greater variety of designs for the local community to approve. This potential cost is irrelevant in 

the context of the sprinkler/draft curtain/roof vent application because the issue was with the 

prescriptive Uniform Fire Code. 

Device Manufacturer Benefit. FDS potentially lowers manufacturer research and development 

costs by providing more detailed and reliable information with which manufacturers can 

document the fire safety of a new product, thereby simplifying the product approval process. 

This potential FDS benefit does not apply in the context of the sprinkler/draft curtain/roof vent 

application because it was removal of a fire protection device requirement that was at stake. 

National Benefit and Cost. FDS provides more detailed and reliable information with which to 

develop codes and standards, potentially leading to increased fire safety. Since the level of fire 

safety is assumed unchanged in the context of the FDS application studied here, this benefit is 

irrelevant. Another FDS benefit is its potential role in advancing the development of 

performance-based fire safety codes and standards. FDS removes an obstacle to performancebased codes by offering a sound assessment technique to estimate losses from fires in individual 

buildings. The authorities need such estimates to relax the requirements specified in prescriptive 

codes. While the sprinkler/draft curtain/roof vent application is conceivably an important first 

step in demonstrating FDS’ potential for accelerating performance-based solutions, its actual 

benefit was limited to changing the prescriptive code. 

BFRL’s FDS application development costs are costs incurred by the Nation. 
11

3. Data and Assumptions 

The focus of this economic impact study is the FDS application to fire protection requirements in 

warehouse facilities. The Uniform Fire Code (UFC), which serves as a model code for about 

one-third of the Nation, required three fire protection devices in warehouses: sprinklers, draft 

curtains, and roof vents. Property owners thought these requirements as outdated, overly 

conservative, and costly. They originated in the late 1960’s when taller warehouses were being 

built to accommodate high pile stock. This presented a fire protection challenge that sprinkler 

technology at the time could not meet alone. It was thought that roof vents and draft curtains 

could effectively pocket heat and smoke and lead to increased sprinkler effectiveness. As 

sprinkler technology improved over the succeeding decades, however, property owners and 

sprinkler manufacturers questioned the need for draft curtains in sprinklered warehouses. 

TVA, Incorporated, a highly regarded fire protection engineering firm with offices throughout 

the United States, had been studying the issue of draft curtain utility on behalf of property 

owners for decades. TVA, Inc. had conducted full-scale tests with Factory Mutual (FM), a 

testing laboratory, that questioned the utility of draft curtain requirements in sprinklered 

warehouse facilities. After the FM tests, and at the request of large warehouse property owners 

including General Motors, Ford, and Home Depot, the NIST/BFRL Fire Safety Engineering 

Division modeled and simulated the full-scale tests with their FDS software. The FM testing 

results provided key data enabling the development of a practical FDS application to the science 

of sprinkler, draft curtain, and roof vent interactions. These developments encouraged the large 

warehouse property owners to finance, through the National Fire Protection Research 

Foundation (NFPRF), five full-scale tests conducted at Underwriters Laboratories and guided by 

FDS simulations. With a limited budget for full-scale testing, the idea was to run FDS 

simulations before each new full-scale test to help design the test to return the most information 

possible. The simulation/testing approach bore fruit. It yielded enough scientific evidence to 

convince code officials to remove draft curtain requirements. In 2000, UFC removed draft 

curtain requirements for sprinklered warehouse facilities. 

To estimate the economic impact to the Nation of the UFC change, and BFRL’s contribution to 

the impact, the benefits and costs identified in table 2 as being relevant to the FDS application 

are quantified to the extent possible. The relevant benefits and costs are organized by stakeholder 

and estimated below. Note that measures of economic impact are developed in Chapter 4 by 

evaluating these benefits and costs over a period of 25 years beginning in 1996, when NIST 

began incurring development costs for the FDS application, and ending in 2020, for a study 

period of 25 years. The study period is set at 25 years for consistency with other BFRL economic 

impact studies. 

The base year, or the year for which time-equivalent values for all costs and savings are 

computed, is 2000. While the base year may be set at any year in the study period, the year 2000 
12

Figure 1. Total Warehouse Floorspace by Year of Construction 

Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey. 

is selected because results are more readily interpreted by readers when they are expressed in 

today’s dollars. 

Property Owner 

The UFC code change applies to newly constructed, sprinklered warehouse facilities under 

certain storage conditions. Figure 1 displays the latest available data for U.S. warehouse 

construction showing total warehouse floorspace as of 1995 by year of construction. Note that 

the rightmost bar indicates that 67.6 million square meters (727.5 million square feet) of the 

1995 stock was built over the five-year period 1990-1995. Extrapolating 1990-1995 figures 

through the year 2020 will likely yield a conservative estimate for new warehouse floorspace 

given the weakness of the commercial real estate market in the United States in the early ‘90s. 

Based on these data and assumptions, then, new warehouse floorspace is assumed to average 

13.5 million square meters (727.5/5, or 145.5 million square feet) annually over the study period.

Several considerations limit the floorspace to which the UFC change applies. Estimates of the 

size of these limitations are provided by William Tomes, Principal of TVA, Inc.6

 First, the UFC 

change applies only to warehouses that store high pile stock, consisting of any stock over 3.7 

meters (12 feet) high, or any Group A plastic stock over 1.5 meters (5 feet) high. Between 95 % 

and 99 % of new warehouse square footage meets these rather liberal storage requirements. For a 

conservative benefit estimate, the 95 % lower bound for applicable warehouse square footage is 

used. Second, the UFC model code covers occupancies in only one-third to one-half of the 

country. A figure of one-third for eligible warehouse floorspace will be used, again for a 

 

6

 Interviews with William Tomes, Principal of TVA, Inc., Atlanta, GA, 9/27/00 and 10/2/00. 

