BULLETIN OF THE POLISH ACADEMY OF SCIENCES CIVIL ENGINEERING

TECHNICAL SCIENCES, Vol. 64, No. 4, 2016

DOI: 10.1515/bpasts-2016-0081

The philosophy of fire safety engineering in the shaping

of civil engineering development
W. WĘGRZYŃSKI1* and P. SULIK2
1
Fire Research Department, Building Research Institute (ITB), 1 Filtrowa St., 00-611 Warszawa, Poland
2
The Main School of Fire Service (SGSP), 52/54 Słowackiego St., 01-629 Warszawa, Poland

Abstract. This paper presents modern application of fire safety engineering (FSE) in the shaping of civil engineering development. Presented
scientific achievements of FSE become tools used in typical modern engineering workflow. Experience gained through successful implemen-
tations of these solutions is then further crafted into prescriptive laws that shape future fire safety. This diffusion of knowledge is limited by
law requirements themselves, technical limitations, and yet unresolved challenges that are still being worked on by the researchers in this field.
This paper aims to present the achievements of the FSE discipline that may and should be used by civil engineers and other participants of the
building process. Explanations given for the choices of fire safety engineers allow a better understanding of their gravity by representatives of
other engineering branches. That way it is possible to build empathy between different engineering disciplines, which may significantly im-
prove both the building design process and safety of the buildings itself. The chosen framework of this paper is Appendix A to EU Construction
Products Regulation defining basic goals for a fire safe building, with a possible application of FSE given for each of these goals. The current
framework of performance-based FSE is presented in relation to the Polish legal system, with recommendations on how to improve both FSE
and civil engineering in the future.

Key words: fire safety engineering, fire protection engineering, fire protection, performance-based design, prescriptive codes.

1. Introduction stakeholders who are not FSEs, may unwillingly influence the
fire safety. This bidirectional connection requires a system-
Safety of people in case of a building fire is the focal point of atic, holistic approach to fire safety of a building, which is the
building design. Today we achieve this safety thanks to the essence of the philosophy of modern FSE. A sample of such
rapid growth of fire safety engineering (FSE)a discipline in the approach, in the form of a framework for a good cooperation
20th century. This knowledge is involved in the design process between fire experts and structural engineers, was presented by
of almost all buildings and infrastructure projects, especially Abramowicz and Kowalski in [4].
in high-risk industry or critical infrastructure, which is quite Despite strict regulations and advanced design methodolo-
an accomplishment for such a young discipline of engineering gies, supertall buildings or large road tunnels that can be con-
[1]. Fire safety engineers (FSEs)b enable amazing structures sidered the pinnacle of modern engineering are still the scene
– regarding both scale and aesthetics – which meet the require- of catastrophic fire incidents. To reach the level of safety in
ments of fire safety [2] to be built. It is a tough goal, as with which fires would cause no fatalities and limited damage, ur-
the expected lifetime of a building, FSEs are bound to provide gent problems beyond the quality of the design also have to be
safety for future generations. The challenges we face today, resolved, e.g. the slow diffusion of knowledge, the stress on
together with their solutions, are drastically different from what reduction of fire protection cost, and abuse of overcomplicated
FSE could provide 20–30 years ago. methodologies, beyond their scope of application.
Almost every aspect of the building (e.g. architecture, ma-
terials, occupancy, etc.) influences its fire safety. To provide
the required level of safety, it is not rare that the choices made 2. Fire safety engineering
to improve the fire-related characteristics of the building be-
come the driving force behind the whole design. On the other 2.1. History and origination. One of the first practical uses
hand, due to complex connections between various engineering of FSE took place after Emperor Nero incinerated Rome in
branches [3], the choices made by civil engineers and other 64 AD. The rebuilding of the city was done with fire resistant
materials, with no common walls between the buildings and
with streets widened to limit the spread of the fire [5]. Al-
a
 ire safety engineering is a term synonymous with fire protection engineering,
F though tragic in their origins, these simple rules are close to
or fire engineering. In this paper the first name is used consequently.
b what modern engineering tries to achieve. Despite this lesson,
Short form FSE is used as a reference to fire safety engineering, as an en-
gineering discipline, while form FSEs is used as a reference to fire safety the progress was forgotten until the next great historical fire
engineers. – the Great Fire of London in 1666, which had triggered the
*e-mail: [email protected] development of professional firefighting, but has not brought

Bull. Pol. Ac.: Tech. 64(4) 2016 719

Brought to you by | Gdansk University of Technology
Authenticated
Download Date | 1/2/17 1:29 PM
 W. Węgrzyński and P. Sulik

any major change to the way people build their homes in other Another change happened in the 1970’s, when the US Gen-
places of the globe. The Great Chicago Fire in 1871 had a sim- eral Services Administration and the U.S. National Bureau of
ilar effect, again turning the focus to non-combustible mate- Standards jointly developed an event logic diagram that showed
rials, especially terracotta-like. This fire also accelerated the alternative ways of achieving building fire safety [8]. This ap-
research on fire resistance of structures, which eventually led proach, commonly referred to simply as Appendix D, became
to emergence of fire testing laboratories and standardized fire- a fundamental document for describing a risk-informed system
testing techniques. Many great fires have occurred since then, approach to designing building fire safety [9]. Since then, mul-
each of them triggering a paradigm shift in various fields of tiple frameworks and guidelines were introduced, implementing
FSE, e.g.: San Francisco (1906) and Tokio (1923) post-earth- the concept of risk-based and goal-driven approach to design,
quake fires, King’s Cross Station fire (1987), Mont Blanc which is related to as performance-based FSE. A comprehensive
Tunnel fire (1999) or World Trade Center fires in Towers 1, 2 description of the history thereof is presented in [8], and the
and 7 (2001) [6]. concept of performance-based design in [1, 10, 11], and recently
Beside the progress being fuelled by catastrophic fires, it in [12, 13]. In his work published in 2000, Meacham proposed
was the industrial revolution of 19th and 20th century when eight fundamental concerns that should be addressed by a com-
the first real and sustained advances in the field of FSE was prehensive performance-based framework for fire safety design,
observed. With an economic return of the investment in fire pro- which was the base for the development of these methods for
tection being the main objective, early FSE was mostly related the next decades [8]. Since then, we have observed significant
to industry and insurance. Nelson [7], quoting dr Bryan, points progress in each of these fields, but many challenges are still
that the next major change in the profession occurred during the ahead of us. Alvarez et al. determined eight of those challenges
World War II, when the fire safety researchers were mobilized [13], which are also an excellent summary of what a true per-
as part of war effort. This effort continued after the war, even- formance-based FSE design should be [13]:
tually changing into the FSE as we know it [7]. Since the early ● Applying generic guidance to specific projects
days of FSE till today, the discipline has grown into a matured ● Defining, using, and quantifying the performance/accep-
science [2] with a lively community, multiple research centres tance criteria
around the world, dozens of scientific conferences every year, ● Selecting design fire scenarios
and faculties in many of the world’s best technical universities. ● Comparing the levels of performance between an engi-
The FSE philosophy may be subdivided into two separate neering solution and a solution based on prescriptive re-
design paths: prescriptive-based and performance-based. The quirements
prescriptive approach can be considered an application of the ● Determining the most influential factors affecting the eval-
general rules or well-known solutions, which, enforced in a new uation of trial designs
design, provide a previously accepted level of safety in case ● Dealing with “idealized” design fire protection measures
of a fire. The performance-based engineering focuses on the and “real life” installed and running measures
aims of protection, and crafting solutions fit to meet these aims. ● Estimating the consequences of design fire scenarios
Legislators naturally enforce the prescriptive-based design, as it ● When available, adapting literature values for use in models
is easier to verify and execute, while engineers naturally lean to- Is there a direct connection between performance-based and
wards the performance-driven approach – something for which prescriptive philosophy of FSE? David J. Thomas [14] claimed
we chose this route of a professional career. There is no single that yesterday’s performance is today’s prescription. This is
answer to the question of which way is better, but importantly, a very precise description on how matured solutions become the
the best solutions for today’s engineering should set the starting future standards. It also indicates that the prescriptive approach
point for future regulations. forced by Authorities cannot block the performance solutions,
as this essentialy prevents further development of the prescrip-
2.2 Performance-based and prescriptive-based FSE philos- tive approach. This risk was already stated in 1925 US Building
ophy. The first applications of FSE were performance-engi- Code [15], as quoted by Czarnecki [3]:
neered and implemented as the new approach to limit the costs “Wherever possible, the requirements should be formulated
of fires in industry. The expected benefits of their use were in terms of performance, based on the research results ref-
meant to lower the insurance costs. This concept of use of FSE erenced to the performance conditions, and not in terms of
in risk analysis was the only possibility to promote the early the material referenced to the components and the method
discipline, as although it had not yet matured or been widely of preparation. Otherwise, any new material or new material
accepted, a direct economic relationship between solutions and systems (new sets of already known materials) that could
their effect was noticeable. This changed with the implementa- meet the technical requirements and are satisfactory in eco-
tion of safety codes in the first half of the 20th century, which nomic terms, will encounter barriers that would slow down
standardized the right solutions, necessary to disseminate the the technological progress.”
newest achievements of FSE among civil engineers, in the state
of deficiency of qualified FSEs. With this commonly accepted 2.3. Performance-based design approach in Polish Building
approach, the FSE could not be implemented directly as a de- Code framework. Polish Building Code [16] and its delegated
sign approach, but was rather a field of science, focused on acts, e.g. [17] or [18], force design solutions through strict and
improving the existing solutions and codes. direct requirements. These requirements are not only obligatory,

