Alberto ALVAREZ, Ph. D. Matthew A. FERRIERA Prof. Brian J. MEACHAM – WPI (Advisor)

1. The VULCAN INITIATIVE The VULCAN INITIATIVE: A Web-based Platformfor the Next Generation of Performance-BasedFire Protection Engineering (W56) Alberto ALVAREZ, Ph. D. Matthew A. FERRIERA Prof. Brian J. MEACHAM – WPI (Advisor) This work is supported by NIST Grant 60NANB10D228

2. Presentation layout • 1st part: background and context • Why? Need to change • What? “next generation of PBD” • 2nd part: the Vulcan Initiative • How? • Who? The importance of participants

3. Challenges related to the use of current PBFPD processes (1) Generic guidelines • Challenges related to the application of generic guidelines • how to integrate the specifics of a project into consideration • in the definition of the problem to solve • in the analysis • in the integration of the fire protection measures into the global project ("idealized" design features and "real life" installed and running features) How to get the results of the application of the process continuously understood by the stakeholders (and building users)? How to get the results of the application of the process accepted by the stakeholders?

4. Challenges related to the use of current PBFPD processes (2) Technical aspect • Challenges related to the technical aspect of the current PBFPD processes • Estimation of the consequences of fire design scenarios • Determination of influential factors affecting the evaluation of trial designs • Selection and adaptation of literature values, when available, to use in models • Comparison of levels of performance between an engineering solution and the one based on prescriptive requirements How to apply the technical steps of the process to a specific project?

5. Challenges related to the use of current PBFPD processes (3) Political aspect • Challenges related to the political aspect of the current PBFPD processes • Definition, use and quantification of the performance/acceptance criteria • Selection of fire design scenarios • Dealing with a priori lists of performance criteria and design fire scenarios How to separate the technical actions from the political decisions? Technical level of challenges Political level of challenges Engineering process itself Decision making process Manuscript to be published in the Journal of Fire Protection Engineering “20 Years of Performance-Based Fire Protection Design: Challenges Faced and a Look Ahead”

6. Need for a paradigm shift Paradigm associated with the current PBFPD processes Fire Protection measures would perform as designed to mitigate the effects of design fire scenarios in comparison with performance criteria Challenges Paradigm associated with the new PBFPD process The “building-occupant” system has to integrate Fire Protection measures which would mitigate the effects (amplitude and duration) of fire events on its overall performance

7. Fire as one of many disruptive events of the building-occupant system Performance of the Philips Plant: daily number of chips produced The 10 minute fire is extinguished by sprinklers and staff intervention Chips on the furnace where the fire started are lost According to the current application of the PBFPD processes, the designed system was operative and successful… Nevertheless…. Time

8. Fire as one of many disruptive events of the building-occupant system Performance of the Philips Plant: daily number of chips produced The 10 minute fire is extinguished by sprinklers and staff intervention Chips on the furnace where the fire started are lost Chips on all the plant are lost and the whole plant production is stopped Smoke spread and tramping of staff and fire fighters from the fire scene (in the mix of dirt and water) contaminate chips at every stage of the production Full impact of the fire event Time

9. Fire as one of many disruptive events of the building-occupant system Performance of the Philips Plant: daily number of chips produced The 10 minute fire is extinguished by sprinklers and staff intervention Chips on the furnace where the fire started are lost Chips on all the plant are lost and the whole plant production is stopped Smoke spread and tramping of staff and fire fighters from the fire scene (in the mix of dirt and water) contaminate chips at every stage of the production Full impact of the fire event Several weeks to restore the clean rooms Time

10. Fire as one of many disruptive events of the building-occupant system Performance of the Philips Plant: daily number of chips produced The 10 minute fire is extinguished by sprinklers and staff intervention Chips on the furnace where the fire started are lost Chips on all the plant are lost and the whole plant production is stopped Smoke spread and tramping of staff and fire fighters from the fire scene (in the mix of dirt and water) contaminate chips at every stage of the production Restarting production Full impact of the fire event Several weeks to restore the clean rooms Time

11. Fire as one of many disruptive events of the building-occupant system Pre- event "chronic" state Post- event "chronic" state Fire disruptive event Performance of the Philips Plant Long term impact The 10 minute fire is extinguished by sprinklers and staff intervention Chips on the furnace where the fire started are lost Chips on all the plant are lost and the whole plant production is stopped Design fire scenario Smoke spread and tramping of staff and fire fighters from the fire scene (in the mix of dirt and water) contaminate chips at every stage of the production Restarting production Full impact of the fire event Several weeks to restore the clean rooms Recovery Preparation for recovery Time

12. “Chronic” objectives vs. “Acute” objectives “chronic” = everyday use of the building People focused on what they are doing, no attention to the surroundings Loss of time perception “acute” = disruptive event occurring in the building or affecting the normal use of the building How to make people aware of the fire? How to decide which fire protection measures (technical and managerial) to install in the building?

13. Competing “chronic” objectivesOriginal design vs. real usage The “vision” of the architect The conceptual and design phase The reality of the system The actual building usage

14. Competing “acute” and “chronic” objectivesConceptual design vs. real usage Blocked exit in Australia Combustible load in exit stairwell in a student housing in UK

15. Characteristics of the new paradigm • Paradigm associated with the new PBFPD process • The “building-occupant” system has to integrate Fire Protection measures which would mitigate the effects of fire events on its overall performance • “Building-occupant” system: system defined by a structure (i.e. building) inside which “targets” (i.e. occupants interacting with building contents) are primarily engaged in a specific activity. • This activity is quantified (e.g. activity number carried out by day or week) and then the performance of the system is estimated by the level of this activity.

16. Definition of a “building-occupant” system Institutional • Child care facilities (2 ½ years of age or less) • Hospitals and mental hospitals (medical, psychiatric, obstetrical or surgical treatment of in-patients) • Detoxification facilities • Nursing homes In the current paradigm, all these institutional buildings are treated the same In the new paradigm, all these systems are treated according to their targets

17. Characteristics of the new paradigm • Paradigm associated with the new PBFPD process • During normal every day conditions or "chronic states of the system", “targets” (i.e. occupants using important building components) are located in "functional zones" where they carry out their activities associated with "chronic objectives", established in accordance with the system scope. "Utility zones" include system support components such as electricity, HVAC and plumbing.

18. Definition of a building-occupant system • Hospitals and mental hospitals • (medical, psychiatric, obstetrical or surgical treatment of in-patients) • Hospital • Hospital • Reception • Cafeteria • Atrium • Emergency rooms • Storage units • High-rise • Examination rooms • Electrical rooms… • Intensive Care Unit… • Support systems • Specificities • Main systems / “functional zones”

19. Targets in functional zones of a hospital Occupants • Hospital • Reception • Staff + in-patients (mostly mobile) + visitors • Staff + in-patients (not mobile / mobile) • Examination rooms • Emergency rooms • Staff + in-patients (not mobile) • Operating rooms • Staff + in-patients (not mobile) • Intensive Care Unit • In-patients (not mobile) • In-patients (not mobile / mobile) • Patient Rooms

20. Targets in functional zones of a hospital Functional building components • Hospital Direct effect • Reception • Computers (data entry) or paper files Equipment for examination (e.g. scanner) • Examination rooms • Emergency rooms • All room (maintain usability) • Operating rooms All room (maintain usability) • Intensive Care Unit • Life supporting equipment Life supporting equipment • Patient Rooms • Electrical room Loss of electricity Occupant affected Indirect effect

21. Functional zones and support systems Patient room Operating room Intensive Care Unit Storage room Nurse station

22. “Performance” zoning and FP zoning Patient room Smoke compartment (illustrative example) Operating room Intensive Care Unit Storage room Nurse station

23. Characteristics of the new paradigm • Paradigm associated with the new PBFPD process • In order to mitigate the “event effects” on the system performance, “acute objectives” have to be set up so to take into consideration “direct effects” and “indirect effects” with which the disruptive events can possibly damage the targets. • Within this “building-occupant” paradigm, FPEs • Perform a target focused risk analysis • Verify the FP measures are integrated into the system • Indicate the cost/benefits of the FP measures to the stakeholders

24. Overview of the new system specific risk informed performance-based process Technical steps of the new PBD process Disruptive event risk characterization Target vulnerability criteria estimation Disruptive eventscenario analysis (quantification of the likelihood) • Disruptive event scenario analysis (quantification of the impacts) • Evaluation of the integration in the system of the protection measures against the disruptive event Cost-benefit analysis Political Stakeholders’project definition Political Stakeholders’ decision Manuscript to be submitted to Building, Research and Information

25. Separating the political aspect from the technical aspect of the PBD process Technical steps of the new PBFPD process Risk characterization Target vulnerability criteria estimation Scenario analysis (quantification of the likelihood) Scenario analysis (quantification of the impacts) Evaluation of the integration of the fire protection measures in the system Cost-benefit analysis Political Stakeholders’ project definition Political stakeholders define the project and present all the characteristics of the “building-occupant” system to examine Stakeholders’ decision the same stakeholders decide on the trial designs proposed by the FPE. This again is a "political" issue. The technical fire protection engineering is done at that point Manuscript to be published in the Journal of Fire Protection Engineering “A Framework For Risk-Informed PB Fire Protection Design For The Built Environment”

26. Technical steps of the new PBFPD process Frequency of the disruptive event   Translation of the stakeholders’ concerns in FPE terms: List of system targets Risk characterization     Damage metric How the targets are affected by the fire Target Vulnerability criteria estimation Scenario analysis (quantification of the likelihood) Scenario analysis (quantification of the impacts) Quantification of the fire risk and proposition of fire protection measures Evaluation of the integration of the fire protection measures in the system ʃ Documents for the stakeholders to make their decisions $ Cost-benefit analysis

27. Path to obtain the guidelines to every process step Risk characterization Damage criteria estimation Scenario analysis (quantification of the likelihood) Scenario analysis (quantification of the impacts) Evaluation of the integration of the fire protection measures in the system Cost-benefit analysis • Climbing the Research to • Application / Regulatory ladder Guideline or standard related to the ProcessStep For specific systems Research related to the Process Step

28. The Vulcan Initiative: Principal Menu To help people navigate this web-platform, the Vulcan Initiative is organized around a menu located at the top of each page. The Vulcan Initiative was created around a new Risk Informed PBFPD process with 5 technical steps at the center of the menu. Nevertheless, participants from all the spectrum of the Fire Protection Engineering community do not necessarily need to get involved in using this process in order to get benefits from the Vulcan Initiative. Indeed, FPEs dealing with research or PBD process or engineering issues, may be interested in one aspect of the Vulcan Initiative such as the definition of scenarios or the calculation of fire consequences.

29. The Vulcan Initiative: (1) Projects A participant to the Vulcan Initiative can propose a Project. In order to do so, a participant uploads the characteristics of a project, that is to say of a system including building components and occupant distributions. The ultimate goal of the Vulcan Initiative is to have participants upload a project and successively go through the 5 technical steps of the risk-informed PBD process. Independently of following this new process, participants could be interested in applying a single step for their own analysis.

30. The Vulcan Initiative: (1) Projects Applying the 5 steps of the new risk-informed PBFPD process Applying a particular step of the new risk-informed PBFPD process

31. The Vulcan Initiative: (1) Projects Applying the 5 steps of the new risk-informed PBFPD process Applying a particular step of the new risk-informed PBFPD process

32. The Vulcan Initiative: (1) Projects Applying the 5 steps of the new risk-informed PBFPD process Applying a particular step of the new risk-informed PBFPD process

33. The Vulcan Initiative: (1) Projects Applying the 5 steps of the new risk-informed PBFPD process Applying a particular step of the new risk-informed PBFPD process

34. The Vulcan Initiative: (1) Projects Applying the 5 steps of the new risk-informed PBFPD process Applying a particular step of the new risk-informed PBFPD process

35. The Vulcan Initiative: (1) Projects Applying the 5 steps of the new risk-informed PBFPD process Applying a particular step of the new risk-informed PBFPD process

36. The Vulcan Initiative: (1) Projects Examples of current PROJECTS

37. The Vulcan Initiative: (2) TBE Studies One participant to the Vulcan Initiative could be interested in only one step of the new Risk Informed Performance-Based Fire Protection Design Process For that purpose, The Vulcan Initiative contains ‘test bed’ environment (or TBE) STUDIES

38. The Vulcan Initiative: (2) TBE Studies One participant to the Vulcan Initiative could be interested in only one step of the new Risk Informed Performance-Based Fire Protection Design Process For that purpose, The Vulcan Initiative contains ‘test bed’ environment (or TBE) STUDIES

39. The Vulcan Initiative: (2) TBE Studies One participant to the Vulcan Initiative could be interested in only one step of the new Risk Informed Performance-Based Fire Protection Design Process For that purpose, The Vulcan Initiative contains ‘test bed’ environment (or TBE) STUDIES

40. The Vulcan Initiative: (2) TBE Studies One participant to the Vulcan Initiative could be interested in only one step of the new Risk Informed Performance-Based Fire Protection Design Process For that purpose, The Vulcan Initiative contains ‘test bed’ environment (or TBE) STUDIES

41. The Vulcan Initiative: (2) TBE Studies One participant to the Vulcan Initiative could be interested in only one step of the new Risk Informed Performance-Based Fire Protection Design Process For that purpose, The Vulcan Initiative contains ‘test bed’ environment (or TBE) STUDIES

42. The Vulcan Initiative: (2) TBE Studies One participant to the Vulcan Initiative could be interested in only one step of the new Risk Informed Performance-Based Fire Protection Design Process For that purpose, The Vulcan Initiative contains ‘test bed’ environment (or TBE) STUDIES

43. The Vulcan Initiative: (2) TBE Studies • For each PBFPD technical step, the FPE has to evaluate parameters relevant to the step using: • Tools that are appropriate to the analysis, • Data that is representative of the considered project.

44. The Vulcan Initiative: (2) TBE Studies Fire consequences + Impact on people, contents, and structures

45. (Building – Occupant) interactions Occupants Buildings High school Building type 1 Building type 2

46. (Building – Occupant) interactions Occupants Buildings Building type 1 Hospital Building type 2

47. (Building – Fire) interactions Buildings Building type 1 Fire in a classroom Fires Building type 2 Fire in a nursing ward of a hospital

48. (Fire – Occupant) interactions Occupants Building type 1 Students and staff evacuating school “Patient” being evacuated Fires Building type 2

49. ‘Test bed’ Environments Occupants Domains of interest for the Tool Users ‘Test bed’ environments Buildings Domains of tool validation for the Tool Developers Entire domain of possibilities Fires

50. The actors of the ‘Test bed’ Environment studies • Helping the Tool User (TU)-Tool Developer (TD) communication Engineering societies Fire Protection Engineer Research Institute Academia Private company Tool User TU Tool Developer TD Provides models, Validates and verifies the tools Defines the problems Tools are developed and used to solve problems for which the tools are known to be validated