A11107 3T0b7tD

NBS

PUBLICATIONS

NBSIR 84-2868

Field Tests of the Smoke Control

System At the Bay Pines VA

Hospital

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

National Engineering Laboratory

Center for Fire Research

Washington, DC 20234

May 1984

QC — '

130

,U56

34-2853

1984

c , 3-

Sponsored by:

U.S. Veterans Administration

Washington, DC 20420

NBSIR 84-2868

FIELD TESTS OF THE SMOKE CONTROL

SYSTEM AT THE BAY PINES VA

HOSPITAL

OF SiA"DAf;D3

I C I

I' C

: C

/ C - CJ ^ ^

John H. Kioto

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

National Engineering Laboratory

Center for Fire Research

Washington, DC 20234

May 1984

Sponsored by:

U.S. Veterans Administration

Washington, DC 20420

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

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS. Ernest Ambler, Director
iDHTMOJ

.. J»». .»-«.<i*r.ni«KW>l<'A»i- ^v».<wcv.

? OJHR

^HT Til. !\4T'i ';

t

uwn::‘ .' 1 ••.•ii.\«>!W^4

'‘if.£0>: "0 .nc

• • ''

‘. t '" >0 .rtoJooli^

y^A,i^v-A:^ >3 •’».,; -^T;

./, ••'i

^

.T,.':

*' '' li't''-

'
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES iv

LIST OF FIGURES vi

Abstract ^

1. INTRODUCTION I

2. SYSTEM PERFORMANCE 2

2.1 Pressure Differences 4

2.2 Airflow 5

2.3 Number of Open Doors 6

3. FIELD TESTS 6

3.1 Bay Pines VA Hospital 6

3.2 Description of Tests 7

4. DISCUSSION 9

4.1 Airflow and Doors 9

4.2 Increase Exhaust 9

4.3 Zones F and G 11

4.4 System Activation 11

4.5 Floors Three, Four arAd Five 12

5. RECOMMENDATIONS 14

5.1 Specific Recommendations 14

5.2 General Recommendations 18

6. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 19

7. REFERENCES .......' 19

APPENDIX A. Example Calculation of Exhaust Rate for Lobby System .... 20

-iii-
LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1. Smoke control test of VA Bay Pines Hospital, first floor, zone A 21

Table 2. Smoke control test of VA Bay Pines Hospital, first floor,

zone B * 22

Table 3. Smoke control test of VA Bay Pines Hospital, first floor,

zone C 23

Table 4. Smoke control test of VA Bay Pines Hospital, first floor, zone E 24

Table 5. Smoke control test of VA Bay Pines Hospital, first floor, zones F & G 25

Table 6. Smoke control test of VA Bay Pines Hospital, first floor,

zone H * 26

Table 7. Smoke control test of VA Bay Pines Hospital, first floor, zone J 27

Table 8. Smoke control test of VA Bay Pines Hospital, third floor, zone A 28

Table 9. Smoke control test of VA Bay Pines Hospital, third floor, zone B 29

Table 10. Smoke control test of VA Bay Pines Hospital, third floor,

zone C 30

Table ll. Smoke control test of VA Bay Pines Hospital, third floor,

zone D 31

Table 12. Smoke control test of VA Bay Pines Hospital, fourth floor,

zone A 32

Table 13. Smoke control test of VA Bay Pines Hospital, fourth floor,

zone B 33

Table 14. Smoke control test of VA Bay Pines Hospital, fourth floor,

zone C 34

Table 15. Smoke control test of VA Bay Pines Hospital, fourth floor,

zone D 35

Table 16. Smoke control test of VA Bay Pines Hospital, fifth floor,

zone A 36

-iv-
Table 17. Smoke control test of VA Bay Pines Hospital, fifth floor,

zone B 37

Table 18. Smoke control test of VA Bay Pines Hospital, fifth floor,

zone C 38

Table 19. Smoke control test of VA Bay Pines Hospital, fifth floor,

zone D 39

-V-
LIST OF FIGUEIES

Page

Figure 1. Bay Pines VA Hospital First Floor Plan 40

Figure 2* Bay Pines VA Hospital Second Floor Plan 41

Figure 3. Bay Pines VA Hospital Typical Plan for

Floors 3, 4, and 5 42

.Figure 4. Operations of Double Egress Doors in Smoke Control

System 43

-vi-
FIELD TESTS OF THE SMOKE CONTROL SYSTEM AT THE BAY PINES VA HOSPITAL

John H. Klote

Abstract

The Veterans Administration (VA) has sponsored a project at the Center

for Fire Research of the National Bureau of Standards to study smoke control

in VA hospitals and to develop new design approaches and methods of acceptance

testing. This paper is the first report of this project, and it presents the

results of a field test on the VA Bay Pines Hospital. In general the smoke

control systems at this hospital performed well, however, there were some

problems. These problems are discussed along with specific recommendations

for their corrections and general recommendations to prevent similar problems

in future hospitals. It was observed that the double egress doors in the

hospital acted in a manner similar to barometric dampers to limit pressure

differences

.

Key words: air movement; field tests; hospitals; interstitial space;

pressurization; smoke control; smoke detector.

I . INTRODUCTION

Smoke is recognized as the major killer in fire situations [1] . Smoke

often migrates to building locations remote from the fire space, threatening

life and damaging property. As a solution to the smoke problem, the concept

of smoke control has developed in recent years. Smoke control makes use of

A Figures in brackets refer to references at the end of this paper.

- 1 -
mechanical fans to produce airflows and pressure differences that can control

smoke movement.