720 Bull. Pol. Ac.: Tech. 64(4) 2016

Brought to you by | Gdansk University of Technology
Authenticated
Download Date | 1/2/17 1:29 PM
 The philosophy of fire safety engineering in the shaping of civil engineering development

but also their implementation and execution are carefully veri- Development, often supported by the National Headquarters
fied (typically by officers of State Fire Service) at both the stages of State Fire Service and Building Research Institute, has to
of design acceptance and commissioning. It may seem that in confirm each alternative solution.
the Polish Building Code system the mechanism of slowing the
progress through the strict, prescriptive law works just as ex- 2.4. Fire safety engineering in CPR framework.
plained in the quote above, and for some buildings, derogation “Construction works as a whole and in their separate parts
seems to be the only way to allow the benefits of the modern must be fit for their intended use, taking into account, in par-
state of knowledge. In fact, it is most likely impossible to design ticular, the health and safety of persons involved throughout
a supertall skyscraper or a large-volume shopping mall in Poland the life cycle of the works. Subject to normal maintenance,
by only following the building code. In practice, the derogations construction works must satisfy these basic requirements for
became an integral part of the building permit procedure. construction works for an economically reasonable working
Besides the derogation procedure, a notable exception life” [20].
of prescriptive laws within the building code are the regula- This definition, written in Appendix 1 to Construction Prod-
tions on smoke and heat exhaust ventilation (SHEV) systems ucts Regulation (CPR) [20], summarizes the expectations set
(§270 [17], App. 1 to [18]), which can be considered fully by law for modern civil engineering, and is followed by a list
performance-based. Seven years have passed since the imple- of basic requirements:
mentation of this performance-based rule, and while it can be 1. Mechanical resistance and stability
associated with liberation of the SHEV design that allowed 2. Safety in case of fire
the design of smoke exhaust systems in challenging and in- 3. Hygiene, health, and the environment
spiring structures, some issues with this approach have been 4. Safety and accessibility in use
observed. Many of SHEV system designs, despite using the 5. Protection against noise
same tools and “state of the art knowledge,” are conceived in 6. Energy economy and heat retention
an entirely different manner, and the quality of these solutions 7. Sustainable use of natural resources
ranges from untenable to excellent. This diversity in quality of Implementation of CPR into Polish law system is done
the solutions may be attributed to freedom of assumptions for through delegated acts to building code, and the requirements
the design, including fire scenarios. Variability in the size of the related to fire safety are repeated in §207 of [17]:
fire and smoke production has the biggest influence over the “The construction works must be designed and built in such
system’s performance [19]. Incorrect choices lead to systems a way that in the event of an outbreak of fire:
with a doubtful performance. Such inconsistencies in design a) the load-bearing capacity of the construction can be as-
were pointed out as a typical flaw of performance-based ap- sumed for a specific period of time;
proach by Alvarez et al. [13]. Without well-defined scenarios, b) the generation and spread of fire and smoke within the
acceptance criteria, and, most importantly, education of author- construction works are limited;
ities responsible for the acceptance of such solutions, there will c) the spread of fire to neighbouring construction works
always be a possibility of human error or intentional abuse. is limited;
A middle ground between the performance and prescriptive d) occupants can leave the construction works or be rescued
engineering can be a system in which performance-driven de- by other means;
sign is required by setting the goals for the solution, followed e) the safety of rescue teams is taken into consideration.”
by predefined scenarios for which this solution has to be tested. In the opinion of the authors, the need to limit the socio-eco-
This is how performance-based engineering is implemented in nomic cost of the fire also has a strong influence on the civil
New Zealand. While the country was one of first to fully accept engineering development. While direct protection of human
performance-based solutions in the 1990’s, this approach was life is the essential goal, also features related to the quality
changed to scenario-based in the first decade of the 21st cen- of life, such as protection of the property, business continuity,
tury through the application of the C/VM2c verification method. preservation of historical value and the environment must be
Other possible ways to maintain the quality of the FSE solutions assured [8]. These elements are not directly required by law, but
is through additional third-party check of all performance-driven are enforced by the expectations of investors and users of the
designs – a highly cost- and time-consuming requirement. This engineered buildings. In this way, the CPR sets the minimum
can also be done indirectly, by increased responsibility of the requirements, which the investors amend with their expecta-
engineer over his design (which in a way leads to a voluntary tions, and then try to fulfil with minimum cost. To do that,
third-party check). The derogation-based way of implementing knowledge gathered within FSE discipline must be used, along
FSE in Poland fits within this approach. Chartered fire safety with its appropriate tools.
experts have to approve solutions before they are submitted, and
then qualified personnel of the Ministry of Infrastructure and
3. Tools of FSE
c
 erification Method C/VM2 consists of six Building Code clauses related to
V
protecting people in and around buildings, limiting fire spread, and helping Performance-based FSE can rarely be applied as a rule of thumb
the firefight and rescue. https://www.building.govt.nz/building-code-compli- or by an engineer’s judgement. A simplified approach usually
ance/c-protection-from-fire/ leads to either an overdesign with unnecessary safety margins

Bull. Pol. Ac.: Tech. 64(4) 2016 721

Brought to you by | Gdansk University of Technology
Authenticated
Download Date | 1/2/17 1:29 PM
 W. Węgrzyński and P. Sulik

