Using Combustible Materials Cost Lives

Building Resilience Coalition readers will find the following editorial prepared by Concrete BC of interest. It deals with the need for balance in the development of Building Codes regarding fire resistance.

The Need for Balance in Our Fire Codes

By Concrete BC

December 2017 – Canada, along with the United States, still has the worst fire death rate for all the industrialized countries for which we have comparable data.[i] Historically, building and fire code requirements were developed to provide property protection, but current fire protection codes give increasing emphasis to life safety.

According to British Columbia Office of the Fire Commissioner, “Life safety is a primary objective of the BC Fire Code and property protection requirements are included for two reasons: they make a direct contribution to life safety, and for the purpose of controlling conflagrations or large loss fires”.[ii]

The past two decades of building and fire codes have seen a significant reliance on the use of active fire protection systems such as sprinklers, fire extinguishers and smoke alarms and much less reliance on the passive systems such as compartmentation, fire-resistance, and material selection to protect the building inhabitants.

The continued relaxation of passive fire protection as a trade-off for the increased use of sprinklers may not be appropriate for adequate life safety, property protection, and the welfare of the public. Modern buildings behave differently once ablaze. Modern synthetic materials burn faster and hotter than legacy materials. More troubling, the increased use of engineered wood products for large apartment structure results in much faster flashovers, which are deadly and more difficult for firefighters to battle and results in faster collapse. [iii]

Sprinkler systems are invaluable life and fire safety tools. While they are extremely effective in protecting both life and property when they function as designed, sprinklers can and have failed.  Fire safety should not be a trade-off.

• The National Fire Protection Association described sprinklers resulted “in a combined performance of operating effectively in 87% of all reported fires…and the fire was large enough to activate them”;[iv]
• The National Research Council of Canada stated, “the wet and cooler burning conditions that result when sprinklers are activated lead to increased smoke generation and elevated toxic CO and CO2 levels”;[v] and,
• The National Association of State Fire Marshals reported, “the common practice of relaxing building regulations for structures with sprinkler systems is not based on sound science and data.”[vi]

Many US cities have seen the dangers of construction with combustible materials and have taken action to controlling large loss fires because these events can have serious social and economic impact on the community. New York and Chicago have a history of large conflagrations and have banned the combustible construction materials for commercial construction. More recently, Sandy Springs, a fast-growing municipality north of Atlanta banned wood-framed construction for any future buildings taller than three stories and larger than 100,000 square feet.

Modern buildings should balance active and passive safety fire protection features. An important benefit of having passive fire protection is compartmentalization with fire resistive material such as concrete, masonry and steel. Fire resistive building materials are designed to contain, prevent or slow the spread of fire from the room of origin. These fire resistive materials are also the best defense against dangerous radiant heat, which can contribute to the fire load or prevent safe egress.

Code trade-offs based solely on the safety record of sprinklers alone is an invalid and dangerous assumption. The codes have become more stringent in other areas, such as structural performance and energy conservation. Better fire provisions, meaning providing for increased life safety and property protection, deserve to receive a similar, if not greater, level of attention.

The full infographic from NRMCA is available here

References

[i] Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) America Burning Revisited, National Workshop Tyson’s Corner, Virginia November 30 – December 2, 1987, p 50.
[ii] http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/testing/wlap/firecode.htm, The British Columbia Fire Code 1998, Office of the Fire Commissioner Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Accessed December 2017
[iii] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEOmSN2LRq0 Accessed December 2017
[iv] Hall, J., “US Experience with Sprinklers,” National Fire Protection Association, June 2013.
[v] Mawhinney, JR and Eng, P., Sprinklered Fire Tests in the 10 Story Experimental Tower, Report No. CR- 6470.7, National Research Council (Canada), Institute for Research in Construction, National Fire Laboratory, Ottawa, Canada, 1992.
[vi] Dembsey, N. et. al.,“A Literature Review of Sprinkler Trade-offs Fire Protection Engineering”, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, , National Association of State Fire Marshals, 2016