Date
6-2024
Degree Name
MS in Fire Protection Engineering
College
College of Engineering
Advisor
Frederick Mowrer and Christopher Pascual
Abstract
This culminating project has been submitted as part of the graduate program in Fire Protection Engineering at Cal Poly. The building is a 221,000 square feet mixed-use residential apartment building comprising of 106 units. The report is split into two sections. The prescriptive based analysis considers the building’s compliance with the requirements found in the 2016 California Building and Fire Codes. The performance based section evaluated design fires to verify that the final building design and operating procedures met the life safety needs of its occupants.
The prescriptive based analysis was split into four main parts. The four parts were the egress system, structural fire protection, fire alarm system, and fire suppression system. The building was analyzed against the requirements found in the 2016 California Building Code, 2016 California Fire Code, and referenced NFPA standards.
The egress analysis began with determining the occupant load of each floor which then determined the rest of the egress analysis. It was then analyzed to determine the adequacy of egress distances, the remoteness of exits, travel distance, stairwell sizing, and exit signage and lighting.
The structural fire protection was analyzed to determine the adequacy of fire resistive rating provided for the type of construction and occupancy type. The building height and area was compared to the allowable limit set in the California Building Code based on construction type. The adequacy of the fire wall that was used to separate the building into two buildings for egress and allowable building floor area purposes. However, the fire wall brought up a deficiency regarding openings that were found to be a fire separation distance of less than 3 feet. It is recommended that the windows be shifted over to the 4 foot mark or be removed to comply with the code.
The fire alarm system was analyzed to determine if the fire alarm system met the requirements of 2016 NFPA 72. The analysis covered the initiating devices, the subsequent actions as shown in the sequence of operation, the coverage of occupant notification system, the required battery to operate the system, and the inspection test and maintenance of the system.
The fire sprinkler system was analyzed to determine if the system met the requirements of 2016 NFPA 13. The analysis covered the standpipe system per NFPA 14, sprinkler design density based on fuel load, amount of water supplied to the building, sprinkler demand, sprinkler calculations, and the inspection test and maintenance of the system.
Other than the deficiency seen in the fire wall section, the building met the prescriptive requirements found in the stated codes and standards.
The second half of the report is a performance-based analysis that covers two design fires. The main basis of the evaluation was to determine if the building protected the occupants from a fire and the products from a fire based on a modeling. This was done by comparing the required safe egress time (RSET) versus available safe egress time (ASET). The analysis covers the RSET based on the visibility through the smoke, temperature, heat flux radiation, and fractional effective dose of carbon monoxide. The ASET is evaluated based on sprinkler activation, fire alarm activation, premovement time, and the travel time it takes the apartment occupants to get to a safe stairwell.
Design Fire A is a nighttime residential fire that occurs when the occupants are asleep. The fuel load is a polyurethane couch in the living room that triggers the smoke alarm, sprinkler, and fire alarm. The occupants of the fire wake up and crawl to the front door and leave the front door open. The main concern from this fire is the visibility which drops below 4 meters before the required safe egress time has been reached. The required safe egress time was 315 seconds, and the available safe egress time was 244 seconds which was when the visibility in the corridors dropped below the tenable criteria of 4 meters.
Design Fire B is a daytime fire that happens in the community room. The fuel load is a set of furniture. The proximity of the community room to the stairwells and horizontal egress, stresses the travel time it takes for occupants to reach a safe stairwell. The concern is also visibility since visibility drops below 4 meters before the required RSET. The required safe egress time was 344 seconds, and the available safe egress time was 228 seconds which was when the visibility in the corridors dropped below the tenable criteria of 4 meters.
The summary of ASETs versus RSETs can be found in Chapter 5 of this report. It can be seen that if the provided built environment worked as intended, the fire protection design for the building would have provided adequate safe egress time for the occupants. The major issue was if the door, which were part of the rated corridor, were propped open, then the products of combustion were allowed out into the corridor which would endanger the occupants due to the lack of visibility. The ASET values compared to the RSET values, shows that there the occupants still needed 71 seconds more in order to safely egress for the Design Fire A. Design Fire B resulted in the occupants needing 116 seconds more in order to safely egress. The recommendation for mitigating the issue found in the second part of the report is to provide frequent inspections to ensure that the self-closing and latching door hardware is working as intended by the code. The other recommendation was to provide more rated corridor doors that would allow for better compartmentalization of the corridors which would result in a higher available safe egress time for occupants. The final recommendation is to train occupants to shelter in place. Sheltering in place will allow for occupants to stay secure in their 1 hour rated units that will protect them from the products of combustion.
https://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/fpe_rpt/182
Final Presentation