This paper is a report of the initial effort of a project sponsored by

the U.S. Veterans Administration (VA) to study smoke control in VA hospitals

and develop new design approaches and methods of acceptance testing. This

paper describes field tests of the smoke control systems at the VA hospital in

Bay Pines, Florida. It will be shown that in general these systems performed

well, however, there were some problems. To overcome these problems, specific

recommendations are made, and general recommendations are made that should

prevent similar problems in future hospitals. In addition to the field tests

described herein, tests were performed to evaluate the wind effects on a smoke

control system at this hospital. A report of these wind effects is forthcoming .

In this paper, the term "smoke” is used in accordance with the ASTM and

NFPA definitions which state that smoke consists of the airborne solid and

liquid particulates and gases evolved when a material undergoes pyrolysis or

combustion [2,3].

2

.

SYSTEM PERFORMANCE

The fire emergency procedure in hospitals throughout the United States

including VA hospitals is essentially a plan of horizontal evacuation. Each

floor of a hospital is divided into a number of zones, separated from one

another by fire walls and fire doors. Generally, nurses are trained to

evacuate any patients from the room of fire origin and then close the door.

- 2 -
Then the patients in the zone which includes the fire room are evacuated to

other zones on that floor. Because of vertical smoke movement, similar horizontal evacuation may be necessary on floors other than the fire floor. The

closed doors between the fire and the occupants tend to retard fire spread and

smoke movement, ideally allowing sufficient time for fire fighters to extinguish the fire. There is the option for vertical evacuation from these other

/.ones if such an extreme measure be deemed necessary.

This approach has the drawback that smoke movement through building

cracks and gaps around doors is likely. The effectiveness of a barrier in

limiting smoke movement depends on the leakage paths in the barrier and on the

pressure difference across the barrier. The pressure difference depends on

stack effect, buoyancy, wind and the heating, ventilation and air conditioning

(HVAC) system whether under normal operation or in the smoke control mode.

The concepts of zoned smoke control as described in the ASHRAE smoke

controi manual [AJ can be employed to provide pressure differences and airflows to limit the smoke movement to the zone in which the fire exists.

Because smoke control is a new field, consensus has not been reached as

to what constitutes reasonable design parameters. The ASHRAE smoke control

design manual lists the following areas for which design parameters must be

established:

- 3 -
1. leakage areas

2. weather data

3. pressure differences

4. airflow

5. number of doors open in the smoke control system.

The reader is referred to the general discussion of leakage areas and

weather data provided in the ASHRAE smoke control manual.

2.1 Pressure Differences

It is appropriate to discuss both maximum and minimum allowable pressure

differences across the boundaries of the smoke control zones. The maximum

allowable pressure difference should be a value that does not result in an

excessive door-opening force, but it is difficult to determine what constitutes excessive door opening forces. Section 5-2. 1.1.4. 3 of the National Fire

Protection Association (NFPA) Life Safety Code [5] states that the force

required to open any door in a means of egress shall not exceed 222 N (50 lb).

Because of the difficulty of evacuating a disabled patient and because exposure to smoke can adversely affect a person's physical ability, a lower value

than 222 N ( 50 lb) seems appropriate. For a door opening force of III N

(25 lb) and a force of 31 N (7 lb) to overcome the door closer, a door 1.12 m

(44 in) wide and 2.13 m (7 ft) high would have a maximum allowable pressure

difference of 63 Pa (0.25 in H

2 O) . For purposes of discussion, this will be

used as the maximum allowable pressure difference in this paper.

-4-
In this paper, the criterion for a minimum allowable pressure difference

is that no smoke leakage shall occur from the smoke zone (one in which there

is a fire) to an adjacent zone. The smoke control system must produce sufficient pressure differences so that it is not overcome by the forces of wind,

stack effect, or buoyancy of hot smoke.

Because new VA hospitals are sprinklered, the minimum pressure difference

of 5 Pa (0.02 in H

2 O) suggested in the ASHRAE manual (section 2.9.2) for

sprinklered spaces is used in this paper as the minimum pressure difference to

overcome the effects of buoyancy of smoke. Theoretically the smoke control

system should be able to produce at least this pressure under design conditions of wind and stack effect with a broken window in the fire compartment.

Such an analysis can be performed by the computer program described in the

ASHRAE design manual.

2.2 Airflow

Airflow through an open doorway can control smoke movement if the average

velocity is of sufficient magnitude. In a sprinklered building, it might be

considered that the smoke away from the immediate fire area would be cooled to

near ambient temperature by the water spray from the sprinklers. In such a

case the ASHRAE manual recommends a design velocity in the range of 0.25 to

1.25 m/s (50 to 250 fpm)

.

It is obvious that a smoke control system can meet its objectives of redur. <1 fire deaths, injuries and property damage due to smoke, even if a small

amount of smoke infiltrates the protected areas.

- 5 -
2.3 Number of Open Doors

During a fire situation, the doors in boundaries of a smoke zone will be

closed except for short intervals when a person is being evacuated or when a

rescuer or fire fighter enters the smoke zone. Obviously, smoke infiltration

into the protected zones is significantly less than for doors that are held

open. For purposes of discussion in this paper, it will be considered that

smoke leakage through such intermittently open doors is insignificant.

However, the airflow produced by the smoke control system can be sufficient to

hold doors open (section 4.1).