Total Floorspace of Warehouse Buildings (1995) = 8,481 Million Square Feet

 = 788 Million Square 

Meters

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

1919

 or

 Before

1920-

1945

1946-

1959

1960-

1969

1970-

1979

1980-

1989

1990-

1995

Year of Construction

Total Floorspace (Million 

Square Feet)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

Total Floorspace (Million 

Square Meters)
13

conservative benefit estimate. Third, in areas covered by the UFC, local jurisdictions may 

require draft curtains in sprinklered warehouse occupancies despite UFC requirements, or new 

warehouses may be built with draft curtains for other reasons. These contingencies reduce by an 

additional 5 % the warehouse floorspace actually affected by the UFC change. Finally, another 5 

% of new warehouse square footage is not sprinklered, rendering this space ineligible to take 

advantage of the code change. 

Warehouse property owners supported removal of the UFC requirement for draft curtains for two 

major reasons: curtain cost and floorspace flexibility. Regarding cost, the removal of draft 

curtain requirements led to significant cost savings for property owners. Draft curtains are rather 

unique fire protection devices; there are no draft curtain manufacturers per se. Rather, draft 

curtains are individually “manufactured” by contractors who build, assemble, and install these 

devices at the construction site using sheet metal. For this reason, draft curtains are not 

“products” for which national average costs are reported in construction cost manuals such as 

those published by R.S. Means, Inc. However, TVA, Inc. has conducted an informal study of 

draft curtain costs. According to TVA’s William Tomes, draft curtains cost between $4.31 and 

$6.46 per square meter of floorspace ($0.40-$0.60 per ft2

), depending on warehouse size and 

including materials, labor, and overhead and profit. However, there are significant hidden costs 

associated with installing draft curtains. All ceiling utilities, including lighting, duct work, and 

sprinkler systems, must be installed by punching holes through the obstruction created by draft 

curtains, significantly adding to their installed costs. These complications can more than double 

or triple the “real” cost of draft curtains, with estimates reaching $14.64 per square meter ($1.36 

per ft2).7 For the baseline economic impact analysis presented in the next chapter, a simple 

average of the lowest cited cost for direct draft curtain installation ($4.31/m2, or $0.40/ft2) and 

the highest cited cost including hidden costs ($14.64/m2

, or $1.36/ft2) will be used, yielding an 

estimate of $9.48 per square meter ($0.88/ft2) for draft curtain installation.8 Draft curtain costs 

are a key vairable in the economic impact analysis and will be the subject of sensitivity analysis 

in Chapter 5. 

The other important benefit to property owners afforded by the UFC change is increased 

flexibility in warehouse floor layout. Storage racks are not permitted beneath draft curtains. 

Eliminating draft curtains thus permits greater efficiency in warehouse floor layout, a potentially 

significant benefit for which there is no reliable quantitative data. Increased flexibility in floor 

layout will be treated as an important qualitative benefit in the context of this economic study. 

Offsetting the benefits to property owners of the UFC change is their expenditure for the smalland full-scale testing that complemented the FDS simulations. The NFPRF-led industry 

consortium contributed approximately $450,000 in 1997 dollars (or $478,598 in 2000 dollars) 

for the testing series. These costs, which occured in 1997, are deducted from benefits in the 

economic impact calculation. 

Insurance Industry 

 

7

 Interviews with William Tomes, Principal of TVA, Inc., Atlanta, GA, 9/27/00 and 10/2/00. 

8

 Note that the simple average is used to estimate the expected value of the distribution of draft curtain costs in the 

absence of reliable data on the nature of the probability distribution of draft curtain costs. 
14

GE Industrial Risk Insurers (IRI), one of the largest warehouse insurers in the world, had for 

years recommended draft curtains and roof vents in sprinklered warehouses. According to IRI’s 

Research Director Kenneth Linder,9 IRI recognized that advances in sprinkler technology over 

the years had reduced the need for draft curtains, so IRI did not press the issue of draft curtains 

and roof vents in these occupancies. Yet IRI was reluctant to entirely remove draft curtain 

recommendations without compelling scientific evidence to back up the position. The full-scale 

tests guided by the FDS application and undertaken by the NFPRF-led industry consortium 

provided the evidence they needed. IRI no longer routinely recommends draft curtains in 

warehouses. The FDS application helped provide an insurance company, in this case the single 

major warehouse insurer still recommending draft curtains, with better information with which to 

assess risk and set company policy. This is an important impact because in the competitive 

insurance industry, technical information that supports policy changes that in turn lead to 

significant property owner cost savings can increase an insurance company’s competitiveness. 

And in today’s global insurance market with stiff foreign competition, any competitive 

advantage can lead to increased sales. While data are not available to quantify this benefit of the 

FDS application, it is treated as an important qualitative benefit in the economic impact 

assessment. 

Device Manufacturer 

In the case of draft curtains, the “manufacturer” is the contractor who builds, assembles, and 

installs the devices on site. In a national context, the profit portion of installed draft curtain costs 

should be treated as a cost of the UFC change because removing draft curtain requirements has 

the disadvantage of lowering contractor profit. Contractor profit rates in the United States range 

from 5 % to 15 %.10 Deducting the average profit rate of 10 % from baseline draft curtain 

installation cost savings of $9.48 per square meter ($0.88/ft2) yields a net savings figure of $8.50 

per square meter ($0.79/ft2) for the baseline economic impact analysis. Contractor profit rates, a 

key variable in the economic impact analysis, will be the subject of sensitivity analysis in 

Chapter 5. 

