11/23/2015

Department of Fire Protection Engineering

Performance-Based Approach
to Fire Safety Design

A. JAMES CLARK SCHOOL of ENGINEERING ● UNIVERSITY of MARYLAND

• Introduce Concept
• Discuss Elements
– Goals
– Assessments
– Designs
• Example Applications
• Choosing Appropriate Design

• Evaluation of Hazard or Risk based on defined  
goals
• Scenario specific
– Fires
– Building
– Occupants
• Hazard‐Consequences
• Risk‐Consequences X Probability

1
 11/23/2015

Define Project Scope

Identify Goals

Define Objectives
Develop  
Performance Criteria
Develop Design
Fire Scenarios
Develop Trial Design(s)

Evaluate Trial Design(s)

Modify Design or   Design Meets  

Objectives Criteria

Select Final Design
Ref: SFPE PBD Guide
Prepare
Documentation

Code‐Based   Fire Hazard/Risk  

Evaluation Assessment

Fire Safety Design

• Based on Fire Risk/Hazard Assessment  
Evaluation
• Evaluates specific building or structure

2
 11/23/2015

• Prescriptive code not feasible
• Based on system performance
• Addresses project specific needs

Life Safety:
• Protect occupants not intimate with fire for time needed to evacuate

Building Structure:
• Minimize damage to major structural elements

Building Appearance:
• Minimize impact of strategies on architectural features and openness of  
galleries

Facility Operations:
• Minimize undue loss of operations due to fire
• Prevent damage from fire to critical equipment

• Performance Criteria: Maintain visibility of >10 m

• CO / COHb
• Temperature
• Structural Integrity

Egress Time + Safety Factor < Time to
Hazardous Conditions

3
 11/23/2015

• Quantify fire into engineering terms
– Example ‐ typical office fire
– 8,000 kW, fast‐growth rate fire, 15‐minutes
• Range of fire scenarios for different areas
Office F i re 1 - Heat Rel ease Rate

9000

8000

7000

6000 Office Fire

5000 Slow
HRR
(kW)

4000 Medium
Fast
3000

2000
1000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

T i m e (m inutes)

HIGH

MODERATE
Probability
Probability
LOW

Consequence
Consequence

RISK = HAZARD x PROBABILITY

f < 10‐6 10‐6< f <10‐4 10‐4< f <10‐2 f > 10‐2

• Apply to each fire scenario
(>10,000 yr) (>100 yr)
(>1,000,000 yr) (<100 yr)
• Determine relative fire risk
• Evaluate for Trial Designs

4
 11/23/2015

Options That Cost

Meet Goals
Vs. Aesthetics
Options That Meet Feasibility
Most of the Goals

• Performance‐Based Design
– Different than prescriptive approach
– Use Fire Risk/Hazard Assessment Evaluation
– Numerous factors influence ultimate design