or to an underdesign that may be unsafe, but rarely to a cost-ef- 20% to 200%, along with high inconsistency between various
fective solution. To provide solutions that would exceed the FPEs who performed the analysis. In the a priori approach,
prescriptive-based recommendations, FSE has developed a wide without reference values for the heat release rate parameter,
scope of tools used in practice for the solution to fit the project. these inconsistencies were even bigger.
An important step for performance-based FSE was the in-
3.1. History of fire modelling tools. In the 1950’s and 1960’s troduction of a CFD model called Fire Dynamics Simulator
various models were developed to better understand the physics (FDS) [32], by the National Institute of Standards and Tech-
of fire and its consequences, and, among others, the works of nology (USA), in collaboration with VTT (Finland). With its
Thomas, Yokoi or Kawagoe has to be mentioned [21–23]. introduction, the community gained a highly optimized, fire-ori-
A paradigm shift in this field happened in the 1970’s with the ented numerical model, that helped the further growth of the
introduction of zone fire models, of which the ones of most im- discipline in almost all areas. Along with the implementation
portance were the RUNF, the Harvard model, and the Consoli- of FDS in FPE, an enormous effort was put to validate it, along
dated Model of Fire and Smoke Transport [7, 24]. These models with other free and commercially available CFD tools used in
allowed for the estimation of temperature in compartment fires, FSE, e.g. OpenFoam [33], Ansys Fluent [34], Phoenics [35],
along with some basic performance of SHEV systems, estima- Smartfire [36] or StarCCM+ [37], etc. This effort is continued
tion of actuation time of sprinklers or sensors, and quantitative to build a broad database of validation studies which can help
assessment of the influence of fire products on the users of assess the inconsistency of the simulation results between
the building. The origination of zone models comes from full- models and their users [38]. Some of the advanced applica-
and small-scale experiments, and as such, these solutions are tions of this method, related to various areas of FSE can be
probably the most validated tools of FSE. Zone models are still found in [39–42].
developed today [25–27], although they are less popular than
CFD models. 3.2. Problems connected with the use of FSE tools. The
Another significant shift in the discipline came with the common and easy access to advanced numerical models em-
introduction of a method for quantification of fire safety in ploying computational fluid dynamics, along with the avail-
a building by estimating the available safe evacuation time ability of cheap, high-computational-power computers or cloud
(ASET), proposed by dr Cooper in the 1980s [28]. This concept services caused a significant rise in the popularity of commer-
is still the common approach to the estimation of fire safety cial CFD simulations in the design process. While simple “hand
related to human evacuation in the buildings. calculation” models were developed through experiments, are
The pinnacle of FSE tools is the numerical methods, such well-validated and appropriate for the purpose of design, CFD
as computational fluid dynamics (CFD), finite volume methods often is chosen over, as a “more credible” tool, or by assump-
(FVM), and finite element methods (FEM), which allow the tion that it has a greater chance to be accepted by authorities
simulation of complex physical phenomena in any geometry over a simple method [43]. Since this high-resource-consuming
and with great accuracy. Due to their complex nature, they are process may often lead to lower quality of solutions, this may
very prone to the user’s mistake [29]. Estimation of this error be considered a regression of the development.
was possible through round-robin comparison studies, carried A typical workflow for fire engineers using fire models in
prior to, and after extensive fire experiments, out of which the a building design process should begin with an initial assess-
most important one was the Dalmarock fire experiment [30, 31]. ment using the simplest applicable method, followed by gradual
The results of these studies show that even with detailed infor- progression to more complex methods if necessary or justified
mation about the parameters of a fire (obtained through an ex- by the project, Fig. 1. This is often replaced with an application
periment), predictions of the outcome have error ranging from of personal judgement or golden rules, followed by confirma-

Fig. 1. Example of engineering workflow in fire safety engineering, expected (top) and observed in practice (bottom) [39]

722 Bull. Pol. Ac.: Tech. 64(4) 2016

Brought to you by | Gdansk University of Technology
Authenticated
Download Date | 1/2/17 1:29 PM
 The philosophy of fire safety engineering in the shaping of civil engineering development

tion with numerical modelling – such workflow generates major 4. Areas of FSE related to CPR requirements
issues if the solution does not work, as tools to fix it are limited.
A guideline to tools used in performance-based FSE is given 4.1. Structures in the fire. “(a) the load-bearing capacity of
in [44], and valuable information on model applicability can be the construction can be assumed for a specific period” [20].
found in [43, 45, 46]. Sample choice of practical tools for given Effects of fires on structures were among the most investi-
problems in the design of an industrial building is presented in gated aspect of FSE throughout the world, although the main
Table 1 [39]. progress was gained through full-scale testing, rather than sim-
ulations. Quoting Nelson [7], the first practical models of struc-
Table 1 tural response to fire were introduced in 1942 in the appendix
Fire safety engineering tools used in design process – referring to to document BMS 92, and the first analogue methods for deter-
industrial/storage facilities design [39] mining fire resistance of structures were developed in the 1950’s.
The most common way to test structures in fire is to use the
Type Software / model Application standard time-temperature curve (also known as ASTM E119)
– whose first publication dates to 1916 [47]. This test does not
CFD FDS, ANSYS, CFD analysis forms the
present the characteristics of a structure in realistic parametric
Phoenics, Jasmine, base of most of SHEV
or localized fire scenarios. While the parametric description of
Star-CCM+, design, and is widely
Smartfire, used in the evaluation of a fire may be a natural way to describe this phenomenon by
OpenFoam environmental conditions FSEs, the standard time-temperature curve approach is better
for users. understood by everyone else. Although authors expect a para-
digm shift in this field, due to the introduction of travelling fires
Evacuation Pathfinder, Evac, Usually combined with theory and wider use of parametric fires [48–50], the standard
buildingExodus CFD analysis as the time-temperature curve will most likely remain a staple refer-
method for estimation of
ence tool for estimation of structural resistance to fire.
RSET
The FSE shapes the civil engineering development in this
Fire load density Requirements for industrial field by allowing cheaper and lighter structures to withstand
buildings rely on fire load the fire for an equal duration, due to better materials and tech-
density. Thus, this element niques. Application of performance-driven approach coupled
is part of every industrial with risk analysis of fire scenarios may allow for a substantial
design. optimization of the structure, compared to the traditional, pre-
Explosion risk Risk of explosion will scriptive-based approach, even though this must be a part of
increase the requirements a derogation.
for the building. Both Appendix 1 to CPR [20] and §207 of [17] state that the
Hand building should have the load-bearing capacity of construction
calculations SHEVS: Hand calculations are for a given period, yet the time itself is not defined in the leg-
NFPA, CEN, always part of the SHEV’s
islative framework. It is a vital question – is the required time
DIN, TR, design, and are often
the time to evacuate, time for the rescue operations, or maybe
fireplatform.eu the only dimensioning
approach used. the total duration of a fire, including the cooldown phase? With
the lack of direct requirements in the law, there are attempts to
RTI calculations Used in the assessment of interpret this based on the need of the moment.
sprinkler/vent interaction The most important reference documents related to fire per-
and sizing of the design formance of structures are Eurocodes; general requirements can
fire. be found in Eurocode 0 [51] and 1–2 [52]. The requirements for
Zone Fire CFAST, Brisk, Used in some preliminary a structure in a fire in Polish legislative framework are placed in
Models fireplatform.eu design, rarely part of the §216 of [17] that relates the resistance of the structure to fire to
building design permit basic characteristics: resistance (R), insulation (I), and integrity
application. (E), which can be measured in laboratories with relation to time.
This is a safe route which leads to a high level of fire safety. It
Radiation fireplatform.eu, Used in the derogation
must be noted that in structural engineering the fire is treated
modelling FDS, ANSYS process for the possible
separation between the
as another load – which means that sometimes, the structure
buildings, may be used for itself may withstand the fire without any additional means. In
the design of separation this case, to upgrade the structure with a passive fire protection
between storage areas in may seem like a waste of resources. However, in some cases,
a storage facility. engineering solutions have different vulnerability and have to
be individually protected at various levels. A good example are
FEM/FVM ANSYS, Robot Used in structural design CFRP-strengthened RC structures that require strong insulation,
of some buildings for fire
while the structure that they reinforce may not need any [53].
conditions.
Development of FSE in the field of structural engineering can