3. FIELD TESTS

3.1 Bay Pines VA Hospital

The Bay Pines VA Hospital consists of five stories each with an

interstitial space above for distribution of heating, ventilation, air conditioning, plumbing and electrical systems. These utilities are systematically

organized according to a standard plan, which is part of the VA hospital

building system [6]. The interstitial space is approximately 2.1 ra (7 ft) in

height with its own gypsum floor. Each story of the hospital is divided into

a number of service modules, each served by its own variable volume HVAC

system and each having its own supply and exhaust air handling units utilizing

a heat wheel between them for energy conservation.

The smoke control system is designed so that each HVAC zone (see figures

1-3) is a smoke control zone. During a fire situation, the HVAC system,

controlled by a computer, is put in the following smoke control mode:

6 -
1. The supply fan to the zone in which the fire exists (smoke

zone) is shut off.

2. The exhaust fans to the adjacent zones on the fire floor and to

zones directly above and below are shut off.

Thus air is being exhausted from the smoke zone and surrounding zones are

being pressurized. The intent is that smoke movement will be limited to the

smoke zone.

3.2 Description of Tests

Tests were performed for which individual zones were placed in the smoke

control mode and the resulting pressure differences were measured. Data from

these tests are listed in tables 1-19. All the pressure differences recorded

were on the same floor as the smoke zone. Pressure differences are listed

such that positive values represent air flow in the direction of the smoke

zone. For example, in the test of zone A of the first floor (figure 1), the

smoke control system produced 12 Pa (0.05 in H

2 O) (table 1) under normal

operation from zone B to zone A at corridor 4. This pressure difference

indicates flow to zone A which is the smoke zone. In some cases the flow was

away from the smoke zone. Accordingly, the corresponding pressure differences

in the tables are negative.

Smoke control systems were tested in every zone on the first, third,

fourth and fifth floors. Tests were omitted on the second floor because of

the disruption they would cause to surgery and intensive care. Further, to

-7 -
prevent disruption of the second floor, no second floor exhaust fans were shut

off during tests of first or third floor smoke control systems. It is

believed that because of the unusually tight construction of the building

floor slabs and the Interstitial space floor slabs, pressurization of the

spaces above and below the smoke zone is not essential. Visual inspection of

these slabs Impressed the author and the other members of the test team as to

how tightly they were constructed. To confirm the effect of tight construction, a test was conducted on the fourth floor because this was the only floor

where it was possible to shut off the exhaust fans on both the floors above

and below. Because all the zones on the fourth floor would have been equally

appropriate, zone B was arbitrarily selected. Zone B on the fourth floor was

tested in an increased exhaust, smoke control mode (see section 4.2) with and

without pressurization of the floors above and below. The results of these

tests (table 13) indicate that pressurization above and below had no significant effect on the pressure differences produced by the smoke control system

for this hospital.

Pressure difference fluctuations did not exceed 2.5 Pa (O.Ol in H

2 O) , so

only average values are listed in the tables. Also, during all of the tests

reported herein, the building windows and doors were closed and the wind was

relatively calm; accordingly, wind data is not listed in the tables. In all

these tests the difference between the indoor and outdoor temperature was very

small. The implications of these limited test conditions are discussed in

section 4.2.

-8 -
4. DISCUSSION

4.1 Airflow and Doors

At numerous locations throughout the hospital there are double egress

doors as illustrated in figure 4. Upon fire detection, these doors close

automatically and low airflow towards the fire through cracks around the doors

(and through construction cracks) acts to prevent smoke backflow to the

protected spaces. These doors act to prevent excessive pressures in the same

manner as a barometric damper. If the airflow increases, the pressure across

the door increases. When the pressure difference is sufficient to overcome

the force of the automatic door closer, the door opens slightly, the pressure

difference drops and an equilibrium position is achieved with the door 25 to

100 mm (I to 4 in) open. Examination of the test data (tables 1-19) shows

that the pressure across such open doors falls within a range of 7.5 to 30 Pa

(0.03 to 0.12 in H

2 O) . From this, the air flow equation (ASHRAE smoke control

manual, section 2.3.2) Indicates that the average velocity through these

doorways is 2.3 to 4.5 m/s (450 to 900 fpm). These values are all well above

the design velocity range, and accordingly would prevent smoke infiltration

into the protected zones.

4.2 Increase Exhaust

In the smoke control mode, the exhaust fan drew air from the interstitial

space as well as the smoke zone. This interstitial space exhaust is required

by the Life Safety Code [7] section 12-3.6.1 Exception No. 1(c) for hospitals

where the corridor walls do not extend through the interstitial space to the

-9 -
underside of the roof or floor slab above. It is believed that the Intent of

the interstitial exhaust was to produce pressure differences such that any

smoke within the interstitial space would not flow into nonsmoke zones.

However, it was a concern that diverting a significant portion of the exhaust

air from the smoke zone would adversely affect the performance of the smoke

control system.

Most of the tests were performed with normal smoke control operation and

with an increased smoke zone exhaust. The smoke zone exhaust was increased by

blanking off the large Interstitial space exhaust inlet located in the interstitial space near the mechanical room. In the majority of the cases, the

pressure differences were significantly Increased by increasing the smoke zone

exhaust. Additionally, because of the tendency of the bidirectional doors to

act like barometric dampers, excessive pressures were never encountered.

One might feel that even without increased exhaust, the pressure differences are generally above the minimum allowable pressure difference and should

be acceptable. However, these pressure differences were measured without the

influence of stack effect or wind. Such Influences could be increased in the

case of a broken fire compartment window. Even though this topic is the

subject of a another effort of this overall project, it is obvious that

increased flows and Increased pressure differences due to increased exhaust

provide an added margin which will help prevent smoke control system failure

due to wind or stack effect.

