Date
6-2025
Degree Name
MS in Fire Protection Engineering
College
College of Engineering
Advisor
Frederick Mowrer and Christopher Pascual
Abstract
This report includes a prescriptive and performance-based analysis on a university life sciences building hereafter referred to as “Lab Building”. The code-based analysis includes the review of the following components: Occupancy classification and construction type, Egress, Control areas, Structural fire protection, Fire alarm and fire sprinkler systems, and Smoke control.
The Lab Building is of type IB construction and is four stories above grade with one story below grade. The building uses a non-separated mixed occupancy approach with Group A- 3 bring the most restrictive occupancy classification. Additionally, the building is fully sprinklered with a fire alarm and emergency voice alarm communication system and an atrium smoke control system.
A performance-based analysis was also conducted to analyze the smoke control system within the building’s atrium and determine if an appropriate design fire would overwhelm the system and conflict with the building’s life safety strategy. Pathfinder and Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS) models were used to estimate the building’s available safe egress time (ASET) afforded to occupants to compare with the required safe egress time (RSET).
The two design fires analyzed in the performance-based analysis include an axisymmetric plume fire (Design Fire 1) and a balcony spill plume fire (Design Fire 2). Design Fire 1 was located on the atrium floor directly beneath the atrium opening and grew to 5,300 kW in 194 seconds. This fire assumes the sprinklers at the atrium roof do not activate due to an expected low smoke temperature at that height.
Design Fire 2 was located on the first floor underneath the second floor slab where sprinklers are provided. The closest sprinkler head activated 118 seconds which corresponded to a peak heat release rate of 1,908 kW.
Both design fires have a significant fuel package that is larger than what would be expected in the atrium floor to indicate why atrium floors are prescriptively permitted to only contain low hazard fuels. The results reveal that the chosen fuel package yields a significant amount of smoke production which overwhelms the smoke control system. As a result, the time to untenable conditions occurs before occupants can safety evacuate. The quantitative results are summarized as follows:
Design Fire 1: Level 4 had the largest RSET of 397 seconds with no safety factor and an ASET of 128 seconds. The net difference observed between the RSET and ASET was smaller for Levels 2 and 3.
Design Fire 2: Level 4 had the largest RSET of 442 seconds with no safety factor and an ASET of 423 seconds. A larger net difference of approximately 100 seconds was observed between the RSET and ASET for Levels 2 and 3.
As previously mentioned, the chosen design fire fuel load is much larger than what would be present on the atrium floor. This substantiates why the code does not allow high fuel loads to be provided on an atrium floor.
https://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/fpe_rpt/190
Final Presentation