Fire-Safe Debate

With the World Trade Center collapses, several recent catastrophic building fires, and the publication of two new model building codes, fire safety in buildings is getting more than its usual share of attention. Two recent opinion articles take the position that current trends toward relaxing building fire safety requirements are ill advised and should be reconsidered.

Reliance on sprinklers a mistake, Building Design & Construction, 01.04, takes the position that "building codes...are based on the mistaken assumption that sprinklers virtually never fail and that fire-resistant construction materials can, therefore, be minimized or eliminated". This guest commentary piece is authored by W. Gene Corley, PhD, Senior VP, Construction Technology Laboratories, and team leader for FEMA's WTC Building Performance Study.

Some of Sorley's assertions include:

• Sprinkler failure rates may be as high as 16%.
• The trend in the model codes is toward increasing reliance on sprinklers, while reducing requirements for fireproofing, fire-barriers, and smoke-barriers.
• Fire-barriers and smoke-barriers are considered "life savers" by fire fighting personnel, and they reduce the risk of building collapse.

Sorley continues with examples gleaned from his his experience as a lead investigator of the WTC disaster. He then offers more criticism for the International Building Code (IBC), which he claims has "drastically lowered" requirements for fire-resistant construction in comparison to older model codes. Sorely concludes with the advice that building fire safety requires both sprinkers and fire-resistant construction to best ensure the safety of building occupants and emergency responders.

Fire-Safe Buildings and Masonry Codes, Masonry Today, Winter 2003/2004, takes a similar position, stating "Today's building code officials should be encouraged to develop code provisions that provide an improved level of redundancy for life safety, property proteciton, and welfare of the general public". This article is written by Stephen Szoke, Director of Codes and Standards, Portland Cement Association.

Szoke states that in the process of merging the three previous model building codes, the least restrictive passive fire protection requirements from these codes were used as the basis for the requirements in the new IBC. Furthermore, new code change proposals seek to reduce even further the IBC's passive fire protection requirements.

Szoke goes on to make a number of arguments for reconsidering an overreliance on fire sprinklers in buidings, including considerations of:

• Aging population
• Risk of malicious disabling of fire sprinkler systems
• Trends in other aspects of the building code toward more stringent safety requirements
• Increased construction of multi-family building types
• Sprinkler system effectiveness
• Sprinkler malfunctions
• Reliable water supply for sprinklers

Szoke advocates a "balanced design" approach to fire-safe construction that relies on both sprinkler systems and the redundancy of passive fire-resistant construction. He further recommends building designers consider in some circumstances exceeding current code fire-separation requirements.

This Author's Comments
Readers should take note that both authors cited above are associated with construction trade groups that have an ecomonic interest in promoting non-combustible construction methods. Construction Technology Laboratories, of which Sorley is a Senior Vice President, is closely associated with the American Institute for Concrete Construction. Szoke's organization, PCA, is a promoter of concrete and masonry materials and construction. (Szoke is quite forthright in his article concerning his association and interests in this matter. He states "PCA and allied industry groups advocate changes to increase passive fire protection for buildings...")

Despite these authors' perhaps vested interests, it is this author's opinion that their points are well founded and worthy of serious consideration.