- 10-
4.3 Zones F and G

Zones F and G, Ambulatory Care Clinic, (see figure 1) on the first floor

warrant special attention because they are completely open to each other at

several locations. When zone F was placed in the smoke control mode, the air

velocity from zone G to zone F was almost unnoticeable . This would be no

deterent to smoke flow into zone G and then to other areas of the hospital.

For this case, the two HVAC zones should be treated as one zone for smoke

control purposes. Tests of the combined zones (table 5) indicate that they

maintain pressure differences in the range 25 to 30 Pa (O.IO to 0.12 in H

2 O)

with respect to zones A and H. These pressure differences are many times

larger than the minimum pressure differences.

4.4 System Activation

The smoke control systems are activated by smoke detectors located in the

return ducts. When this hospital was designed this was a common practice.

The original intent of smoke detectors in the return ducts is to divert smoke

laiden air to the outside . As stated in the ASHRAE smoke control manual,

smoke detectors in ducts are not recommended for smoke control system activation because of their long response time and the maintenance problem of

clogging with airborne contaminants.

The intent of the detector in the supply duct is to shut down the HVAC systei

and to prevent circulation of smoke from a HVAC fire or from an exterior

source
The doors between zones are controlled by smoke detectors. However,

activation of the smoke control system from these detectors would be inappropriate because it would be impossible to know which zone was the smoke zone

based on a signal from a detector located at the boundary between two zones.

Either open area smoke detectors or the sprinkler system or both could be

used for smoke zone identification and automatic activation.

4.5 Floors Three, Four and Five

In a fire situation on a floor or a hospital with patient rooms, the

smoke control system should operate so that it compliments the horizontal

evacuation discussed In section 2. The two fire scenarios described below

evaluate the performance of the smoke control system on the floors with

patient rooms. The first fire scenario involves a fire in one of the four

wings (figure 3). For example, consider a fire in a patient room or other

space on floor four in wing A. Due to smoke levels In the corridor the wing

is evacuated. Evacuation would be first to the north lobby and possibly later

to the south lobby. Operation of the smoke control system should be such that

the north lobby is pressurized with respect to wing A. The test data

(table 12) show that this would be the case. Further, the test data (tables

8-19) show that the smoke control systems are capable of maintaining similar

pressurization for each wing for the top three floors.

Closing the burn room door is widely recognized as a method to reduce smoke

concentrations in corridors. However, in real fire Incidents, patient room

doors have been left open due to oversight or because the fire intensity

made door closing impossible. Further, some spaces, such as the nurse

station, have no doors.

- 12-
The second scenario consists of a fire in one of the lobbies or in an

adjacent room such as a lounge. For example, consider a fire in a lounge

opening onto the north lobby of the fourth floor (figure 3). The tests of the

smoke control system (table 12) indicate that the south lobby and wing D would

be pressurized relative to the north lobby. These pressures would protect

wing D and the south lobby from smoke migration. Unfortunately, the north

lobby would be overpressurized with respect to wing A. Thus, the action of

the smoke control system would be to force smoke into wing A. This situation

is compounded further because the only route for horizontal evacuation of wing

A is through the north lobby, which would be smoke logged. The reason these

flow patterns occur is that smoke control zone A incorporates both wing A and

the north lobby. If the north lobby were exhausted and wings A and D and zone

B were pressurized then this problem would be eliminated. This problem is not

just limited to the fourth floor north lobby, but is common to the north and

south lobbies on the third, fourth and fifth floors (tables 8, 9, 12, 13, 16,

and 17).

Several negative pressure differences were measured in the tests of zones

C and D on the third, fourth and fifth floors (tables 10, 1 1, 14, 15, 18 and

19). In keeping with our sign convention, negative pressure differences

indicate an air flow away from the smoke zone. For example, zone C of the

third floor (table 10) has negative pressure differences at three locations.

These indicate flow from the south lobby to the south elevator shaft, to

stairwell 2, and to the north lobby. This airflow is to be expected since

zone B which includes the south lobby was pressurized. The crucial barrier

for smoke control is between wing C and the south lobby where significant

pressure differences occur. It can be observed from table 10 that increasing

- 13 -
the exhaust of the smoke zone Increases this crucial pressure difference.

This same reasoning explains the other negative pressure differences

encountered in the tests of zones C and D on floors three, four and five.

5. RECOMMENDATIONS

The recommendations from this study fall into two categories. First,

those that apply specifically to the Bay Pines VA Hospital and secondly,

general recommendations that apply to the design of new hospitals. It should

be noted that future efforts in this project will undoubtedly result in additional information which may affect the recommendations which follow.

5.1 Specific Recommendations

In general the performance of the smoke control system was quite good,

however, to overcome specific problems five recommendations are made.

Recommendation C lists four different alternative solutions which can be

considered.

A. It is recommended that smoke control zones F and G on the first floor be

combined into one smoke control zone. Because at many locations these

zones are completely open to each other, the use of pressurization to

achieve smoke control between these zones is impossible. However, when

the two zones are combined, pressurization of surrounding areas is readily

achieved.

- 14 -
B. It is recommeded that consideration be given to modifying the smoke

control systems so that activation of smoke control on the first or third

floors will not cause pressurization of any second floor zone. Such

pressurization would have essentially no benefit with regard to smoke

control, however, it could cause unnecessary disruption to surgery and

intensive care.

