|
Azarang Mirkhah, P. E. (1998) Challenges Confronting the Application of Performance Based Fire & Life Safety Codes, Thesis for Master of Public Administration University of Nevada, Las Vegas, www.fitting-in.com/ozzie.htm |
||||||||
|
ABSTRACT By the year 2000, the International Code Council (ICC) will not only combine all of the three different regional prescriptive building, fire and life safety codes into a single nationwide prescriptive codes, but more importantly, it will publish this country’s first performance based building, fire and life safety codes. The major difference between the prescriptive codes and performance based codes is in their approach to the concept of design. Basically, the prescriptive codes design approach could be labeled as the “cook book” approach. Just like in the “cook book”, with the prescriptive codes approach the engineers design to a set of predetermined requirements identified in the codes, based on generic occupancies, construction, or hazard classifications. The performance based codes concepts are fundamentally different from the prescriptive codes. In the performance based codes approach, the engineers design to comply with the desired fire and life safety objectives, outlined as the design criteria, and agreed upon and approved by the Authorities Having Jurisdiction (AHJs), during the preliminary phases of the project. The engineers then have the design freedom and flexibility to accomplish the set goals based on any and all available engineering solutions. The main purpose of this descriptive research paper is to outline some of the major technical challenges and obstacles confronting the AHJs and the code enforcers in the implementation and application of the performance based codes, and to develop recommendations to address the deficiencies. Since the performance based codes will be heavily dependent on engineering solutions, lack of technical engineering expertise on the part of the AHJs could present major problems in successfully implementing the performance based codes. The question then is, in the relatively short time remaining, how could the AHJs obtain the necessary technical expertise to enable them to successfully implement the performance based codes? The AHJs have two basic choices. They could either depend on the technical expertise of the fire protection consulting firms in the private sector, and obtain their services as their technical consultants, or hire a fire protection engineer as their in house technical expert. The most important recommendation, that could prepare the AHJs to address the challenging obstacles of the performance based code era, is having a staff fire protection engineer on board. By having an experienced and qualified fire protection engineer on their team, the AHJs will have the technical expertise to be able to determine the design objectives and the “acceptable solution”, as the design criteria for the performance based designs, at the conception phase; evaluate and analyze the computer fire modeling and calculations and determine the integrity of the fire and life safety designs, during the plan review and approval phase; and participate in the field testing, final acceptance and approval, during the installation and completion phase of the projects. Active participation of the staff fire protection engineer in the entire project cycle, from the conception phase to the completion phase, would provide the concise communication, quality control, consistency and continuity, necessary for the success of any complex project. This approach is applicable to all complex projects whether designed based on the prescriptive codes or the performance based codes. As a variation to this alternative, another option which is more feasible to the smaller jurisdictions is to join resources to hire a staff fire protection engineer, cooperatively utilize his/her technical expertise, and divide the financial burdens amongst themselves. Another similar option could be for a jurisdiction to hire a staff fire protection engineer, and by marketing his/her technical services to the other jurisdictions, reduce their budgetary impacts by charging the other jurisdictions for the technical services rendered. As stated before, the AHJs could also rely on the private sector for their technical expertise. The AHJs could implement a system of peer review, in which the building owner pays a review fee at the time the designs are submitted for approval. The AHJs then submit the designs to a private sector fire protection engineering firm for a peer review. To be able to successfully implement the performance based codes by the end of the century, the AHJs need to enhance their technical expertise. Most importantly though, the AHJs need to educate the political and administrative leadership of the jurisdiction about the performance based codes. After all, their political support is essential for AHJs success. |
||||||||
|
CHALLENGES CONFRONTING THE APPLICATION OF PERFORMANCE BASED FIRE & LIFE SAFETY CODES by Azarang Mirkhah, P.E. Fire Protection Engineer Las Vegas Fire Department A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Public Administration Department of Public Administration University of Nevada, Las Vegas May 1998 ã 1998 Azarang Mirkhah, P.E. All Rights Reserved The Thesis of Azarang Mirkhah, P.E. for the degree of Master in Public Administration is approved. Chairperson, Dr. William N. Thompson, Ph.D. Examining Committee Member, Dr. Karen S. Layne, Ph.D. Examining Committee Member, Mr. Robert H. Cullins, Jr., M.P.A. Graduate Faculty Representative, Dr. Robert F. Boehm, Ph.D., P.E. Dean of the Graduate College, Dr. Ronald W. Smith, Ph.D. University of Nevada, Las Vegas May 1998 |
||||||||
|
|
TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract Introduction Background And Significance Literature Review Defining the Performance Based Codes Computer Fire Modeling New Terminology Challenges Procedure Results Discussion Recommendations References APPENDIX - A (WORKING DEFENITIONS) APPENDIX - B (EQUIVALANCY CODE SECTIONS) APPENDIX - C (LIABILITY CODE SECTIONS) |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
Want help with your bibliography? Go to Research Advice |
INTRODUCTION
The first laws and regulations for building construction can be traced back to Babylon’s famous Code of Hammurabi, 1790 BC. Since then, construction codes and standards have been the regulating guidelines in the building construction industry. The current building and fire codes in the United States can be categorized as primarily “specification-based,” or “prescriptive”. Prescriptive refers to providing, in great details, the exact requirements in terms of specific measurements, materials, methods and so forth. The requirements in the prescriptive codes generally have been derived through the accumulated judgment of a group of experts, or by actual field experiences, and represent the practical knowledge and experiences accumulated throughout the years.