Bull. Pol. Ac.: Tech. 64(4) 2016 723

Brought to you by | Gdansk University of Technology
Authenticated
Download Date | 1/2/17 1:29 PM
 W. Węgrzyński and P. Sulik

be considered rapid, and its effects regarding how structural 4.3. External spread of fire. “(c) the spread of fire to neigh-
engineers can better optimize the fire safety of their structures, bouring construction works is limited” [20].
are highly anticipated. The Polish law limits the choices connected to the spread of
fire to neighbouring construction works to a form of a distance
4.2. The spread of fire and smoke within the building. “(b) matrix, based on simple design choices, but in many countries,
the generation and spread of fire and smoke within the con- this choice is a subject of performance-based FSE analysis. To
struction works are limited” [20]. solve issues with distances between buildings, complex tools
The second requirement of CPR [20] relates to multiple are used to estimate the heat radiated from the fire towards
aspects of FSE, such as flammability and smoke production neighbouring structures [57]. In Poland, a similar approach may
of building materials, compartmentation of the building, ac- only be used as a derogation from the requirements of law.
tive fire protection (e.g. through sprinkler systems), and also In such case, additional features are implemented (e.g. water
the smoke and heat exhaust ventilation (SHEV). All of these curtains, fire curtains) to ensure the same level of safety as
features, except for SHEV, are prescribed in the law with basic provided by the generic separation distance.
requirements, usually put in the form of indexes and ratings. The third requirement also relates to the spread of fire
The implementation of FSE to these solutions is similar to what through external partitions of a building [58]. Facade fire of
the discipline was in the 1950s and 1960s – a science-based The Address Hotel in Dubai dominated the media coverage of
improvement of technical solutions available in this field to 2016 New Year’s Eve, placing this field of knowledge in the
provide higher ratings with lower cost. focal point of interest of FSEs, Fig. 2. In the following months,
As opposite to all other systems – the design process of three other supertall buildings in the Middle East were a scene
SHEV systems can be considered fully performance-based. of major fires, which spread rapidly through the building fa-
It is required by law (§270 of [17]) that the system provides cade. Such fires are especially difficult to contain, as the rapid
a sufficiently clean of smoke egress path, in time needed for the spread beyond the compartment of origination is something
evacuation of people, along with a supply of air that matches violating the unspoken golden rule of the design of various
the amount which is exhausted. This simple rule connects the fire protection tools – “one fire in one fire compartment, at the
requirement (b) to requirement (d) of CPR [20]. To measure same time.” As the typical active systems fail in this field, the
if the system meets these requirements, the engineer should solutions provided by FSE range from improved material prop-
perform additional analyses – typically, a numerical analysis erties, through technical solutions of how facade systems are
of smoke and heat spread within the building, with the use of built, to the independent active protection of external partitions.
computational fluid dynamics tools, along with the estimation Through the newest achievements of civil engineering,
of expected evacuation time for a similar fire scenario [54]. materials such as cross-laminated timber, wood processing
Some FSEs consider that the requirement of §270 is met when by-products or recycled plastics are introduced into buildings.
the system is designed to the standards prepared by NFPA or These combustible materials increase the risk of an external
CEN. While this may be true for simple architecture, effects fire growth. Other challenges regarding the external fires arise
connected with the flow of smoke in a complex architecture with the popularity of solar panels built on the walls and roofs
may render the recommendations of such standards useless, of buildings. Along with the sustainable energy sources, large
and such systems require a personal verification [55]. domestic energy storage devices are introduced, usually in the
The problem with this approach is that merely simulating form of large-scale Li-ion batteries which are also troublesome
a fire cannot be considered engineering – it is just modelling from the FSE point of view. If FSE cannot overcome these
[2]. Simulation is no more than a tool, no matter how complex
the solver is. To fully perform an FPE analysis of an SHEV
system, the process must also consist of the choice of design
fire scenario, risk analysis, choice of solver applicable for the
problem (along with physical sub-models), post-processing of
the results and the final selection of the design [29, 56]. Each
of these steps is widely described in the literature, with the
selection of the design scenario often being considered as the
most important choice of the whole design process. More in-
formation about this choice and the modern FSE tools related
to it is provided in chapter 5.
In the area of limiting the spread of fire and smoke, FSE
provides civil engineers with a variety of well-described tech-
nical solutions and active systems that may be used to lower
the risk of fire within a building. Additionally, as a part of
a derogation procedure, these solutions may lead to lowering
prescriptive requirements for the building or be used as an al-
ternative fire safety strategy – resulting in a free-of-constraints Fig. 2. The Address Hotel fire on 31.12.2015, Source: Wikipedia
development of a new facility. Commons, Author: Bling Bling Gold, under CC-BY-SA 4.0 license

724 Bull. Pol. Ac.: Tech. 64(4) 2016

Brought to you by | Gdansk University of Technology
Authenticated
Download Date | 1/2/17 1:29 PM
 The philosophy of fire safety engineering in the shaping of civil engineering development

challenges, such solutions will not become common, as the so- In an engineering practice, the most common use of evacua-
cio-economic cost of large fires is too high for civil engineers, tion modelling is through the available and required safe egress
and they will be unwilling to take the risk. time concepts (ASET, RSET) [65]. These concepts play a key
role in the quantification of the level of safety in a building. By
4.4. Evacuation. “(d) occupants can leave the construction assumption, if users of the building have more time to leave
works or be rescued by other means” [20]. the premise (RSET) than it takes for the environment to be-
The fourth requirement deals with the most random ele- come untenable (ASET), the building may be considered safe
ment of fire safety in the building – its occupants. While, after for occupants. This rule is the foundation of the design of many
fire and smoke spread models, the evacuation modelling is the safety features, such as SHEV systems or compartmentation of
most matured field of FSE, numerous assumptions that need the building. Assessment of the time available to occupants is
to be made by FSEs in the process make the tool complicated done through CFD modelling, while the estimation of the time
and arduous in practical use. A review of available evacuation required to leave the building is obtained through an evacuation
models and a general description of the modelling process can study. This estimation requires knowledge of the time necessary
be found in [46, 59]. to detect a fire, alert the people, the time needed for people to
In Polish legislative framework, the building features related make a decision to evacuate and finally, the total time of move-
to evacuation, such as the number and size of stairwells, the ment through the building. As mentioned before, with a lack of
length of corridors and width of doors are all prescribed by law, credible behavioural data for the assessed group of occupants,
based on the number of occupants and the type of the building. the assumptions are based on engineering standards, e.g. [66].
The occupant count is also prescribed in the form of coefficients
per square meter of the floor, and stated in the law [17] (unless 4.5. Rescue operations. “(e) the safety of rescue teams is taken
a number of users relate to the occupation – e.g. in theatres or into consideration” [20]
cinemas). Although we have excellent tools to investigate the This requirement is not enforced directly like the other, that
flow of evacuees in the building, these tools are rarely used in is either by a prescriptive requirement or a performance goal
the development of optimal evacuation paths in the building, to achieve. The only general review of the rescue operation
with a notable exception of large sports arenas [60]. The last safety takes place during the SHEV system design. Firefighters’
part of the requirement – “(…) or be rescued by other means” safety must be addressed if the designers lower the temperature
indicates a possibility of providing a fire-safe area within the class of the smoke extraction fans. Even in this approach, same
building, but requirements for such are not provided in the law. problems arise as with the safety of occupants – there is a lack
The evacuation modelling can be sub-divided into two sep- of predefined scenarios and acceptance criteria.
arate fields: movement of people and behaviour of individuals. In the Polish law framework, the laws that are the basis
First of them involves a description on how masses of people for firefighting operations – fire routes, water supply, etc. – are
move through various pathways and how streams of occupants outside of the building code, but building code requires that all
mix. The result of these studies is usually the walking speed of of the buildings are compliant with them. Although FSE shows
occupants or the capacity of exits and pathways. As it is pos- progress in this field [67, 68], the state of the art knowledge
sible to quantify the physical capabilities of people, there are regarding firefighting technique and solutions is rarely imple-
multiple studies over these phenomena, e.g. [61, 62], along with mented in practice in civil engineering design.
mathematical models that use this knowledge for the estimation
of the movement of people.
The second field of evacuation modelling, quoting Car- 5. Performance-based design
attin, “behavioural science, is fundamentally more complex
and uncertain than standard engineering” [63]. It is not pos- 5.1. Good practice in performance-based design. FSE has
sible to precisely estimate the future behaviour of people with adopted performance-based design as an alternative approach
only historical data and mathematical modelling – and the best to providing safety in buildings. However, its implementation
proof for this claim is that stock markets still exists and are has drifted towards the concept of unquantified level of safety
not dominated by scientists. The behavioural experiments are which is ‘equivalent’ to the code, rather than towards the accu-
usually explanatory, but not predictive – which means that the rate, engineering-based performance assessment [6]. Complete
result of modelling may be entirely different from what happens performance-based design should solve the problems described
during a real fire [64]. Despite this, we need basic data that can in Chapter 4 for carefully chosen design scenarios (Chapter 5.2)
become the boundary condition for our modelling. This leads to in a full and a holistic way (Chapter 5.3). To perform this task
cases in which our idealized description of human behaviour in correctly, the engineer should relate to good practice guidelines,
fire differs too much from the real world. Great examples are from which the most comprehensive is the SFPE Engineering
the use of escalators or evacuation by car in case of fire, both Guide to Performance-Based Fire Protection [69], and the more
of which considered prohibited during an FSE analysis, while recent [70]. When using complex tools of FSE, such as these
being commonly observed in real evacuation footage. While it described in chapter 3, the designer should relate to relevant
may not be the best solution, we do not currently have a better guidelines [44] and other methods to verify their scope of ap-
one. In the end, “it is better to be roughly right, than precisely plicability [43]. To assess the performance of the solution, it
wrong” [3]. is necessary to know the limits of structural damage caused

