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

– Performance supported by approved

documents, BS9999

• Japan 1988 and 2000

– National code enforced by local authorities

– Defined analytical method

• Netherlands 1992 and 2003

– Building decree

• New Zealand 1993

– National code enforced by local councils

• Australia 1996

– BCA model code with state amendments

• Norway 1997

– National code

• United States 2001

– Model code not adopted by states

• Spain 2006

– Crown decree

• Canada 2005

– 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

– Select scenarios

– Define fires

– Set acceptance criteria

– Deem acceptable

– Review each other’s work

• NFPA 5000 – 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