C. Is is recommended that smoke control zones A and B on floors three, four

and five be modified so that upon fire detection in the north lobby or the

south lobby, air will be exhausted only from that lobby, with the other

lobby and the adjacent wings pressurized. For example, this will prevent

the smoke control system from forcing smoke Into wing A in the event of a

fire in the north lobby or a space open to it such as one of the lounges.

The same is true for wing B and the south lobby. Example calculations to

determine the exhaust fan capacity are provided in appendix A. Some

alternative modifications that might be considered are;

1. Damper Control . The alternative would consist of installing

dampers so that the existing fans could be used. For example,

to exhaust the north lobby the exhaust fans and ducts of smoke

zone A would be used. A large number of dampers would be needed

to shut off exhaust intakes in wing A. Further, a damper would

be needed to shut off the supply to the north lobby.

- 15 -
2.

Window Vents

.

This alternative consists of pressurizing the

wings adjacent to the north (south) lobby and the adjacent lobby

and venting the north (south) lobby. A damper in the supply

duct to the north (south) lobby would prevent supply air from

entering this lobby. The vents, which could be located in the

windows, would open automatically upon activation of the smoke

control system. A damper In the supply duct to the north

(south) lobby would be needed. Because this system has vents In

vertical walls, performance would be highly dependent on wind

conditions, making this the least effective of the systems

listed here.

3. Ceiling Fan . Pressurization of surrounding areas would be the

same as alternative 2, but a ceiling mounted exhaust fan from

the north (south) lobby to the interstitial space would be

used. Smoke could be exhausted from the interstitial space by

an exhaust fan in mechanical room A (B). This would require

additional control dampers in the exhaust system. Even though

this system has the same potential for producing reliable

pressurization as alternative I, it has the disadvantages that

it contaminates the interstitial space with smoke and probably

subjects the ceiling fan to high temperatures.

4. Ducted Exhaust . An improvement on alternative 3 is to locate

the exhaust fan in one of the mechanical rooms and duct the

lobby air to it. A cursory inspection reveals that there should

be sufficient space for such a duct in the interstitial space.

- 16 -
This alternative has simple controls, eliminates the interstitial space contamination problem of alternative 3, and has

the same potential for producing reliable pressurization as

alternatives I and 3. This alternative also has the advantage

over alternative 3 in that smoke cooled by heat transfer In the

duct reduces the concern of temperature endurance of the fan.

D. Activation of the smoke control system depends upon fire detection

which should be by open area smoke detectors, by flow switches in

the sprinkler system or by both. The use of flow indicators would

require some logic circuits or reliance on the building’s computer

control to determine the location of the fire.

E. It is recommended that consideration be given to Increasing the

smoke zone exhaust by closing the dampers to the interstitial space

exhaust. This will provide an increased exhaust flow rate which

will help prevent smoke control system failure due to wind or stack

effect (section 4.2). Because of tight construction of the building

floor slabs and interstitial space floor slab. It appears that

interstitial space exhaust would be of benefit only when smoke would

get into the interstitial space. However, Interstitial space

exhaust can be achieved without use of the smoke zone exhaust fan by

using an exhaust fan serving one of the nonsmoke zones.

- 17 -
5.2 General Recommendations

A. VJTien two adjacent HVAC zones have large openings to one another,

they should be considered one zone for smoke control purposes.

B. The fan used to exhaust the smoke zone should not simultaneously be

used to exhaust the interstitial space. This reduces the exhaust

from the smoke zone and thus reduces the effectiveness of the smoke

control system. Interstitial space exhaust can be achieved to an

even greater extent by using the full capacity of an exhaust fan

from another zone.

C. Criteria for determination of smoke zone arrangements need to be

developed such that the problems that exist in the north and south

lobbies on floors three, four and five do not reoccur in future

designs. Possibly designs should be such that a single fire can not

block the only means of horizontal exit from a wing. Information

needed for the development of such criteria is a future subject of

this project.

D. Smoke control system activation should be by means of open area

detectors, sprinkler water flow or both.

E. It is recommended that the smoke zone be exhausted by the full

capacity of the exhaust fan normally serving the smoke zone.

- 18 -
6 . ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Thanks are due to the staff of the VA Bay Pines Hospital for their aid

and cooperation during these tests. Appreciation is expressed to William

Schmidt of the Veterans Administration and to Richard Grot, Robert Hall, and

Douglas Pruit of the Center for Building Technology of the National Bureau of

Standards for their considerable help during testing.

7 . REFERENCES

[1] Berl, W.G. and Halpin, B.M., Human Fatalities from Unwanted Fires, Johns

Hopkins APL Technical Digest, Vol. I, No. 2, p. 129-134, I960.

[2] Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Part 18, ASTM E176-80, American Society

for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, 1980.

[3] Standard for the Installation of Air Conditioning and Ventilating

Systems, NFPA 90A-1981, National Fire Protection Association, Inc.,

Quincy, MA, 1981.

[4] Klote, J.H. and Fotherglll, J.W., Design of Smoke Control Systems for

Buildings, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and AirConditioning Engineers, Atlanta, GA, 1983.

[5] Code for Safety to Life from Fire in Buildings and Structures, NFPA

101-1981, Quincy, MA, National Fire Protection Assn., 1981.

[6] Development Study - VA Hospital Building System, U.S. Government Printing

Office, Washington, DC, August 1977.