Bull. Pol. Ac.: Tech. 64(4) 2016 725

Brought to you by | Gdansk University of Technology
Authenticated
Download Date | 1/2/17 1:29 PM
 W. Węgrzyński and P. Sulik

by a fire, and the effects of fire and smoke on humans. For Short after commissioning one of the sports arenas in Poland,
structures, limit states design (LSD) method is used. LSD is it was a host of a Bus and Tram trade show, with eight large
subdivided into the ultimate limit state and the serviceability vehicles placed inside – a fire risk that would not be expected
limit state, which should be related to design situations which in such a building. Due to the engineers’ natural limitations, it
also include accidental design situation – a fire. In Poland, this may be beneficial to use more advanced FSE tools in the de-
method is enforced by Eurocode [51]. For the effects of fire and sign scenario process – simple probabilistic methods, such as
smoke on humans, there are various guidelines, of which the event trees [12], Monte Carlo scenario modelling [75], or frac-
most recent are gathered in relevant chapters of SFPE Hand- tional factorial design approach [76, 77]. Some of these tools
book of Fire Protection Engineering [71–73]. are already being implemented within previously described
zone models [78] or CFD codes [75]. With probabilistic tools
5.2. Design fires and fire scenarios. To estimate the safety of and improved fire models, FSEs can investigate more specific
the occupants, FSEs craft design fires and fire scenarios that events and scenarios which are a better representation of a prob-
are a representation of the worst fire that may happen within able fire in a building. This allows for the crafting solutions to
the building. Based on the fire scenarios, various protection better fit the building, often leading to a decrease of previous
strategies, referred to as trial designs, may be investigated, re- safety margins.
sulting in a final choice of the combination of safety features An overview of commonly used design fires and design
that gave the best results (and sometimes the one that is most scenarios can be found in [79, 80].
cost-effective for a given problem). Alvarez et al. well describes
the difficulty of the choice of the worst credible fire [13], citing 5.3. Holistic design. Fire safety is an outcome of multiple
the OECD Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations characteristics of the building (architecture, compartmentation,
(CSNI): “not all large nuclear power plant fires are significant materials, occupancy), along with passive and active tools of
from a public safety point of view, nor are all safety-signifi- fire protection. Acknowledgement of interactions between these
cant fires large” This means, that the design scenario shall be features, along with the influence of other engineering branches
a product of engineering connected to the building, and not on the fire safety of the building may be referred to as total, or
just a general assumption for a given type of occupancy. An holistic approach to FSE. For such an approach, both qualitative
example of a complex choice of fire scenarios can be presented and quantitative approach to modelling fire safety performance
for the design of a tensile roof structure of a large sports arena is required [81]. Framework for such approach, with an in-
in Poland, Fig. 3 [74]. Four design fires were chosen: tention to be used by fire service officers as a tool supporting
● A – 25 MW, fast growing fire of the stage in the central their decisions, was presented in [82, 83]. This analysis gives
point of the arena (lowest point of the tensile roof) – crit- a deeper view on the performance of the building, with a more
ical for the structure and SHEV design; conscious choice of solutions, and a better overview of the de-
● B – 12.5 MW, fast growing fire of a trade stand in the sign process [84]. Such approach cannot work with a prescrip-
smallest SHEV zone, directly next to an air inlet – critical tive law – by default, all elements of the system are taken into
for the SHEV design; consideration, and because of that, the prescriptive requirements
● C – 2.5 MW, medium growing fire at the highest level may render the most optimal solution as non-compliant with
of seats – critical for the evacuation of people at the top the law. On the other hand, even in Polish law framework such
of the arena; approach may be used as an additional source of knowledge
● D – 7.25 MW fire of the “video-cube” – critical for the in the design process, e.g. in determining optimal exit signage
structure. locations or fire related scenarios.
Each of these fires represented a different threat to the While the FSEs are the ones who understand the impact
building and its occupants, and each of them was critical for at of various changes on fire safety during the design process,
least one aspect of the analysis. there are more parties involved in it: investor, architect, con-
While an engineered design scenario approach is widely structors, installation engineers, interior designers, authorities,
used, even the best expert judgement cannot foresee everything. commissioners, insurance companies, administration, and the
end user of the building. Many critical decisions, which in other
professions would be reserved for professional engineers, are
made by non-engineers or engineers without a background in
FSE, using various codes and standards instead of engineering
analysis [7]. Backing up a decision with “that is a fire require-
ment” may be enough to enforce a design choice, but its un-
derstanding is required to make the solution work. The most
obvious example of such a problem is the common misuse of
self-closing devices for fire doors. FSEs acknowledge these
devices as the most cost-effective tool to limit the risk of fire
in a building, while most of the users will just block them as
Fig. 3. Fire scenarios for the design of tensile roof structure of sports an annoying feature incompatible with their intended use of
arena [74] the building. This problem was also pointed out by Alvarez

726 Bull. Pol. Ac.: Tech. 64(4) 2016

Brought to you by | Gdansk University of Technology
Authenticated
Download Date | 1/2/17 1:29 PM
 The philosophy of fire safety engineering in the shaping of civil engineering development

[12] in the introduction to risk-informed, performance-based

FSE framework. In the opinion of the authors, if users realized
how important a feature is for their safety, they probably would
change their mind about disrupting it. The tools of FSE can
bring a great help in showcasing the difference between good
and bad with regards to fire safety and the consequences of
misuse of a device.
The implementation of the holistic approach to the total
fire safety of a building may also face another problem – the
engineers sometimes fail to acknowledge that the solution may
be used in a different way than they expect it to be. Things
like well-maintained automatic fire detection or unblocked fire
separation gates are taken for granted as the “responsibility
of the administrator.” While this is true, the engineer should
acknowledge that the weakest component in any engineering
system is the human – one that may continuously disrupt the
alarm system by deleting the “another false alarm signal” or one
that will unintentionally block a fireproof gate. This is why ro- Fig. 5. Dynamic measurements of pressure differential system, com-
bustness scenarios should be implemented. Such fire scenarios bined with a hot smoke commissioning test in a high-rise building
are used to find what risk is connected to the failure of one – a site acceptance testing method developed in Fire Testing Laboratory
critical part of a system – e.g. how will SHEV system operate
if there is a failure of the sprinkler system and the fire is not
contained. This approach can help find and eliminate the weak against large-scale fire, which is a vital part of product devel-
points of a solution. opment. As mentioned in chapter 4, in a highly rigid legislative
framework, evolution of solutions and materials to meet higher
rankings and requirements is the most basic form of progress
6. Role of fire testing laboratories in FSE in the construction industry. New advancements in materials,
products and techniques heavily influence how buildings are
Accredited fire testing laboratories play a major part in the designed and built. Besides the basic function as the evalu-
shaping of the development of civil engineering [85], Fig. 4. ator, fire testing laboratories take part in market surveillance.
The most obvious role of the laboratory is in the initial product In this process, products (e.g. fire doors, insulation materials)
testing – a complex evaluation of whether the products or ma- are purchased on the market, and then their characteristics are
terials meet their requirements stated in prescriptive acts of estimated. This process ensures that the products available
law. This is an essential part of the certification of products, on the market are the same, as they were tested during their
which in the end allows them to be used in construction. Such approval and certification phase. A similar process is some-
testing also allows the manufacturers to verify their solutions times observed in the construction of critical infrastructure.
Randomly chosen samples of products may be tested in a fire
testing laboratory, before the whole batch of products is in-
stalled in the building.
Fire testing laboratories play a role in education, as a place
where FSEs can gain first-hand knowledge on how materials,
elements, and structures act in case of a fire. Practical experi-
ence on how construction products act in high temperatures,
which is generally unavailable to other participants of the
building process, often plays a vital role in avoiding poten-
tial issues or finding solutions for the existing problems. This
knowledge, being treasured, is rarely shared. Usually, it is pre-
sented in seminars hosted by EGOLF or by the laboratories
themselves, only to a limited number of recipients. It would be
valuable for the FSE discipline and civil engineering develop-
ment if this trend could be changed, and sharing of experience
between fire laboratory experts and FSEs occurred in a more
open way.
Finally, the laboratories take part in the development of
new standards (both national and European) and requirements.
Fig. 4. Large furnaces hall in the Fire Testing Laboratory of Building New tests and commissioning methods are introduced, e.g. [86],
Research Institute, Pionki Fig. 5, to allow the evaluation of product characteristics written

