MS in Fire Protection Engineering
College of Engineering
Frederick Mowrer and Christopher Pascual
This report contains two separate forms of analysis, Prescriptive-Based Analysis and Performance-Base Analysis. The Prescriptive Analysis discusses an overview of the building and its features whereas the Performance-Based Analysis discusses the building meeting applicable codes and standards as discussed in NFPA 101 Life Safety Code 2012 Edition, Unified Facilities Code (UFC), International Building Code (IBC) 2012 Edition, and the SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering. The Child Development Center (CDC) was analyzed as a new construction building. There are also noted assumptions within the report where necessary information about the building could not be obtained due to information restrictions from the Government.
The building discussed in this report is the Child Development Center (CDC) located in an area titled Murphy Canyon on Naval Base San Diego. Due to the nature of the building and the citizens that utilize it, Common Access Cards (CAC) are required when visiting the building. The CDC is initially considered a Group I-4 Occupancy, but can be labeled as a Group E occupancy due to the building having egress exits in each classroom to the immediate outside. This building has no immediate adjacent building surrounding it.
The prescriptive-based analysis within this document confirms that the building meets requirements of NFPA 101 Life Safety Code, NFPA 13, NFPA 17, NFPA 72, NFPA 92, Unified Facilities Code, and IBC. The report is also based on a CDC building expansion, which can be conducted at a later date.
The performance-based analysis looks into the possibilities of fires arising in a staff break room. The software that aided this report for modeling each fire scenario is Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS). The break room fire model involved a runaway coffee pot scenario that spreads to a polyurethane couch. In the event of a failure of the heat detection device located in the break room, the time from detection and notification by the quick response sprinkler would not allow enough time to instruct the occupants to leave the building before untenable conditions occurred. Also, the desired fire suppression system flow demand does not meet the requirement set at 2,000 gpm. The flow test to the building shows a flow rate that is approximately 40 gpm less than the 50% reduction flow rate of the desired 2,000 gpm system demand. One recommendation to the project building would be the installation of a fire pump.
Due to the nature of the building owner and operator, limited pictures and as-built drawings could be taken due to security measures.