Nation 

The NIST Building and Fire Research Laboratory (BFRL) funded the research required to apply 

the FDS model to the sprinkler/draft curtain/roof vent issue. These costs occurred from fiscal 

years (FY) 1996 through 2000 and include research related to further FDS model development, a 

software user interface, radiation transport, contract research performed by Northwestern 

University, as well as work done in FY 1999 and FY 2000 to develop a version of the improved 

FDS tool suitable for public release. In current dollars, these BFRL investment costs total 

$360,000 in FY96, $688,000 in FY97, $772,000 in FY98, $755,000 in FY99, and $547,500 in 

FY00. Since these research investment costs are incurred on a fiscal year basis while all other 

annual data for this case study are reported on a calendar year basis, fiscal year costs are 

converted to calendar year costs. Research investment costs are primarily staff-related costs 

incurred throughout the fiscal year, so the conversion is accomplished by simply allocating 25 % 

of fiscal year costs to the previous calendar year and 75 % to the current calendar year.11

 

9

 Interview with Kenneth Linder, Research Director for GE Industrial Risk Insurers, Hartford, CT, 10/5/00. 

10 R.S. Means Company, Inc., 1999. 2000 Building Construction Cost Data, CSI Subdivision 01310, on CD-ROM 

of Means 2000 CostWorks. Kingston, MA. 11 Investment costs for FY96 are allocated entirely to calendar year 1996 because BFRL staff did not begin work on 
15

BFRL Contribution to Savings 

Interviews with a variety of fire protection stakeholders helped establish the contribution made 

by BFRL to the UFC change. Stakeholders representing the fire research community, fire code 

officials, property owners, and the insurance industry all agreed that the five full-scale tests 

conducted at Underwriter’s Laboratories (UL) in 1997 and designed with NIST FDS simulations 

provided the scientific evidence compelling UFC code officials and the IRI to remove draft 

curtain requirements from sprinklered warehouses.12 While additional requirements are regularly 

added to fire codes, it is rare for any code requirement to be removed. The UFC change, 

therefore, was both a rare and significant accomplishment. And according to Rick Mulhaupt, 

President of the National Fire Protection Research Foundation,13

“The Uniform Fire Code would not have changed without NIST. I could not see 

removal of draft curtains on the horizon. NIST took the whole debate several 

steps beyond where it had been before.” 

According to Dave Nuss, NFPA Regional Manager and staffer for the draft curtain/smoke and 

heat vent-related code work for the Western Fire Chiefs Association (developers of the UFC),14

“The FDS results provided the compelling testimony at the code hearings that 

gave the fire service the confidence to approve the proposed code change 

(removing draft curtain requirements from sprinklered warehouses)." 

A contrary opinion was voiced by Hughes Associates, a fire protection engineering firm 

representing roof vent manufacturers. Roof vent manufacturers are threatened by UFC removal 

of draft curtain requirements, anticipating removal of roof vent requirements as the logical next 

step. According to Hughes’ Craig Beyler, while he is a big supporter of the FDS model and 

software and has no doubt the NIST report documenting the FDS simulations and the five fullscale tests was influential, he questions the extent of the contribution made by the FDS 

simulations. Rather, he credits the UFC change to preconceptions of key decisionmakers going 

in to the full-scale tests. According to Beyler, decisionmakers went into the UL testing series 

with knowledge of the results of the earlier full-scale tests conducted by TVA, Inc. at FM 

indicating potential problems with draft curtains. They were predisposed, then, to confirm their 

expectations by interpreting new full-scale tests similarly if its results were close to those from 

the earlier tests. It was the full-scale tests, not the FDS simulations, that motivated the UFC code 

change.15

 

the new project until after January 1, 1996. 

12 Interviews with Rick Mulhaupt, President, National Fire Protection Research Foundation, Quincy, MA, 9/29/00; 

William Tomes, Principal, TVA, Incorporated, Atlanta, GA, 9/27/00; Kenneth Linder, Research Director, GE 

Industrial Risk Insurers, Hartford, CT, 10/5/00; Todd Schumann, GE Industrial Risk Insurers, Chicago, IL, 10/9/00; 

Dave Nuss, NFPA Regional Manager, Denver, CO, 12/19/01; David Evans, Chief, Fire Safety Engineering 

Division, NIST, Gaithersburg, MD, 6/14/99 and 9/14/00; Kevin McGrattan, FDS Project Leader, NIST, 

Gaithersburg, MD, 10/4/00 and 10/10/00. 

13Mulhaupt interview, 9/29/00. 

14 Nuss interview, 12/19/01. 

15Craig Beyler interview, Hughes Associates, Baltimore, MD, 10/2/00. 
16

The Hughes argument is debatable. As noted above, it is rare for a code requirement to be 

removed or for an insurance company to change its position. According to NFPRF, a neutral 

party without a bias toward either property owners or vent manufacturers, the draft curtain 

debate for both code officials and IRI hinged on technical issues, which only compelling fullscale test results could resolve. Moreover, the FDS simulations played the key role of 

methodically designing and analyzing those tests. The scientific research community widely 

shares the belief that simulation plays a major role in experiment design, offering the ability to 

target the most critical parameters for further full-scale testing, thus making more effective use 

of the full-scale tests. Simulation studies can also substitute for some tests by permitting 

extrapolation of conditions not actually observed. Several hundred different combinations of 

variables such as room configuration, load of combustible materials, and air flow can be 

simulated in a short period of computer time, reducing the number of required full-scale tests to a 

carefully selected set of critical ones. The NFPRF-led industry consortium could only afford to 

fund five full-scale tests, so the demonstrated ability of the FDS simulations to efficiently design 

a limited number of tests to yield compelling scientific evidence was critical to the successful 

removal of draft curtain requirements from sprinklered warehouses. The FDS simulations 

carefully designed and analyzed the full-scale tests to return the critical information within the 

limited budget. Without the FDS simulations, an infeasible number of full-scale tests would most 

likely have been required. 