Bull. Pol. Ac.: Tech. 64(4) 2016 727

Brought to you by | Gdansk University of Technology
Authenticated
Download Date | 1/2/17 1:29 PM
 W. Węgrzyński and P. Sulik

in the acts of law. At the same time, new requirements are rec- References
ommended to authorities, based on the practical experience in
the field of fire testing, which helps improve the general level [1] B.J. Meacham, “The evolution of performance-based codes and
of fire safety introduced through the prescriptive-based law. fire safety design methods”, NIST-GCR-98‒761, NIST, Gaith-
ersburg, MD, 1998.
[2] B.J. Meacham, “Fire safety engineering at a crossroad”, Case
Stud. Fire Saf. 1, doi:10.1016/j.csfs.2013.11.001, 8–12 (2014).
7. Conclusions [3] L. Czarnecki and D. van Gemert, “Scientific basis and rules of
thumb in civil engineering: conflict or harmony?”, Bull. Pol.
Fire safety engineering is shaping the civil engineering de- Ac.:Tech. 64 (4), 665‒673 (2016).
velopment, often being the driving force behind the design of [4] M. Abramowicz and R. Kowalski, „Projektant konstrukcji obiektu
critical aspects of buildings. Both design philosophies: pre- i rzeczoznawca do spraw zabezpieczeń przeciwpożarowych – wza-
scriptive-based and performance-based are important in this jemne powiązania”, Materiały Budowlane, (2014), [in Polish].
process. By good prescriptive laws, the minimum level of safety [5] G. Vigne, “Origini della fire safety engineering e prospettive
is ensured in all new buildings, promoting solutions that meet nella prevenzione incendi odierna”, in XVI Convegno Naz. AIIA
the building code requirements in a most cost-effective way. I Metod. Della Fire Saf. Eng. Alla Luce Del Codice Di Prev.
Performance-driven design, while not being allowed by the Incend. 2015, Milano, 2016, [in Italian].
Polish law in a straightforward manner, is key to the develop- [6] M. Woodrow, L. Bisby, and J.L. Torero, “A nascent educa-
tional framework for fire safety engineering”, Fire Saf. J. 58,
ment of the whole discipline and is the most important approach
doi:10.1016/j.firesaf.2013.02.004, 180–194 (2013).
in the design of cutting-edge civil engineering projects. With [7] H.E. Nelson, “History of fire technology”, in Conf. Fire Saf. Des.
growing experience and knowledge of the FSEs, we are capable 21st Century, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA,
of building bigger, deeper and higher, while maintaining the 1991.
same high level of fire safety in a cost-effective manner. [8] B.J. Meacham, “International experience in the development and
How will FSE shape the civil engineering development in use of performance-based fire safety design methods: Evolution,
future? In his survey among board members of Fire Technology, current situation and thoughts for the future”, 6th International
a highly respected journal in the field of FSE, Rein asked about Symposium on Fire Safety Science, 59–76 (2000).
the drivers of change in the discipline [87]. Most of his recipients [9] General Services Administration, Building Fire Safety Criteria.
answered that the most important factor is performance-driven Appendix D: Interim Guide for Goal-Oriented Systems Approach
design, followed by environmental protection and sustainability, to Building Firesafety, Washington, DC, 1972.
[10] M. Law and P. Beever, “Magic numbers and golden rules”, Fire
and interface between science and technology. The feelings of
Technol. 31, doi:10.1007/BF01305269, 77–83 (1995).
the authors are similar; modern research is driving the progress [11] G. V. Hadjisophocleous, N. Benichou, and A. S. Tamim, “Litera-
of the modelling tools and performance-based design, which ture review of performance-based fire codes and design environ-
then affects the design solutions included in a design and later in ment”, J. Fire Prot. Eng. 9, doi:10.1177/104239159800900102,
the prescriptive, legislative frameworks. There is a never-ending 12–40 (1998).
need to make this route from researchers to practitioners and [12] A. Alvarez, B.J. Meacham, N.A. Dembsey, and J.R. Thomas,
authorities as short as possible. The diffusion of knowledge is “A framework for risk-informed performance-based fire pro-
rapid due to the small size of the FSEs community, but this also tection design for the built environment”, Fire Technol. 50,
causes problems with the availability of high-level consultancy. doi:10.1007/s10694‒013‒0366‒1, 161–181 (2014).
There is also an evident lack of education, especially outside the [13] A. Alvarez, B.J. Meacham, N. Dembsey, and J. Thomas,
FSEs – among architects, civil engineers, and other engineering “Twenty years of performance-based fire protection design:
challenges faced and a look ahead”, J. Fire Prot. Eng. 23,
branches. The consequences of choices related to the fire safety
doi:10.1177/1042391513484911, 249–276 (2013).
made by non-fire-professionals are often unknown to them. It [14] D.J. Thomas, “All codes are mixed: why implementation needs
costs much working time and resources to resolve issues caused will prevail over “performance” and “prescription” in the open
by a basic lack of knowledge or communication. universe of 21st century fire protection”, in Second Conf. Fire
Design and architecture of new multipurpose buildings, in- Saf. Des. 21st Century, pp. 227–241, Worcester Polytechnic In-
creased use of timber in construction, or the new developments stitute, Worcester, MA, 1999.
in energy storage and sources cannot meet the goals written [15] Report of Building Committee, Recommended Practice for Ar-
in CPR without the use of FSE. It seems that the total holistic rangement of Building Codes, Washington Government Printing
approach may be key for future practical use of FSE – combina- Office, 1925, http://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.$b78828.
tion of probabilistic fire scenarios, scientifically based boundary [16] „Ustawa z dnia 7 lipca 1994. – Prawo budowlane. Z później-
data, modern simulation techniques, large data processing, and szymi zmianami”, 2016, [in Polish].
[17] „Rozporządzenie Ministra Infrastruktury z dnia 12 kwietnia
risk analysis for the evaluation of results. These features com-
2002 r. w sprawie warunków technicznych, jakim powinny
bined allow us – fire safety engineers – to shape the civil en- odpowiadać budynki i ich usytuowanie. Z późniejszymi zmi-
gineering development of the modern world. Moreover, citing anami.”, Dz.U. 2002 Nr 75 Poz. 690, 2002, [in Polish].
Petroski after Rein, “(we) cannot wait for a complete scientific [18] „Rozporządzenie Ministra Infrastruktury z dnia 17 czerwca
understanding of the phenomena we deal with, before acting 2011 r. w sprawie warunków technicznych, jakim powinny odpo-
to save lives” [87]. wiadać obiekty budowlane metra i ich usytuowanie”, Dz.U. 2011
Nr 144 Poz. 859, 2011, [in Polish]

728 Bull. Pol. Ac.: Tech. 64(4) 2016

Brought to you by | Gdansk University of Technology
Authenticated
Download Date | 1/2/17 1:29 PM
 The philosophy of fire safety engineering in the shaping of civil engineering development