- 19 -
APPENDIX A. Example Calculation of Exhaust Rate for Lobby System

The exhaust rate needed for the lobby smoke control system (section

5.1.B) can be calculated as follows:

1. Estimate Flow Areas* Estimate the total flow area from the

pressurized spaces to the lobby. For example, if three doors

are held 100 mm (4 in) open by air flow, the total area of the

2 opening at the edge of the doors would be about 0.65 m

2 (7.0 ft ). Additional flow area exists in the form of gaps

around closed doors and construction cracks. These can be

allowed for by adding 0.20 m (2.1 ft) to get the flow area a

total estimated flow area of 0.85 m^ (9.1 ft^).

2. Estimate Pressure Difference. Based on test data in tables 8

to 19, the pressure difference for doors held open by airflow

is estimated at 25 Pa (O.IO in H

2 O).

3. Calculate Airflow Rate . Based on the flow area and the

pressure difference, the exhaust fan flow rate can be calculated as described in the ASHRAE smoke control manual section

2 . 3 . 2 . For the above example this would be 3.5 m /s

(7500 cfm)

.

-20-
Table 1. Smoke control test of VA Bay Pines Hospital

first floor, zone A

Normal Smoke Increased Smoke

Control Operation Zone Exhaust^

Location (Pa) (in H

2O) (Pa) (in H

2 O)

Zone B to Zone A at corridor 4 12 0.05 27 0.11

Zone B to Zone A at corridor 3 5 0.02 12 0.05

Zone B to Zone A at door D1 17 0.07 40 0.16

Zone H to Zone A at corridor 2 15 0.06 17 0.07

Zone H to Zone A at corridor 1 10 0.04 12 0.05

Zone E to Zone A at corridor 8 5 0.05 0 0

Zone E to Zone A at D3 0 0 5 0.02

Zone G to Zone A at D4 0 0 5 0.02

Corridor 5 at doorto

D2

Interior of Zone B

15 0.06 37 0.15

Corridor 5 to ^corridor 3 10 0.04 12 0.05

For notes see table 19.

21
Table 2. Smoke control test of VA Bay Pines Hospital

first floor, zone B

Normal Smoke

Control Operation

Increased Smoke

Zone Exhaust^

Location (Pa) (in H

2O) (Pa) (in H

2 O)

Zone E to Zone A at corridor 7 -7 -0.03 -7 -0.03

Main

at

lobby to Director's

door D5

suite

12 0.05 7 0.03

Main lobby to corridor 9 (DO)^ 12 0.05 7 0.03

Main lobby to corridor 9 (DC)^ 27 0.11 20 0.08

For notes see table 19.

22
Table 3. Smoke control test of VA Bay Pines Hospital

first floor, zone C

Normal Smoke

Control Operation

Increased Smoke

Zone Exhaust^

Location (Pa) (in H

2 O) (Pa) (in H2 O)

Zone B to Zone C at door D6 15 0.06 42 0.17

Zone D to Zone C 22 0.09 32 0.13

Corridor 7 to Dietetic Services

at door D7 2 0.01 27 0.11

For notes see table 19.

23
Table 4. Smoke control test of VA Bay Pines Hospital

first floor, zone E

Location

Normal Smoke

Control Operation

Increased Smoke

Zone Exhaust®

(Pa) (in H

2O) (Pa) (in H

2

'

Zone A to Zone E at corridor 8 25 0.10 40 0.16

Zone B to Zone E at corridor 7 20 0.08 20 0.08

Corridor 7 to Pharmacy 7 0.03 32 0.13

For notes see table 19
Table 5. Smoke control test of VA Bay Pines Hospital

first floor, zones F & G

Normal Smoke

Control Operation

Increased Smoke

Zone Exhaust^

Location (Pa) (in H

2O) (Pa) (in H

2

'

Zone H to Zones F & G at door D9 25 0.10 27 0.11

Zone A to Zones F & G at door D4 30 0.12 30 0.12

For notes see table 19.

25
Table 6. Smoke control test of VA Bay Pines Hospital,

first floor, zone H

Normal Smoke Increased Smoke

Control Operation Zone Exhaust^

Location (Pa) (in H

2O) (Pa) (in H

2O)

Zone G to Zone H at door D9 15 0.06 25 0.10

Zone G to Zone H at door DIO 17 0.07 20 0.08

Zone A to Zone H at corridor 1 7 0.03 17 0.07

Zone A to Zone H at corridor 2 17 0.07 17 0.07

Zone G to corridor 5 0 0 10 0.04

Corridor 3 to corridor 5 10 0.04 7 0.03

Corridor 4 to corridor 5 22 0.09 10 0.04

Corridor 8 to corridor 5 0 0 0 0

For notes see table 19
Table 7. Smoke control test of VA Bay Pines Hospital

first floor, zone J

Location

Normal Smoke

Control Operation

(Pa) (in H

2 O)

Zone E to Zone J at corridor 8 12 0.05

Outside to Zone E 5 0.02

For notes see table 19.

27
Table 8. Smoke control test of VA Bay Pines Hospital

third floor, zone A

Normal Smoke

Control Operation

Increased Smoke

Zone Exhaust®

Location (Pa) (in H2O) (Pa) (in H

2 O)

Wing D to north lobby (DO)^ 12 0.05 20 0.08

Wing D to north lobby (DC)^ 32 0.13 55 0.22

North elevator shaft to north lobby 2 0.01 15 0.06

South lobby to north lobby 12 0.05 25 O.IO

North lobby to wing A (DO)^ 15 0.06 15 0.06

North lobby to wing A (DC)^ 22 0.09 60 0.24

For notes see table 19.