Based on the above, this economic impact study assumes the FDS simulations were critical to 

the code change. The strong endorsement given by the President of the National Fire Protection 

Research Foundation, a highly respected neutral party without a bias toward either property 

owners or vent manufacturers, that the UFC code change would not have occurred any time in 

the foreseeable future without NIST, supports the assumption that, as an upper bound, 

NIST/BFRL contributed 100 % to the resulting savings in draft curtain costs. The 

counterargument by Hughes supports the lower-bound assumption that NIST/BFRL contributed 

50 % to the savings. 
17

4. Baseline Analysis of Economic Impacts 

In this chapter, the baseline data developed in Chapter 3 are expressed as streams of benefit and 

cost flows that will provide direct input into calculating economic impact measures indicating 

the payoff on BFRL’s research investment dollars. For consistency and comparability, the same 

economic impact measures and analysis parameters are used as in the four earlier impact studies 

prepared by BFRL.16 As these impact measures and analysis parameters are extensively 

documented in the earlier BFRL reports and are widely accepted as methodologically 

appropriate and empirically sound, they are not explained in great detail here. The key message 

is that economic impact is expressed as present value net savings, savings-to-investment ratio, 

and adjusted internal rate of return as defined by ASTM standard practices.17 Present value net 

savings is a magnitude measure, showing the dollar value to the public net of FDS application 

investments. The savings-to-investment ratio is a multiplier; it shows how many dollars the 

public receives for each public dollar spent. The adjusted internal rate of return shows the annual 

return on public dollars spent on development of the FDS application. The period over which 

costs and savings are measured begins in 1996, when BFRL began investing in the FDS 

application, and ends in 2020, for a study period of 25 years as in the earlier BFRL studies. The 

discount rate for converting future costs to their equivalent present value is a real rate of 7 %, as 

in the earlier BFRL studies and as required by OMB Circular A-94 for all benefit-cost analyses 

of public investments that provide benefits or costs to the general public.18 Finally, since draft 

curtain costs and profit rates vary significantly and are key to the economic analysis, they will be 

the subject of sensitivity analysis in Chapter 5. For a complete description of benefit-cost 

analysis and its evaluation methods, including their algebraic representations, refer to Chapters 2 

and 3 of the 1996 BFRL study.19

Table 3 translates the warehouse floorspace data itemized in the previous chapter into total 

warehouse floorspace taking advantage of the UFC change. Note in column 5 the final result of 

3.9 million square meters per year (41.5 million square feet per year). This is a conservative 

estimate for two reasons. First, in all cases, the lower bound for applicable floorspace is used. 

Second, due to data limitations, an assumption is made that all restrictions on applicable 

floorspace—storage conditions, UFC coverage, local code requirements, and sprinklering—are 

mutually exclusive. For example, floorspace that does not meet storage requirements is assumed 

to satisfy the remaining conditions for UFC coverage, local codes, and sprinklering. If that same 

floorspace actually satisfies any of the other conditions, it should not be removed again for each 

additional condition it satisfies, as is done in table 3. Realistically, floorspace could easily meet 

two or more conditions. Thus, table 3 gives a conservative estimate of applicable floorspace. 

 

16 Chapman, R. E. 2000; Chapman, R. E. 1999; and Chapman, R. E., and S. K. Fuller. 1996. 17 American Society for Testing and Materials. Fourth Edition, 1999. ASTM Standards on Building Economics. 

West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials. 

18 Executive Office of the President. 1992. OMB Circular A-94. Washington, DC: Office of Management and 

Budget 

19 Chapman, R. E. and S. K. Fuller. 1996. 
18

Table 3. Warehouse Floorspace Affected by Uniform Fire Code Change in Millions of 

Square Meters per Year (million ft2/yr)

New 

Warehouse 

Floorspace 

(1) 

Meets Storage 

Requirements 

(2)=(1)*0.95 

Covered by 

Uniform Fire 

Code 

(3)=(2)*0.33 

Local Code 

without 

Curtains 

(4)=(3)*0.95 

Sprinklered 

(5)=(4)*0.95 

13.5 

(145.5) 

12.8 

(138.2) 

4.3 

(46.0) 

4.1 

(43.7) 

3.9 

(41.5) 

Table 4 illustrates the derivation of the present value net savings measure. Assuming all savings 

are attributable to NIST/BFRL, the net draft curtain cost savings figure developed in Chapter 3 is 

applied to the applicable floorspace figure given in table 3, assigning the resulting total cost 

savings, $32.90 million, to each year in the economic study period after the UFC change. The 

cost of the full-scale tests financed by the NFPRF-led industry consortium is assigned to the year 

in which it was incurred, 1997. Using the assumed discount rate of 7 %, this stream of costs and 

cost savings is converted to equivalent present values and summed. Since all savings are 

assumed attributable to BFRL, the sum, $380.8 million, represents the Present Value Savings 

Attributable to BFRL for the FDS application. In table 5, the stream of BFRL research costs over 

the five-year period 1996-2000, expressed in year 2000 dollars, is converted to equivalent 

present values and summed to arrive at the Present Value of Investment Costs to BFRL. 

The two summary figures derived in tables 4 and 5, Present Value Savings Attributable to BFRL 

and Present Value Investment Costs to BFRL, are used to develop the three summary economic 

impact measures given in the standardized BFRL Summary Impact Statement displayed in 

exhibit 1.20 Since the baseline analysis assumes that savings attributable to NIST/BFRL range 

from 50 % to 100 %, a corresponding range is shown for each impact measure. The Present 

Value Net Savings Attributable to BFRL, PVNS, ranges from $186.3 million to $377.0 million, a 

magnitude measure showing the dollar value to the public net of FDS application investments. 

The Savings-to-Investment Ratio of the BFRL Contribution, SIR, ranges from 50.24 to 100.61, a 

multiplier showing how much the public receives for each public dollar spent on the FDS 

application. The Adjusted Internal Rate of Return of the BFRL Contribution, AIRR, ranges from 

0.251 to 0.287, showing the return on public dollars spent on FDS application development 

throughout the study period. The three measures indicate that the FDS application was a very 

economically worthwhile project because their values far exceed conditions for economic worth 

(PVNS > 0), SIR > 1, and AIRR > 7 %).