[19] G. Vigne and W. Węgrzyński, “Influence of variability of soot [40] P. Kubica, L. Czarnecki, S. Boroń, and W. Węgrzyński, “Max-
yield parameter in assessing the safe evacuation conditions in imizing the retention time of inert gases used in fixed gas-
advanced modeling analysis. Results of physical and numerical eous extinguishing systems”, Fire Saf. J. 80, doi:10.1016/j.
modeling comparison”, in 11th Conf. Performance-Based Codes firesaf.2015.11.008, 1–8 (2016).
Fire Saf. Des. Methods, Warsaw, Poland, SFPE, 2016. [41] G. Krajewski and W. Węgrzyński, “Air curtain as a barrier
[20] “Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of The European Parliament and for smoke in case of fire: Numerical modelling”, Bull. Pol.
the Council of 9th March 2011 laying down harmonised condi- Ac.: Tech. 63 (1), doi:10.1515/bpasts-2015‒0016, 145–153
tions for the marketing of construction products and repealing (2015).
Council Directive 89/106/EEC”, 5–43 (2011). [42] Z. Salamonowicz, M. Kotowski, M. Półka, and W. Barnat, “Nu-
[21] S. Yokoi, “Study on the prevention of fire-spread caused by hot up- merical simulation of dust explosion in the spherical 20l vessel”,
ward current”, Report of the Building Research Institute 34, (1960). Bull. Pol. Ac.: Tech. 63 (1), doi:10.1515/bpasts-2015‒0033,
[22] P.H. Thomas, P.L. Hinkley, C.R. Theobald, and D.L. Simms, “In- 289–293 (2015).
vestigations into the flow of hot gases in roof venting”, HMSO, [43] P. Tofiło, W. Węgrzyński, and R. Porowski, “Hand calculations,
London, 1963. zone models and CFD – areas of disagreement and limits of
[23] K. Kawagoe, “Real Fire and Fire Modeling”, Fire Saf. Sci. application in practical fire protection engineering”, in 11th
–  Proc. Second Int. Symp., 1–14 (1988). Conf. Performance-Based Codes Fire Saf. Des. Methods, SFPE,
[24] J.G. Quintiere and C.A. Wade, “Compartment fire modeling”, in Warsaw, Poland, 2016.
SFPE Handb. Fire Prot. Eng., pp. 981–995, doi:10.1007/978‒1- [44] Society of Fire Protection Engineers, Guidelines for Sub-
4939‒2565‒0_29, Springer, New York, 2016. stantiating a Fire Model for a Given Application SFPE G.06,
[25] R.D. Peacock, G.P. Forney, P.A. Reneke, and W.W. Jones, CFAST, Bethesda, Maryland, 2011.
the Consolidated Model of Fire Growth and Smoke Transport [45] K. Mcgrattan, R. Peacock, and K. Overholt, “Fire model valida-
(Version 6) Technical Reference Guide, 2009. tion – eight lessons learned”, Fire Saf. Sci. – Proceedngs Elev.
[26] C. Wade, G. Baker, K. Frank, A. Robbins, R. Harrison, M. Spear- Int. Symp., doi:10.3801/IAFSS.FSS.11‒958, 958–968 (2014).
point, and C. Fleischmann, “B-RISK user guide and technical [46] E.D. Kuligowski, R.D. Peacock, and B.L. Hoskins, Technical
manual”, Branz Study Rep. 282, 1–38 (2013). Note 1680 A Review of Building Evacuation Models , 2nd Edi-
[27] R. Harrison, C. Wade, and M. Spearpoint, “Predicting spill tion, NIST (2010).
plumes with the fire risk zone model B-RISK”, Fire Technol. [47] V. Babrauskas and R. Williamson, “The historical basis of fire
50, doi:10.1007/s10694‒013‒0364‒3, 205–231 (2014). resistance testing — Part I”, Fire Technol. 14, doi:10.1007/
[28] L.Y. Cooper, “A concept for estimating available safe egress BF01983053, 184–194 (1978).
time in fires”, Fire Saf. J. 5, doi:10.1016/0379‒7112(83)9000 [48] A. Law, “The role of modelling in structural fire engineering
6‒1, 135–144 (1983). design”, Fire Saf. J. 80, doi:10.1016/j.firesaf.2015.11.013, 89–94
[29] W. Węgrzyński and G. Krajewski, „Dobór modeli oraz warunków (2016).
brzegowych a wynik analizy numerycznej rozprzestrzeniania się [49] J. Stern-Gottfried, “Travelling fires for structural design”, Fire
dymu i ciepła”, Build. Mater. 11, (2014), [in Polish]. Saf. J. 54, doi:10.1016/j.firesaf.2012.06.003, 74–85 (2011).
[30] G. Rein, J.L. Torero, W. Jahn, J. Stern-Gottfried, N.L. Ryder, [50] E. Rackauskaite, C. Hamel, A. Law, and G. Rein, “Improved
S. Desanghere, M. Lázaro, F. Mowrer, A. Coles, D. Joyeux, formulation of travelling fires and application to concrete and
D. Alvear, J.A. Capote, A. Jowsey, C. Abecassis-Empis, and steel structures”, Structures 3, doi:10.1016/j.istruc.2015.06.001,
P. Reszka, “Round-robin study of a priori modelling predictions 250–260 (2015).
of the Dalmarnock Fire Test One”, Fire Saf. J. 44, doi:10.1016/j. [51] CEN, EN 1990:2002+A1: Eurocode – Basis of structural design,
firesaf.2008.12.008, 590–602 (2009). 2005.
[31] W. Jahn, G. Rein, and J.L. Torero, “A posteriori modelling of the [52] CEN, EN 1991‒1-2 Eurocode 1: Actions on the structures – Part
growth phase of Dalmarnock Fire Test One”, Build. Environ. 46, 1‒2: General actions – Actions on the structures exposed to fire,
doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2010.11.001, 1065–1073 (2011). 2002.
[32] K. McGrattan, S. Hostikka, R. McDermott, J. Floyd, C. Wein- [53] P. Turkowski and P. Sulik, “Fire protection of CFRP-strength-
schenk, and K. Overholt, Fire Dynamics Simulator User’s Guide, ened RC structures”, in Response Struct. under Extrem. Load.
Sixth Edition, doi:10.6028/NIST.SP.1019, 2016. Proc. Prot. 2015 Fifth Int. Work. Performance, Prot. Strength.
[33] OpenFOAM Foundation, OpenFOAM User Guide, (n.d.). http:// Struct. under Extrem. Loading, pp. 789–796, East Lansing, MI,
cfd.direct/openfoam/user-guide/ (24 August 2016). 2015.
[34] ANSYS, ANSYS Fluent 14.5.0 – Technical Documentation, 2014. [54] W. Węgrzyński and G. Krajewski, “Combined wind engineering,
[35] CHAM, PHOENICS Overview – CHAM Technical Report: TR smoke flow and evacuation analysis for a design of a natural
001, 2005. Smoke and Heat Ventilation System”, Procedia Eng., (unpub-
[36] FSEG, Smartfire Introduction, (n.d.). http://fseg.gre.ac.uk/smart- lished).
fire/index.html (accessed October 8, 2016). [55] W. Węgrzyński, “Design of smoke exhaust from a common res-
[37] Siemens, Star-CCM+, n.d. http://mdx.plm.automation.siemens. ervoir – shaping the compartment opening for the benefits of
com/star-ccm-plus. smoke control”, in 11th Conf. Performance-Based Codes Fire
[38] B. Merci, J.L. Torero, and A. Trouvé, “IAFSS working group on Saf. Des. Methods, SFPE, Warsaw, Poland, 2016.
measurement and computation of fire phenomena”, Fire Technol. [56] W. Węgrzyński and G. Krajewski, Systemy wentylacji pożarowej
52, doi:10.1007/s10694‒016‒0577‒3, 607–610 (2016). garaży. Projektowanie, ocena, odbiór, 493/2015, Instytut Tech-
[39] W. Węgrzyński, G. Krajewski, and P. Sulik, “Case study 2 niki Budowlanej, 2015, [in Polish].
– production and storage building (Poland)”, in 11th Conf. Per- [57] P. Tofiło, R. Porowski, and W. Węgrzyński, “Spatial distribution
formance-Based Codes Fire Saf. Des. Methods, doi:10.13140/ of thermal radiation – Verification of the finite volume method”,
RG.2.1.3677.4640, SFPE, Warsaw, 2016. in Interflam, 2016.