Prescriptive codes and standards developed by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), and the other three dominant U.S. model code developing agencies, International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), Southern Building Code Congress International (SBCCI), and Building Officials and Code Administrators (BOCA), are all similar in their approach toward fire and life safety system designs.
ICBO is the dominant model code agency for the states west of the Mississippi, the southern states utilize the model codes developed by SBCCI, and BOCA model codes are adopted by the northeastern states. These model code agencies develop building, plumbing, mechanical, structural, electrical and fire codes for their regions. NFPA is the only code development agency that is focused solely on the fire protection issues and has developed 12 volumes of fire codes and standards for various types of occupancies and industrial installations. Model codes developed by ICBO, SBCCI, and BOCA have all adopted and extensively referenced some of the various NFPA fire codes. Thus, by virtue of being a supplement to these regional model codes, some (not all) of the NFPA codes are being utilized nationally.
The magnitude of regionalism in the code enforcement community could be better understood realizing that while adopting these models codes, each jurisdiction (state, county, city) also supplements them with their own local requirements. For example, while the model codes developed by the ICBO have been adopted by both the Clark County and the City of Las Vegas, their local supplements are different. Simply stated, buildings north of the Sahara Avenue are subject to different codes than the ones south of it. It should not be difficult to visualize the vast differences between the codes in different states.
This regional approach to the codes might have been adequate a couple of decades ago, when the majority of the design projects would have been developed by the local architectural and engineering firms. For example, it would have been cost prohibitive and impractical for an architect or an engineer from New York to design a project in Sacramento. Lack of expertise in the local codes would have been the least of the architect’s/engineer’s problems, compared to the logistical problems associated with communications, submittals, plan review, permitting, construction, and final acceptance testing of the project.
However, in this day and age of global communication, overnight mail delivery, Fax, E-mail, cellular phones, and the Internet majority of the logistical obstacles mentioned above have been removed. Now a days, it is quite feasible for an architect/engineer from one side of the country (or even the world) to develop the design package for a project located on the other side. However, the differences in the regional codes are still the remaining ball and chain dragging the pace of the progress.
In an attempt to remove this obstacle, in 1994 the model code developing agencies planned a merger to form the International Code Council (ICC). ICC was formed with the intent of not only developing a single model prescriptive code for the entire country by the year 2000, but most importantly, to introduce for the very first time the revolutionary concept of the performance based codes.
The performance based codes are fundamentally different from the prescriptive codes described above. A performance based code system takes a proactive approach by clearly stating the intention of the code and by providing references to the tools or methodologies needed to meet the intent. Rather than stating the exact design methodology as the prescriptive codes do, a performance based code provides guidance on how the intent could be achieved. This could include the application of prescriptive codes and standards currently in use, as well as, analysis and design using engineering methods, or a combination of both methods.
Simply stated, the major difference between the prescriptive codes and performance based codes is in their approach toward the concept of design. Basically, the prescriptive codes design approach could be labeled as the “cook book” approach. Just like in the “cook book”, with the prescriptive codes approach the engineers design to a set of predetermined requirements identified in the codes, based on generic occupancies, construction, or hazard classifications. However, with the performance based codes approach, the engineers design to comply with the fire and life safety goals as the preset criteria, identified at the preliminary stages of the project development. The engineers then have the design freedom and flexibility to accomplish the set goals based on any and all available engineering solutions.
It is important to note that the dawn of the performance based codes era does not mean a dusk for the prescriptive codes. Both approaches are valuable and will continue to be jointly applied for decades to come. Developing a performance based design alternative as an equivalent to the design criteria identified in the prescriptive codes may require extensive computer fire modeling and engineering research and calculations, which make the performance based designs cost prohibitive for a majority of the relatively small and ordinary buildings. For the majority of these ordinary and routine projects, it may simply be more feasible to comply with the existing design requirements identified in the current prescriptive codes. It might be that only the unique and complex projects with the big budgets will be the ones that could afford being innovative and utilize the performance based codes extensively.
The performance based design and the prescriptive codes might even be jointly applied in the same building. For example, the entire building might be designed based on the prescriptive codes and the design engineer may utilize the performance based design approach and propose installing a fire sprinkler system in the building as an equivalent to the interior walls fire resistive rating requirements identified in th