 

20 The format for the standard BFRL Summary Impact Statement was developed and reported in Chapman, R. E., 

and S. K. Fuller. 1996. 
19

Table 4. Baseline Analysis: Present Value Savings Assuming All Savings Attributable to BFRL, in 2000 Do

Year 

(1) 

Net Draft Curtain 

Cost Savings 

in $/m2 ($/ft2) 

(2) 

Applicable Floorspace 

M m2 (M ft2) 

(3) 

Total Cost 

Savings 

$M 

(4)=(2)*(3) 

NFPRF Testing 

Costs 

$M 

(5) 

Discount Fact

(6) 

1996 1997 0.479 1.225 1998 1999 2000 8.50 (0.79) 3.9 (41.5) 32.90 1.000 2001 8.50 (0.79) 3.9 (41.5) 32.90 0.935 2002 8.50 (0.79) 3.9 (41.5) 32.90 0.873 2003 8.50 (0.79) 3.9 (41.5) 32.90 0.816 2004 8.50 (0.79) 3.9 (41.5) 32.90 0.763 2005 8.50 (0.79) 3.9 (41.5) 32.90 0.713 2006 8.50 (0.79) 3.9 (41.5) 32.90 0.666 2007 8.50 (0.79) 3.9 (41.5) 32.90 0.623 2008 8.50 (0.79) 3.9 (41.5) 32.90 0.582 2009 8.50 (0.79) 3.9 (41.5) 32.90 0.544 2010 8.50 (0.79) 3.9 (41.5) 32.90 0.508 2011 8.50 (0.79) 3.9 (41.5) 32.90 0.475 2012 8.50 (0.79) 3.9 (41.5) 32.90 0.444 2013 8.50 (0.79) 3.9 (41.5) 32.90 0.415 2014 8.50 (0.79) 3.9 (41.5) 32.90 0.388 2015 8.50 (0.79) 3.9 (41.5) 32.90 0.362 2016 8.50 (0.79) 3.9 (41.5) 32.90 0.339 2017 8.50 (0.79) 3.9 (41.5) 32.90 0.317 2018 8.50 (0.79) 3.9 (41.5) 32.90 0.296 2019 8.50 (0.79) 3.9 (41.5) 32.90 0.277 2020 8.50 (0.79) 3.9 (41.5) 32.90 0.258 

Present Value Savings Attributable to BFRL

aFor 1997, present value cost savings is computed by taking the negative of the product of columns (5) and (6). 
20

Table 5. Present Value Investment Costs to BFRL, in Millions of 2000 Dollars 

Year 

(1) 

BFRL 

Investment 

Costs 

(2) 

Single Compound Amount 

Discount Factor 

(3) 

Present Value BFRL 

Investment Costs 

(4)=(2)*(3) 

1996 0.579 1.311 0.759 

1997 0.754 1.225 0.924 

1998 0.804 1.145 0.921 

1999 0.720 1.070 0.771 

2000 0.411 1.000 0.411 

Present Value Investment Costs to BFRL: 3.785 

All three summary measures are appropriate for evaluating whether to accept or reject a given 

research project, yet there are distinctions among them relating to other decision types. PVNS, a 

magnitude measure, is the best way to evaluate a project’s economic merits. With budget 

constraints, SIR and AIRR are useful in conjunction with the PVNS magnitude measure to help 

set priorities. SIR and AIRR provide measures of return that, together with PVNS, help ensure 

consistency in both accepting projects and prioritizing them.21

Finally, keep in mind that two potentially significant FDS application benefits did not lend 

themselves to quantification within the scope of this economic study: increased flexibility in 

warehouse floorspace layout with removal of draft curtains, and increased competitiveness of the 

insurance industry with better technical information with which to assess risk. This has led to a 

conservative estimate of FDS economic impacts. These qualititative benefits should be kept in 

mind while interpreting the quantitative results.

 

21 Chapman, R. E. 2000, pp. 10-12. 
21

Exhibit 1. Summary of Economic Impacts of BFRL Research on Fire Dynamics 

Simulation 

1.a Significance of Research Effort:

The Uniform Fire Code (UFC), which serves as a prescriptive model code 

for about one-third of the Nation, required three fire protection devices in 

warehouses: sprinklers, draft curtains, and roof vents. Property owners 

thought these requirements outdated, overly conservative, and costly. Yet 

the traditionally-accepted way to evaluate the validity of proposed code 

changes involves expensive, time-consuming, full-scale testing—often a 

series of 12 full-scale tests. At the request of large warehouse property 

owners including General Motors, Ford, and Home Depot, the NIST/BFRL 

Fire Safety Engineering Division undertook research to develop an 

application of their Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS), software that 

simulates fire spread and the response of a given sprinkler system, to the 

science of sprinkler/draft curtain/roof vent interactions. With a limited 

budget for full-scale testing, the idea was to run FDS simulations before 

each full-scale test to help design the test to return the most information 

possible. The FDS application guided the design of five full-scale tests 

conducted at Underwriters Laboratories in 1997. The simulation/testing 

approach proved successful. It yielded enough scientific evidence to 

convince UFC code officials to remove draft curtain requirements for 

sprinklered warehouse facilities in 2000. 

1.b Key Points:

• Pressure to reduce 

full-scale fire 

testing and fire 

protection costs has 

created a market for 

FDS. 

• BFRL showed that 

high resolution fire 

simulations can 

predict major 

features as 

accurately as fullscale testing. 

• BFRL’s 

contribution to 

nationwide savings 

ranged from 50 % 

to 100 %. 