Bull. Pol. Ac.: Tech. 64(4) 2016 729

Brought to you by | Gdansk University of Technology
Authenticated
Download Date | 1/2/17 1:29 PM
 W. Węgrzyński and P. Sulik

[58] A. Kolbrecki, “Model of fire spread out on outer building sur- [73] T. Yamada and Y. Akizuki, “Visibility and human behavior in
face”, Bull. Pol. Ac.: Tech. 63 (1), doi:10.1515/bpasts-2015‒0015, fire smoke”, in SFPE Handb. Fire Prot. Eng., pp. 2181–2206.
135–144 (2015). doi:10.1007/978‒1-4939‒2565‒0_61, Springer, New York, 2016.
[59] E.D. Kuligowski, “Human behavior in fire”, in SFPE Handb. Fire [74] W. Węgrzyński and P. Turkowski, “Fire resistance of a roof ten-
Prot. Eng., pp. 2070–2114, doi:10.1007/978‒1-4939‒2565‒0_58, sile structure in parametric fire conditions calculated using CFD
Springer New York, New York, NY, 2016. simulations and simplified calculation methods”, in SFPE Eur.
[60] R. Lubaś, J. Wąs, and J. Porzycki, “Cellular automata as the Conf. Fire Saf. Eng., doi:10.13140/RG.2.1.1832.7286, (2015).
basis of effective and realistic agent-based models of crowd be- [75] S. Hostikka and O. Keski-Rahkonen, “Probabilistic simu-
havior”, J. Supercomput. 72, doi:10.1007/s11227‒016‒1718‒7, lation of fire scenarios”, Nucl. Eng. Des. 224, doi:10.1016/
2170–2196 (2016). S0029‒5493(03)00106‒7, 301–311 (2003).
[61] E.D. Kuligowski, R.D. Peacock, P.A. Reneke, C.R. Hagwood, K.J. [76] P. Ayala, A. Cantizano, E.F. Sánchez-Úbeda, and C. Gutiér-
Overholt, R.P. Elkin, J.D. Averill, B.L. Hoskins, and E. Wiess, rez-Montes, “The use of fractional factorial design for atrium fires
Movement on Stairs During Building Evacuations, NIST Tech. prediction”, Fire Technol., doi:10.1007/s10694‒016‒0609-z,
Note 1839, doi:10.1007/s10694‒016‒0603‒5NIST, 212 (2014). (2016).
[62] K. Fridolf, K. Andrée, D. Nilsson, and H. Frantzich, “The im- [77] S. Suard, S. Hostikka, and J. Baccou, “Sensitivity analysis of
pact of smoke on walking speed”, Fire Mater. 38, doi:10.1002/ fire models using a fractional factorial design”, Fire Saf. J. 62,
fam.2217, 744–759 (2014). doi:10.1016/j.firesaf.2013.01.031, 115–124 (2013).
[63] E. Carattin and V. Brannigan, “Science or science fiction? The [78] G. Baker, C. Wade, M. Spearpoint, and C. Fleischmann, “De-
use of human behavioral models in fire safety regulation”, In- veloping probabilistic design fires for performance-based
tersci. Comms., 553–558 (2013). fire safety engineering”, Procedia Eng. 62, doi:10.1016/j.
[64] E. Carattin and V. Brannigan, “Lost in abstraction : the complexity proeng.2013.08.109, 639–647 (2013).
of real environments vs the assumptions of models”, Fire Evac- [79] J. Hietaniemi and E. Mikkola, Design Fires for Fire Safety En-
uation Model. Tech. Conf. 2014, doi:10.13140/2.1.4438.6561, gineering, 2010.
(2014). [80] A. Bwalya, “An overview of design fires for building compart-
[65] V. Babrauskas, J.M. Fleming, and B. Don Russell, “RSET/ASET, ments”, Fire Technol. 44, doi:10.1007/s10694‒007‒0031‒7,
a flawed concept for fire safety assessment”, Fire Mater. 34, 167–184 (2008).
doi:10.1002/fam.1025, 341–355 (2010). [81] H. Park, B.J. Meacham, N.A. Dembsey, and M. Goulthorpe,
[66] BSI, The application of fire safety engineering principles to fire “Conceptual model development for holistic building fire
safety design of buildings – Part 6: Human factors: Life safety safety performance analysis”, Fire Technol. 51, doi:10.1007/
strategies – Occupant evacuation, behavious and condition (Sub- s10694‒013‒0374‒1, 173–193 (2013).
system 6), PD 7974‒6. (2004). [82] J. Gałaj, W. Jaskółowski, M. Konecki, P. Tofiło, and N. Tuśnio,
[67] P. Grimwood and I.A. Sanderson, “A performance based ap- “Interactive modular platform for fire risk assessment of build-
proach to defining and calculating adequate firefighting water ings as a supporting tool for buildings and infrastructures de-
using s.8.5 of the design guide BS PD 7974:5:2014 (fire service sign”, Procedia Eng. 57, doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2013.04.042
intervention)”, Fire Saf. J. 78, doi:10.1016/j.firesaf.2015.08.007, 310–319 (2013).
155–167 (2015). [83] P. Tofiło, M. Konecki, J. Gałaj, W. Jaskółowski, N. Tuśnio,
[68] C. Weinschenk, C. Beal, and O.A. Ezekoye, “Modeling fan-driven and M. Cisek, “Expert system for building fire safety anal-
flows for firefighting tactics using simple analytical models and ysis and risk assessment”, Procedia Eng. 57, doi:10.1016/j.
CFD”, J. Fire Prot. Eng. 21, doi:10.1177/1042391510395694 proeng.2013.04.146, 1156–1165 (2013).
85–114 (2011). [84] H. Park, “Development of a holistic approach to integrate fire
[69] Society of Fire Protection Engineers, SFPE Eng. Guide to Per- safety performance with building design”, Worcester Polytechnic
formance-Based Fire Protection, 2nd Ed., 2007. Institute, 2014.
[70] M.J. Hurley and E.R. Rosenbaum, “Performance-based de- [85] W. Węgrzyński, “Fire testing laboratory in performance based
sign”, in SFPE Handb. Fire Prot. Eng., pp. 1233–1261, engineering”, in 11th Conf. Performance-Based Codes Fire Saf.
doi:10.1007/978‒1-4939‒2565‒0_37, Springer, New York, 2016. Des. Methods, doi: 10.13140/RG.2.1.3368.2168, Pionki, 2016.
[71] D.A. Purser and J.L. McAllister, “Assessment of hazards to occu- [86] J. Kinowski, B. Sędłak, and P. Sulik, “Falling parts of ex-
pants from smoke, toxic gases, and heat”, in SFPE Handb. Fire ternal walls claddings in case of fire – ITB test method – re-
Prot. Eng., pp. 2308–2428, doi:10.1007/978‒1-4939‒2565‒0_63, sults comparison”, MATEC Web Conf. 46, doi:10.1051/matec-
Springer, New York, 2016. conf/20164602005, (2016).
[72] D.A. Purser, “Combustion toxicity”, in SFPE Handb. Fire Prot. [87] G. Rein, “Trends in fire protection engineering: Challenges
Eng., pp. 2207–2307, doi:10.1007/978‒1-4939‒2565‒0_62, of today and tomorrow”, in Symp. Fire Prot. a Chang. World,
Springer, New York, 2016. NFPA, Munich, 2016.

730 Bull. Pol. Ac.: Tech. 64(4) 2016

Brought to you by | Gdansk University of Technology
Authenticated
Download Date | 1/2/17 1:29 PM