Global Transition to Performance Building Regulation and FSE

Keynote Address:
Global Transition to Performance
Building Regulation and FSE
Richard W. Bukowski, P.E., FSFPE
Rolf Jensen and Associates
Chicago, IL USA
US Performance Codes
• International Performance Code for
Buildings and Facilities (ICC)
– Building & Fire (regulatory system)
– Similar to New Zealand Code
• Building Construction and Safety
Code (NFPA)
– Chapter 5 Performance Option
• Neither are adopted but both are
used to support alternative
methods and materials.
– Unique or unusual buildings
– Egress deficiencies
History of Building Regulation
Hammurabi 1760 BC
•
•
•
•
•
•
“If a building collapses and kills the
owner’s son, then the son of the
builder shall be put to death” –
Objective-based
No way to assess adequacy of
design, rather punishment for failure
Inability to predict performance was
the primary impediment until 20th
Century
Building construction was an art
practiced by craftsmen following
accepted practice
Still not necessary to engineer short
buildings, collapse the main issue
Seismic design was lacking but most
large cities burned down regularly
History of Building Regulation
London
• Adopted building
regulations after the
“Great Fire” of 1189
• Lacking enforcement,
London burned again in
1200
• After the Great(er) Fire of
1666 they tried again,
limiting
– combustibility of exterior
materials and
– Street width
History of Building Regulation
Early US Regulation
• Building regulation constitutionally part
of State’s police power
– US, Canada, Australia, …
• Regulations followed disasters (lives lost
led to public outcry)
– NY tenement fires 1860
– Chicago fire 1871
• Boston 1872 ($$$$$$$)
– 70 insurance comp. bankrupted
– NBFU formed, wrote National Building
Code tied to insurance ratings ($$$)
• Helsinki fire 1808
– Russians urged stone construction
– 1865 code expanded stone zone
History of Building Regulation
US Regional Model Codes
• Regional variations in materials
and practices
– Uniform Building Code (1927)
• timber, seismic
– Standard Building Code (1946)
• hot/humid, hurricanes
– National Building Code (1950)
• concrete & steel, tall, snow loads
• Public interest from large life-loss
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
1903 Iroquois Theater Chicago, IL, 602 deaths
1906 San Francisco earthquake/fires, 492 deaths
1911 Triangle Shirtwaist Factory New York City, 150 deaths
1929 Cleveland Clinic, OH, 125 deaths
1930 Ohio State Penitentiary Columbus, OH, 320 deaths
1940 Rhythm Club dance hall Natchez, MS, 207 deaths
1942 Coconut Grove nightclub Boston, MA, 492 deaths
1944 Circus tent Hartford, CT, 162 deaths
1946 Wynecoff Hotel Atlanta, GA, 119 deaths
1958 Our Lady of Angeles school Chicago, IL, 95 deaths
1911 150 die in NY factory when locked doors prevent escape
1991 25 die in NC factory when locked doors prevent escape
Prescriptive vs Performance
Evolving Definition of Performance
•
Early 20th Century
– Change from detailed spec to test
rating considered performance
•
Performance requirements more
–
–
–
–
rational
flexible
functional
cost effective
• NBS promoted performance codes
after WW I to facilitate lower cost
housing for returning soldiers
• Performance became possible with
the development of methods to
predict performance in use
Guest Report
Scotland 1957
• 1954 Government
Commission
– Uniform standards
– Flexibility to permit new
materials and methods
• Identified both
advantages and issues
of performance
regulation that are
identical to those being
discussed today
Performance-based Regulation
Chronology of Adoptions
•
England/Wales 1985
–
•
Japan 1988 and 2000
–
–
•
Crown decree
Canada 2005
–
•
Model code not adopted by states
Spain 2006
–
•
National code
United States 2001
–
•
BCA model code with state amendments
Norway 1997
–
•
National code enforced by local councils
Australia 1996
–
•
Building decree
New Zealand 1993
–
•
National code enforced by local authorities
Defined analytical method
Netherlands 1992 and 2003
–
•
Performance supported by approved
documents, BS9999
Objective code with state amendments
Austria in progress
–
Treaty among member provinces
Nordic Model
As applied in the New Zealand Code
C2.1 Safeguard people from injury or illness from a fire while escaping to a safe place
Functional Requirement (Statements)
For each identified goal there are one or more functions that need to be performed in order for
the goal to be met. In the NZ code the associated functional requirement is:
C2.2 Buildings shall be provided with escape routes which give people adequate time to reach
a safe place without being overcome by the effects of fire,
Performance Requirements
For each functional requirement there is one or more performance requirement that must be
satisfied in order for the functional requirement to be met. Continuing the NZ code
example, the performance requirements are:
C2.3.1 The number of open paths available to each person escaping to an exitway or final exit
shall be appropriate to:
(a) The travel distance.
(b) The number of occupants,
(c) The fire hazard, and
(d) The fire safety systems installed in the firecell.
C2.3.2 The number of exitways or final exits available to each person shall be appropriate to:
(a) The open path travel distance,
(b) The building height,
(c) The number of occupants,
(d) The fire hazard, and
(e) The fire safety systems installed in the building.
C2.3.3 Escape routes shall be:
(a) Of adequate size for the number of occupants,
(b) Free of obstruction in the direction of escape,
(c) Of length appropriate to the mobility of the people using them,
(d) Resistant to the spread of fire as required by Clause C3 ‘‘Spread of Fire’’,
(e) Easy to find as required by Clause F8 ‘‘Signs’’,
(f) Provided with adequate illumination as required by Clause F6 ‘‘Lighting for Emergency’’,
and
(g) Easy and safe to use as required by Clause D1.3.3 ‘‘Access Routes’’.
Risk Informed Regulation
•
Means to deal with Extreme
Events
– Used in nuclear power and
chemical industries
– Permits consequences to
exceed goals if likelihood is
sufficiently rare
• Risk management in
regulations
–
–
–
–
–
Occupancy classes
Performance groups (ICC)
Design scenarios (NFPA)
Natural Fires (EU)
ISO TC92 SC4
Peer Review Systems
• Comparative analysis
• Analysis against objectives
• Qualified reviewers
– Government/academic teams
(not sustainable)
– Competitors (special experts)
• Regulators typically do not
possess the technical
expertise to judge
performance analysis
(Guest)
Scenario Selection
•
Regulators concerned about the
Fire Engineer having too much
control
–
–
–
–
–
•
NFPA 5000
–
–
–
–
•
Select scenarios
Define fires
Set acceptance criteria
Deem acceptable
Review each other’s work
Design fire scenario (8)
Immediate occupancy scenario
Collapse prevention scenario
Safety in use scenarios (2)
ISO TS 16733 Design Fire
Scenarios and Design Fires
SFPE Guide to PBD
Other Issues
• Self regulated bodies
– Governmental
– Quasi-governmental
– Treaty organizations
• Third party approving officials
– Consistent application of
regulations
• Regulatory Rigor of Analytical
Methods
– Verification and validation
– Documentation (proprietary)
• Performance Fire Codes
– Bounding conditions
Special Applications of Performance
• Unique Structures
– Not contemplated by
regulations
– Constraints limit options
• Historically and
culturally significant
– Maintain historical fabric
– Historically consistent
approaches
– Bari, IT opera house &
town hall (19th c)
Codification of FSE
• ISO TC92 SC4
– ISO DTR 13387-1, -8
• Fire Engineering Guidelines
– SFPE International
• Guide to Performance based FP
• Handbook of FPE
– Australia
– New Zealand
– International Collaboration
• DD240/BS9999
• Japanese Performance analysis
method
• Victoria University of Technology
• LUND