2. Analysis Strategy: How Key Measures are Estimated 

The objective of the study is to (1) evaluate, for the period 1996 through 2020, the net cost savings 

due to the removal of draft curtain requirements from the Uniform Fire Code, and (2) estimate 

BFRL’s contribution to these net cost savings. The approach is to estimate in 2000 present value 

(PV) dollars:

Present Value Cost Savings Nationwide to warehouse property owners that have taken advantage of 

the removal of draft curtain requirements from the Uniform Fire Code. PV cost savings nationwide 

are estimated for each year from 1996 to 2020 and summed. 

Present Value Savings (PVS) attributable to BFRL by including only the savings that accrued due 

to BFRL’s participation, assuming BFRL’s contribution ranged from 50 % to 100 % of nationwide 

savings. 

Present Value Net Savings (PVNS) attributable to BFRL by subtracting from BFRL PVS the 

present value of BFRL's investment costs (PV Costs). A PVNS >0 indicates an economically 

worthwhile project. 

Two additional measures are also estimated: 

Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR) attributable to BFRL by taking the ratio of BFRL PVS to 

BFRL PV costs. A ratio >1 indicates an economically worthwhile project. 

Adjusted Internal Rate of Return (AIRR), the annual rate of return over the study period on 

BFRL’s investment. An AIRR > the discount rate indicates that the project is economically 

worthwhile. 
22

Exhibit 1. Summary of Economic Impacts of BFRL Research on Fire Dynamics 

Simulation (continued) 

2. Analysis Strategy: Data and Assumptions 

• The period over which costs and savings are measured begins in 1996 and ends in 2020. Hence the 

length of the study period is 25 years. 

• The base year is 2000, and all amounts are calculated in PV 2000 dollars. 

• The discount rate is 7 percent (real). 

• Estimates of cost savings associated with the use of FDS are based on construction industry data 

and information provided by industry experts. 

• BFRL’s contribution to nationwide savings ranges from 50 % to 100 %. 

3.a Calculation of Savings, Costs, and Additional Measures 

Savings and Costs 

Present Value Cost Savings Nationwide: 

Sum from 1996 to 2020 of present value of cost savings nationwide 

by year 

= $380.8 million 

Present Value Savings (PVS) Attributable to BFRL: 

Sum from 1996 to 2020 of present value of cost savings nationwide 

by year 

= $190.1 million - $380.8 million 

Present Value Investment Costs (PV Costs) to BFRL: 

Sum from 1996 to 2000 of present value of investment cost to BFRL 

by year 

= $3.785 million 

Present Value Net Savings (PVNS) Attributable to BFRL: 

Difference between present value savings (PVS) attributable to 

BFRL and present value of investment costs (PV Costs) to BFRL 

= $186 million - $377.0 million 

Additional Measures 

SIR of BFRL Contribution: 

Savings-to-Investment Ratio on BFRL investment 

 = 50.24 - 100.61 

AIRR of BFRL Contribution: 

Adjusted Internal Rate of Return on BFRL investment 

 = 0.251 - 0.287 

3.b Key Results: 

2000 Dollars 

($ amounts in millions) 

Cost Savings Nationwide: 

 $380.8 

Savings Attributable to 

BFRL: 

PVS $190.1-$380.8 

PV Costs $3.785 

PVNS $186-$377.0 

SIR 50.24-100.61 

AIRR 25.1%-28.7% 
23
24

5. Sensitivity Analysis of Economic Impacts 

There are several ways to account for uncertainty in a benefit-cost analysis. They include 

breakeven analysis, conservative benefit and cost estimating, decision analysis, and sensitivity 

analysis. This economic impact study has already employed the conservative benefit and cost 

estimating approach in its baseline analysis, consistently setting values for deriving applicable 

warehouse floorspace and research investment costs such that any errors due to uncertainty result 

in an underestimation of the FDS application’s economic worth. In this chapter, sensitivity 

analysis will be employed for one key input value about which there is significant uncertainty: 

draft curtain costs. For the purposes of this analysis, the BFRL contribution to nationwide 

savings is assumed to be 100 %. Sensitivity analysis tests the impact on results of changes in 

values of one or more key variables about which there is uncertainty. It is widely used in 

government and private sector studies, and is cited as one way for Federal agencies to account 

for uncertainty in OMB Circular A-94. In this chapter, a deterministic sensitivity analysis is 

done, recalculating benefits using pessimistic and optimistic values for draft curtain costs to see 

how they change the three economic impact measures developed in the baseline analysis for the 

100 % BFRL contribution scenario.22 

Draft curtain costs vary widely due to a number of factors: (1) warehouse size (curtain cost per 

unit of floorspace decreases as floorspace increases due to economies of scale), (2) flexibility in 

designing and installing ceiling utilities such as lighting, ductwork, and sprinkler systems, (3) 

type of warehouse occupancy—retail or industrial, (4) contractor profit rates, and (5) local labor 

and material costs. As reported in Chapter 3, draft curtains cost at least $4.31/m2

 ($0.40/ft2) to 

install, exlusive of hidden costs, and at most $14.64/m2 ($1.36/ft2) to install, including hidden 

costs. Also, recall that in a national context, contractor profit rates should be deducted from draft 

curtain cost savings because removing draft curtain requirements has the disadvantage of 

lowering contractor profit. As noted in Chapter 3, contractor profit rates range from 5 % to 15 %. 

A pessimistic value for draft curtain cost, one resulting in the lowest cost savings, assumes no 

hidden costs and a maximum contractor profit rate, and an optimistic value assumes hidden costs 

and a minimum contractor profit rate. For this sensitivity analysis a pessimistic draft curtain cost 

savings, net of maximum profit, is $3.66/m2 ($0.34/ft2) and an optimistic cost savings, excluding 

minimum profit, is $13.89/m2 ($1.29/ft2

). For the 100 % BFRL contribution scenario, tables 6 

and 7 recompute Present Value Savings Attributable to BFRL based on these pessimistic and 

optimistic values, respectively. 

Using from tables 6 and 7 the pessimistic and optimistic values for Present Value Savings 

Attributable to BFRL (PVS), the three economic impact measures—Present Value Net Savings 

Attributable to BFRL (PVNS), Savings-to-Investment Ratio on the BFRL Investment (SIR), and 

Adjusted Internal Rate of Return of the BFRL Investment (AIRR)—are recomputed. The Present 

 

22 Chapman, R. E. 1996, pp. 23-25. 
25

 Table 6. Sensitivity Analysis: Present Value Savings Attributable to BFRL based on Pessimistic Draft Curtain S

Year 

(1) 

Net Draft Curtain 

Cost Savings 

in $/m2 ($/ft2) 

(2) 

Applicable Floorspace 

M m2 (M ft2) 

(3) 

Total Cost 

Savings 

$M 

(4)=(2)*(3) 

NFPRF Testing 

Costs 

$M 

(5) 

Discount Fact

(6) 

1996 1997 0.479 1.225 1998 1999 2000 3.66 (0.34) 3.9 (41.5) 14.12 1.000 2001 3.66 (0.34) 3.9 (41.5) 14.12 0.935 2002 3.66 (0.34) 3.9 (41.5) 14.12 0.873 2003 3.66 (0.34) 3.9 (41.5) 14.12 0.816 2004 3.66 (0.34) 3.9 (41.5) 14.12 0.763 2005 3.66 (0.34) 3.9 (41.5) 14.12 0.713 2006 3.66 (0.34) 3.9 (41.5) 14.12 0.666 2007 3.66 (0.34) 3.9 (41.5) 14.12 0.623 2008 3.66 (0.34) 3.9 (41.5) 14.12 0.582 2009 3.66 (0.34) 3.9 (41.5) 14.12 0.544 2010 3.66 (0.34) 3.9 (41.5) 14.12 0.508 2011 3.66 (0.34) 3.9 (41.5) 14.12 0.475 2012 3.66 (0.34) 3.9 (41.5) 14.12 0.444 2013 3.66 (0.34) 3.9 (41.5) 14.12 0.415 2014 3.66 (0.34) 3.9 (41.5) 14.12 0.388 2015 3.66 (0.34) 3.9 (41.5) 14.12 0.362 2016 3.66 (0.34) 3.9 (41.5) 14.12 0.339 2017 3.66 (0.34) 3.9 (41.5) 14.12 0.317 2018 3.66 (0.34) 3.9 (41.5) 14.12 0.296 2019 3.66 (0.34) 3.9 (41.5) 14.12 0.277 2020 3.66 (0.34) 3.9 (41.5) 14.12 0.258 

Present Value Savings Attributable to BFRL

aBFRL is assumed to contribute 100 % to nationwide savings.

bFor 1997, present value cost savings is computed by taking the negative of the product of columns (5) and (6). 
26

Table 7. Sensitivity Analysis: Present Value Savings Attributable to BFRL based on Optimistic Draft Curtain 

Year 

(1) 

Net Draft Curtain 

Cost Savings 

in $/m2 ($/ft2) 

(2) 

Applicable Floorspace 

M m2 (M ft2) 

(3) 

Total Cost 

Savings 

$M 

(4)=(2)*(3) 

NFPRF Testing 

Costs 

$M 

(5) 

Discount Fact

(6) 

1996 1997 0.479 1.225 1998 1999 2000 13.89 (1.29) 3.9 (41.5) 53.67 1.000 2001 13.89 (1.29) 3.9 (41.5) 53.67 0.935 2002 13.89 (1.29) 3.9 (41.5) 53.67 0.873 2003 13.89 (1.29) 3.9 (41.5) 53.67 0.816 2004 13.89 (1.29) 3.9 (41.5) 53.67 0.763 2005 13.89 (1.29) 3.9 (41.5) 53.67 0.713 2006 13.89 (1.29) 3.9 (41.5) 53.67 0.666 2007 13.89 (1.29) 3.9 (41.5) 53.67 0.623 2008 13.89 (1.29) 3.9 (41.5) 53.67 0.582 2009 13.89 (1.29) 3.9 (41.5) 53.67 0.544 2010 13.89 (1.29) 3.9 (41.5) 53.67 0.508 2011 13.89 (1.29) 3.9 (41.5) 53.67 0.475 2012 13.89 (1.29) 3.9 (41.5) 53.67 0.444 2013 13.89 (1.29) 3.9 (41.5) 53.67 0.415 2014 13.89 (1.29) 3.9 (41.5) 53.67 0.388 2015 13.89 (1.29) 3.9 (41.5) 53.67 0.362 2016 13.89 (1.29) 3.9 (41.5) 53.67 0.339 2017 13.89 (1.29) 3.9 (41.5) 53.67 0.317 2018 13.89 (1.29) 3.9 (41.5) 53.67 0.296 2019 13.89 (1.29) 3.9 (41.5) 53.67 0.277 2020 13.89 (1.29) 3.9 (41.5) 53.67 0.258 

Present Value Savings Attributable to BFRL

aBFRL is assumed to contribute 100 % to nationwide savings.

bFor 1997, present value cost savings is computed by taking the negative of the product of columns (5) and (6). 
27

Value of Investment Costs to BFRL (PV Costs) remains set at its baseline value ($3.785 

million), as do the study period (1996-2020) and discount rate (7 % real). Table 8 shows the 

results by displaying the economic impact measures under the pessimistic, baseline (100 % 

BFRL contribution), and optimistic settings for draft curtain costs. As shown, PVNS ranges from 

$159.4 to $617.9 million, SIR ranges from 43.11 to 164.25, and AIRR ranges from 24.4 % to 

31.2 %. The sensitivity analysis shows that, even under the pessimistic scenario, the FDS 

application was still an economically worthwhile project. Under this scenario, the Present Value 

Net Savings Attributable to BFRL, PVNS, is $159.4 million, showing the dollar value to the 

public net of FDS-application investments. The Savings-to-Investment Ratio of the BFRL 

Contribution, SIR, is 43.11, showing that the public receives $43.11 dollars for each public 

dollar spent on the FDS application. The Adjusted Internal Rate of Return of the BFRL 

Contribution, AIRR, is 0.244, showing a 24.4 % return on public dollars spent on FDS 

application development throughout the study period. 