28
Table 9. Smoke control test of VA Bay Pines Hospital,

third floor, zone B

Location

Normal Smoke

Control Operation

(Pa) (in H

2 O)

Increased Smoke

Zone Exhaust^

(Pa) (in H

2 O)

Wing C to south lobby (DO)^

Wing C to south lobby (DC)^

South elevator shaft to south lobby

Stairwell 2 to south lobby

North lobby to south lobby

South lobby to wing B (DO)^

South lobby to wing B (DC)^

20 0.08 17 0.07

40 0.16 62 0.25

0 0 5 0.02

-2 -0.01 2 0.01

15 0.06 20 0.08

12 0.05 12 0.05

22 0.09 42 0.17

For notes see table 19
Table 10. Smoke control test of VA Bay Pines Hospital,

third floor, zone C

Normal Smoke

Control Operation

Increased Smoke

Zone Exhaust®

Location (Pa) (in H

2O) (Pa) (in H

2O)

Wing B to south lobby (DO)^ 12 0.05 12 0.05

Wing B to south lobby (DC)^ 17 0.07 27 0.11

South elevator shaft to south lobby -10 -0.04 -5 -0.02

Stairwell 2 to south lobby -10 -0.04 -2 -0.01

North lobby to south lobby -5 -0.02 -5 -0.02

South lobby to wing C (DO)^ 15 0.06 17 0.07

South lobby to wing C (DC)^ 25 0.10 57 0.23

For notes see table 19.

30
Table ll. Smoke control test of VA Bay Pines Hospital,

third floor, zone D

Normal Smoke

Control Operation

Increased Smoke

Zone Exhaust^

Location (Pa) (in H

2O) (Pa) (in H

2 O)

Wing A to north lobby (DO)^ 10 0.04 22 0.09

Wing A to north lobby (DC)^ 17 0.07 27 0.11

North elevator to north lobby -7 -0.03 0 0

South lobby to north lobby -2 -0.01 0 0

North lobby to wing A (DO)^ 22 0.09 15 0.06

North lobby to wing A (DC)^ 22 0.09 60 0.24

For notes see table 19.

31
Table 12. Smoke control test of VA Bay Pines Hospital,

fourth floor, zone A

Normal Smoke

Control Operation

Increased Smoke

Zone Exhaust^

Location (Pa) (in H

2 O) (Pa) (in H2 O)

Wing D to north lobby (DO)^ 12 0.05 22 0.09

Wing D to north lobby (DC)^ 30 0.12 50 0.20

North elevator shaft to north lobby 0 0 10 0.04

Stairwell 1 to north lobby 0 0 10 0.04

South lobby to north lobby 10 0.04 25 0.10

North lobby to wing D (DO)^ 10 0.04 10 0.04

North lobby to wing D (DC)^ 15 0.06 45 0.18

For notes see table 19.

32
Table 13. Smoke coatrol test of VA Bay Pines Hospital

fourth floor, zone B

Increased Smoke Increased Exhaust

Normal

Control

Smoke

Opertion

Zone Exhaust^ with

Pressurization

Above and Below

without

of

Above

Pressurization

Floors

and Below*^

Location (Pa) (in H

2 O) (Pa) (in H2O) (Pa) (in H2 O)

Wing C to south lobby (DO)^ 15 0.06 15 0.06 15 0.06

Wing C to south lobby (DC)^ 47 0.19 62 0.25 60 0.24

South elevator shaft to

south lobby 0 0 7 0.03 7 0.03

North “lobby to south lobby 12 0.05 17 0.07 25 0.10

South lobby to wing B (DO)^ — — 22 0.09 17 0.07

South lobby to wing B (DC)^ 15*^ 0.06^ 45 0.18 47 0.19

For notes see table 19.
Table 14. Smoke control test of VA Bay Pines Hospital,

fourth floor, zone C

Normal Smoke

Control Operation

Increased Smoke

Zone Exhaust®

Location (Pa) (in H

2 O) (Pa) (in H

2

'

Wing B to south lobby (DO)^ 15 0.06 20 0.08

Wing B to south lobby (DC)^ 30 0.12 30 0. 12

South elevator shaft to south lobby -10 -0.04 -2 -0.01

North lobby to south lobby -15 -0.06 -7 -0.03

South lobby to wing C (DO)^ 10 0.04 30 0.12

South lobby to wing C (DC)^ 37 0.15 70 0.28

For notes see table 19.

34
Table 15. Smoke control test of VA Bay Pines Hospital

fourth floor, zone D

Normal Smoke

Control Operation

Increased Smoke

Zone Exhaust®

Location (Pa) (in H

2 O) (Pa) (in H

2

'

