Requerimientos Funcionales

An FDS model was developed to test these criteria using a new design fire using polyester representative of the upholstery of the chair and replicating the heat release rate

provided in the CA TB 133 standard. The soot yield of polyester is 0.09 compared to polyurethane’s soot yield of 0.198 is much lower. Trying to model a smoldering fire requires defining a smoke production rate independent of the HRR. But since the FDS

112

simulation is a graphical representation of a relationship between the smoke production and heat release rate, this is not severe limitation. The CA TB 133 criteria is sufficient to show tenability, so additional models were not simulated. In the event of a smoldering fire in the chair, a smoke detector would activate notifying security, who based on the location of the fire should be able to extinguish a smoldering or incipient fire with a portable extinguisher.

CONCLUSION AND RECCOMENDATIONS

Egress time is inadequate based on the initial polyurethane 2 MW and 250kW capped F21 chair design fire chosen for the scenario. The smoke production from the chair and high heat release, even with early detection from a smoke detector did not provide sufficient egress time to the occupants. Based on the analysis, students could be entering the corridor at its most dangerous when the visibility is near zero under this scenario.

The furniture specification needs to be amended to exclude furniture meeting CA TB 117 and require only non-combustible furniture and/or furniture meeting the requirements of CA TB 133 in the common area. These requirements should be posted in the space to ensure the information is retained and connected to the space in the event of occupancy or ownership changes.

The available safe egress time (ASET) was set at 600 seconds based on the total HRR over a ten-minute period from the CA TB 133 test criteria in Table 28. The initial (ASET) with the 2MW fire was set at 124 seconds based on loss of visibility in the lower west corridor closest to the fire.

TABLE 28. DESIGN FIRE SCENARIO TWO – ASET VS. RSET

ASET 600 s

Electrical Sprinkler Waterflow Voice Evac Dress/Property Travel² t = 0 s 10 s

1. Alternate RSET path based on automatic detection method.

2. W = West and E = East

113

The second sprinkler to operate in the preliminary simulations was used based on advice from the AHJ. The first sprinkler technically operated earlier but due to the airflow under the mezzanine the second sprinkler was slow to activate. It may be possible to add the equivalent of a lintel to slow the flow of air below the edge of the mezzanine and improve sprinkler performance. It is assumed the model is designed properly, this is a more

accurate representation of activation because it includes the effect of asymmetric spaces and building features. The capping of the heat release rate is needed.

The following recommendations are based on the FDS results:

• The source of this design fire is a polyurethane foam chair which is a heavy producer of smoke and some fire retardants increase the amount of smoke produced. The ASU design guide allows furniture meeting CA TB 117 and/or CA TB 133, but there were significant changes recently in how the tests were performed. Specifying furniture based solely on CA TB 133 will provide furniture tested as a complete assembly yielding more realistic results than a component tests like CA TB 117.

• Low level exit signs were not required due to the R-2 occupancy classification (this is not a hotel) and the occupants should be familiar with the layout of the building. The building codes are minimum codes, but when visibility is lost quickly at the ceiling for a building population that could be impaired low level lighting may be potentially beneficial.

• Additional corridor controls may prevent the spread of smoke such as fire doors located between the corridor and the common area. The doors could release from magnetic door holders blocking the corridor. Another option is a similar magnetically held horizontal exit located in the corridor to effectively divide the population between exits. Due to the uneven building layout, it may inadvertently load on stair more than the other.

• The furniture specification needs to be amended to exclude furniture meeting CA TB 117 and require only non-combustible furniture and/or furniture meeting the requirements of CA TB 133 in the common area. These requirements should be posted in the space to ensure the information is retained and connected to the space in the event of occupancy or ownership changes.

114 13. COMMISIONING

The commissioning plan is intended to ensure the specified fire protection and life safety systems perform according to the intended design and owner’s project requirements (OPR). Commissioning shall include documentation of the design intent and the activities involving construction, acceptance, and warranty phases of this project.

FIRE PROTECTING AND LIFE SAFETY COMMISIONING TEAM

The commissioning team is comprised of the owners, stakeholders, authority having jurisdiction, installing contractors, manufacturer’s representatives, general contractors, facility managers, and third party test entities.