Table 8. Summary: BFRL Contribution to Cost Savings from Removal of Draft Curtain 

Requirements from Uniform Fire Code, 1996-2020a

Measure of Economic Worth 

($ amounts in million 2000 $) 

Average 

Curtain Costs 

(Most likely) 

Pessimistic 

Curtain Costs 

(Conservative) 

Optimistic 

Curtain Costs 

(Hopeful) 

PVS: Total BFRL Contribution $380.8 $163.2 $621.6 

PVNS: Net BFRL Contribution $377.0 $159.4 $617.9 

SIR: BFRL Contribution 100.61 43.11 164.25 

AIRR: BFRL Contribution 0.287 0.244 0.312 

a

For this exercise, BFRL is assumed to contribute 100 % to nationwide savings.
28

6. Future Directions 

This case study lays the groundwork for future economic analyses of NIST fire research. An 

economic profile of the U.S. fire protection industry was developed, identifying and defining all 

the costs and benefits of fire protection, by stakeholder group. The profile provided the context 

within which a subset of benefits, costs, and stakeholders affected by the overall FDS research 

program could be identified. The subset was narrowed further to identify those benefits and costs 

affected by the particular FDS application that was the focus of this case study. While the case 

study showed significant economic benefits to the Nation of the sprinkler/draft curtain/roof vent 

application, even greater benefits are expected from other FDS research applications. The 

sprinkler/draft curtain/roof vent application has raised industry’s expectations about the potential 

of fire simulation to decrease fire protection costs and increase safety. Already, there are signs 

that new FDS applications are taking root. In the 8 months since the FDS software has been 

publicly available, approximately 940 individuals have downloaded the tool from the NIST web 

site. The simulation software is being used for applications ranging from explaining actual fires 

to developing performance-based design solutions for unique facilities for which prescriptive 

codes do not exist. For example, Gage-Babcock & Associates has applied FDS to the historic 

Arts and Industries Building (AIB) on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. As they report in 

Fire Protection Engineering,23

“The fire model used for the analysis, Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS) version 

1.0, represents a significant advancement in modeling the effects of fire in 

complex buildings such as the AIB...The emergence of performance-based codes 

and analytical tools such as advanced fire modeling provides a means for 

identifying acceptable solutions.” 

With continued research funding, FDS has the potential to revolutionize fire protection 

engineering. An economic analysis quantifying the benefits and costs of other potential FDS 

applications is recommended to justify and set optimal levels for future FDS research 

expenditures. 

Additionally, the economic profile of the U.S. fire protection industry developed for this case 

study provides a useful framework for considering potential economic impacts of other BFRL 

fire research efforts. As BFRL management strives to set appropriate research priorities under 

limited budgets, the framework could prove a useful organizing tool in two ways: (1) for 

qualitatively predicting and comparing economic worth for competing fire research proposals, 

and (2) for conducting formal, quantitative case studies of ongoing or proposed fire research 

efforts. Increasingly, managers are asked to demonstrate economic impact to justify, manage, 

and attract internal and external support for its research programs. The framework developed 

here is a logical starting point for launching future economic studies of BFRL fire research. 

 

23 Bowman, A. Fall 2000. “Performance-Based Analysis of an Historic Museum.” Fire Protection Engineering. 

Bethesda, MD: Society of Fire Protection Engineers, pp. 38,43. 
29

References 

American Society for Testing and Materials. Fourth Edition, 1999. ASTM Standards on Building 

Economics. West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials. 

Baum, H. R. Spring 2000. “Large Eddy Simulations of Fires: From Concepts to Computations.” 

Fire Protection Engineering. Bethesda, MD: Society of Fire Protection Engineers, pp. 36-43. 

Bowman, A. Fall 2000. “Performance-Based Analysis of an Historic Museum.” Fire Protection 

Engineering. Bethesda, MD: Society of Fire Protection Engineers, pp. 36-43. 

Chapman, R. E., and S. K. Fuller. 1996. Benefits and Costs of Research: Two Case Studies in 

Building Technology. NISTIR 5840. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and 

Technology. 

Chapman, R.E., and S.F. Weber. 1996. Benefits and Costs of Research: A Case Study of the Fire 

Safety Evaluation System. NISTIR 5863. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and 

Technology. 

Chapman, R. E. 1999. Benefits and Costs of Research: A Case Study of Cybernetic Building 

Systems. NISTIR 6303. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology. 

Chapman, R. E. 2000. Benefits and Costs of Research: A Case Study of Construction Systems 

Integration and Automation Technologies in Industrial Facilities. NISTIR 6501. Gaithersburg, 

MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology. 

McGrattan, K. B., Hamins, A., and D. W. Stroup. 1998. Sprinkler, Smoke and Heat Vent, Draft 

Curtain Interaction: Large Scale Experiments and Model Development. NISTIR 6196-1. 

Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology. 

OMB A-94: Executive Office of the President. 1992. OMB Circular A-94. Washington, DC: 

Office of Management and Budget 

R.S. Means Company, Inc., 1999. 2000 Building Construction Cost Data, on CD-ROM of 

Means 2000 CostWorks. Kingston, MA. 

Ramachandran, G. 1998. The Economics of Fire Protection. London: E & FN Spon. 

U.S. Department of Energy, Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey. 

U.S. Department of Labor. 2000. Consumer Price Index, on Internet at 

http://stat.bls.gov/cpihome.htm. Washington, D.C.