Wing A to north lobby (DO)^ 15 0.06 17 0.07

Wing A to north lobby (DC)^ 20 0.08 30 0.12

North elevator shaft to north lobby -7 -0.03 0 0

Stairwell 1 to north lobby -7 -0.03 0 0

South lobby to north lobby 0 0 0 0

North lobby to wing D (DO)^ 20 0.08 22 0.09

North lobby to wing D (DC)^ 27 0.11 65 0.26

For notes see table 19
Table 16. Smoke control test of VA Bay Pines Hospital

fifth floor, zone A

Normal Smoke Increased Smoke

Control Operation Zone Exhaust^

Location (Pa) (in H

2 O) (Pa) (in H2 O)

Wing D to north lobby (D0)“ 25 0.10 25 0.10

Wing D to north lobby (DC)^ 32 0.13 50 0.20

North elevator shaft to north lobby 2 0.01 5 0.02

Stairwell 1 to north lobby 0 0 7 0.03

South lobby to north lobby 12 0.05 17 0.07

North lobby to wing A (DO)^ 12 0.05 7 0.03

North lobby to wing A (DC)^ 15 0.06 40 0.16

For notes see table 19
Table 17. Smoke control test of VA Bay Pines Hospital,

fifth floor, zone B

Normal Smoke

Control Operation

Increased Smoke

Zone Exhaust®

Location (Pa) (in H

2 O) (Pa) (in H

2 O)

Wing C to south lobby (DO)^ 17 0.07 17 0.07

Wing c to south lobby (DC)^ 27 0.11 47 0.19

South elevator shaft to south lobby 2 0.01 7 0.03

Stairwell 2 to south lobby 2 0.01 0 0

North lobby to south lobby 22 0.09 40 0.16

South lobby to wing B (DO)^ 20 0.08 20 0.08

South lobby to wing B (DC)^ 25 0.10 57 0.23

For notes see table 19.

37
Table 18. Smoke control test of VA Bay Pines Hospital,

fifth floor, zone C

Normal Smoke Increased Smoke

Control Operation Zone Exhaust^

Location (Pa) (in H

2O) (Pa) (in H

2 O)

Wing B to south lobby 20 0.08 22 0.09

South elevator shaft to south lobby -7 -0.03 0 0

Stairwell to south lobby 2 0.01 50 0.20

North lobby to south lobby -5 -0.02 0 0

South lobby to wing C (DO)^ 20 0.08 15 0.06

South lobby to wing C (DC)^ 22 0.09 75 0.30

For notes see table 19
Table 19. Smoke control test of VA Bay Pines Hospital,

fifth floor, zone D

Normal Smoke Increased Smoke

Control Operation Zone Exhaust^

Location (Pa) (in H

2O) (Pa) (in H

2O)

Wing A to north lobby (DO)^ 25 O.IO 25 0.10

Wing A to north lobby (DC)^ 30 0.12 45 0.18

South elevator to north lobby -17 -0.07 -7 -0.03

Stairwell 1 to north lobby -15 -0.06 2 0.01

South lobby to north lobby -27 -O.ll -12 -0.05

North lobby to wing D (DO)^ 17 0.07 27 0.11

North lobby to wing D (DC)^ 27 0.11 57 0.23

Notes

a. Exhaust air increased from the smoke zone by blocking an exhaust inlet

located Inside the interstitial space.

b. Frequently, the airflow was sufficient to hold doors open a few Inches.

Pressure difference measurements made under this condition are denoted

(DO). Additional measurements were made v/here the doors were held closed

(DC).

c. Operation of smoke control system was without pressurization of zones on floors above and below and with increased smoke zone exhaust due to

blocking of interstitial space exhaust.

d. Insufficient air flow to hold door open.

39
CO

CD

CO

lU LU

40

Figure

1.

Bay

Pines

VA

Hospital

First

Floor

Plan
Note:

For

Zone

Code

See

Figure

1.

41

Figure

2.

Bay

Pines

VA

Hospital

Second

Floor

Plan
SW5

SW3

too

'c

(0

JO.o

0

to ^ O

ro ? r- -Q ^ -Q > I i ^ 3 5 E

O

-* CO

o o

g> ^ o

IJJ CO ~

0)

C3) <uo

5

^^ XJ O O 8 o ^ ^ O Q Q ^ CO O

•a . o ^ O 0) c =

i.5> N UI- 0) O 0) U. (O

CO o

o

LLI CO

42

Figure

3.

Bay

Pines

VA

Hospital

Typicai

Pian

for

Floors

3,

4

and

5
Under Normal

Conditions

Doors Are Open

Allowing Unobstructed

Foot Traffic

Upon Fire Detection

Doors Close and

Airflow Through

Cracks Around Doors

Prevents Smoke

Backflow to Protected

Space

Protected

Space

Smoke

Zone

/

Larger Airflow

Holds Door Open

Limiting Pressure

Difference But

Large Air Velocity

Can Still Prevent

Smoke Backflow

Figure 4. Operations of Double Egress Doors in Smoke Control System

43
NBS«114A (REV. 2 «ec) U.S. DEPT. OF COMM.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET CSee instructions)

1. PUBLICATION OR

REPORT NO.

NBSIR 84-2868

2. Performing Organ. Report No. 3. Publication Date May 1984

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Field Tests of the Smoke Control System at the Bay Pines VA Hospital

5. AUTHOR(S)

John H. Klote

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 Reports. Period Covered

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

9.

SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (Street, City, State, ZIP)

10.

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

I I Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FIPS Software Summary, is attached.

11.

ABSTRACT (A 200~word or less factual summary of most significant information. If document includes a significant

bibliography or literature survey, mention it here)

The Veterans Administration (VA) has sponsored a project at the Center for

Fire Research of the National Bureau of Standards to study smoke control in VA

hospitals and to develop new design approaches and methods of acceptance testing.

This paper is the first report of this project, and it presents the results of a field test on the VA Bay Pines Hospital. In general the smoke control systems at

this hospital performed well,, however, there were some problems. These problems

are discussed along with specific recommendations for their corrections and general

recommendations to prevent similar problems in future hospitals. It was observed

that the bidirectional double doors in the hospital acted in a manner similar to

barometric dampers to limit pressure differences.

12.

KEY WORDS (Six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only proper names; and separate key words by semicolons)

Air movement; field tests; hospitals; interstitial space; pressurization; smoke

control; smoke detector.

13.

AVAILABILITY 14. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

Unlimited For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

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

20402.

Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA. 22161

50

15. Price

$8.50

USCOMM-DC 6043-P80