Not all parties have been defined as the project is still in the planning phase. The team will be listed in the when it is assembled. The team will need to meet the qualification

recommendations in Chapter 4 of NFPA 3.

INTEGRATED TESTING FOR ALL FIRE LIFE SAFETY SYSTEMS DOCUMENTATION When the fire alarm system is nearing completion, integrated testing is planned for the fire command center, fire alarm system, energy management systems (AHU shutdowns), and the emergency power system. The resulting documentation becomes a part of the owner’s documentation.

Three copies of a document describing testing procedures of all active fire protection systems will be submitted to the City of Phoenix Building Department at least 90 days prior to final testing. These systems include the sprinkler system, standpipes, fire pump, fire alarm system, emergency generator, emergency lighting, smoke control, and security system interface with such systems.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) DOCUMENTATION

Before the building is occupied, a copy of the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) manual is to be provided to the owners. The initial draft manual contains all available information pertaining to the buildings systems. The final draft will include detailed information on the building, equipment, manufacturers, and maintenance of the building.

The owner may review the manual for 30 days and comment before a final version is provided. Then the O&M manual is submitted to the AHJ for approval.

115 FIRE FIGHTER OPERATION OVERVIEW

A fire fighter operation manual is provided to the fire department during the final tour of the building prior to occupancy. The manual lists all fire safety features, systems, and supplies with their locations indicated on a building floor plan.

FIRE SAFETY AND MANAGEMENT PLANS

As part of the handover of the building to the owners, a general fire safety and management plan was provided as required by PFC section 404.2. This plan has been developed in cooperation with the owners to be maintained by the owners and revised on an annual basis at a minimum.

A copy of the fire safety plan is located in the Appendix M.

IDENTIFICATION OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR MAINTAINING SYSTEM PERFORMANCE

All active fire protection systems and devices are required to be regularly tested in

accordance with applicable codes and standards by qualified individuals acceptable to the Phoenix Fire Department. These systems include the sprinkler system, standpipes, fire pump, fire alarm system, emergency generator, emergency lighting, smoke control, and security system interface with such systems. Records of all maintenance and testing are to be retained on-site and presented to the City of Phoenix representatives upon request.

INTEGRATED TESTING

The project is currently in its construction phase and integrated testing has not begun at this phase of the project. Information included here is preliminary in nature and change as the project progresses.

Three copies of a document describing testing procedures of all active fire protection systems will be submitted to the City of Phoenix Building Department at least 90 days prior to final testing. These systems include the sprinkler system, standpipes, fire pump, fire alarm system, emergency generator, emergency lighting, smoke control, and security system interface with such systems.

116 CONCLUSION AND COMMENTS

The devices, systems and approaches outlined in this report work integrally to provide a level of life safety and property protection intended by the applicable codes. This level of protection is based on the interaction of both active and passive fire protection features.

Active systems include fire suppression and detection systems, as well as secondary power, communications, and mechanical smoke management. Passive features include

compartmentalization with fire resistive separation, Type I construction, exit systems, property line setbacks and flame spread limitations.

Nothing in this document is intended to imply non-code compliance nor alternate approaches for code compliance.

This report provides general fire protection guidelines and recommendations developed for Taylor Place. Working drawings and specifications will be coordinated to comply with the fire protection features outlined in this document.

Prepared by:

Fire Protection Engineer Date

Reviewed by:

Owner’s Representative:

Arizona State University Date

117 APPENDICES

A. CITY OF PHOENIX – FIRE LIFE SAFETY REPORT CHECKLIST (NOT USED) B. FIRE DYNAMIC SIMULATION (FDS) MODELING FILES

C. MODIFICATIONS AND APPEALS D. OAC MEETING NOTES

E. STAIRWAY PRESSURIZATION CALCULATIONS

F. PERFORMANCE BASED DESIGN AND LIFE SAFETY SMALL SCALE DRAWINGS G. FIRE ALARM PRODUCT DATA SHEETS

H. HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS

I. FIRE SPRINKLER PRODUCT DATA SHEETS

J. INSPECTION, TESTING, AND MAINTENANCE OF FIRE SYSTEMS K. FIRE ALARM BATTERY CALCS – NORTH AND SOUTH TOWER L. CALIFORNIA TECHNICAL BULLETIN CA TB 133

M. FIRE SAFETY MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDIX A