Fire Engineering Company

Fire Protection Engineers &

Contractors

3389 South 6th West

Salt Lake City, Utah

March

196.:;

NEI FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM INSTALLATIOM

Skyview Manor - Twin Falls, Idaho

Montana Carbon County Hospital - Red Lodge, Montana

Wahlen Bros. Furniture & Manufacturing Co.

- Murray, Utah

Atomic Energy Commission TRA-1-MTR Warehouse - National Reactor

Station, Idaho

PROVO APPOINTS STANLEY BROWN AS THE COMMUNITY'S NEW FIRE CHIEF.

Mr.

Brown will assume his duties on April

12,

1968, replacing retiring Fire

Chief Brent Kirkwood.

PROPERTY DAMAGE FROM FIRE WAS HEAVY IN DAVIS COUNTY IN

1967, according

to Davis County Commission Chairman Stanley M. Smoot.

Property losses

not covered by insurance totaled

$234,485

- only

$44,000 was covered

by insurance.

The total of

$278,885 of losses was caused by

97 fires

fought by the South Davis Volunteer Fire Department.

FIRE FACTS WORTH CONSIDERING f

A rerrint from the Consulting Engineer, Sept.

1967.E

Since man abandoned caves as dwellings, the danger

installation, and use all comply with requirements

of fire has been with him. Man had fire before leav-

proven to be practicable and safe. Use of a facility

ing his cave, which accurately can be said to have

is beyond the control of the designer. but it is here

been his last fireproof building. There were no fur-

that his design meets its ultimate test. While he can-

nishings in the cave for the fire to feed on, so if a small

not hope to dye with every aspect of human folly.

ifre got out of control, all he had to do was to get

he ean forestall those esperi•nee has shown to be

out of the way.

preventable. The design engineer knows what is re-

As soon as he built a structure to live in, man had

quired, but the owner mast be persuaded to pay the

to learn the difference between a friendly fire and a

price. Meeting the budget is it formidable obstacle,

hostile fire, A friendly fire could become hostile and

aml a designer must be firm in his convictions if he

burn down his dwelling, but the structures involved

is to make his point. If a building code is not appli-

were probably wit extensive enough to present a

cable in the area. an owner oecasionally can per-

problem in evacuation. Ile had no way to prevent

suade an engineer that metal . is wasted when spent

or avoid the hostile fires caused by lightning or spon-

for features not absolutely required to hold the build-

taneous

ing together. This misguided economy frequently

backfires, costing lives and property. gven when a

Major Causes of Fire

code applies, its requirements are minimum and .in

Of the three causes of fire that today account for

many instances must be exceeded if the design is to

more than half of our

$1.6 billion annual losses, one

he safe.

of them, cooking and heating equipment, dates from

The reasons for exceeding building code require-

those earliest times. Another, matches and smoking,

ments are easy to see because a building code is

dales from the

16th century when tobacco was intro-

written to protect against only two hazards so far as

(hived into western eivilizatioo. The third, electricity,

fire is concerned. These are the danger of loss of life.

became a factor in the lath century.

and the danger of fire spreading to adjoining proper-

Since all of these causes have been with us so long,

ly. A city protects its citizens with' the life-safety

one would expect them to be completely under con-

features, and after protecting against conflagration,

trol. And so they are, if all current knowledge is 'em-

the code is satisfied. It is up to the designer to protect

ployed in their use. We know all we need to know

the owner against any special situation not specifically

to design safe facilities for cooking and heating and

covered in a code. If the building is to house a busi-

Id( ..tric s,--..4ces, The difficulty is in having the design.

ness that %%amid

811ffer to an imosnal derzree fro.,1 it et,

he should take more than the minimum protective

where the travel distance to an outside exit was 320',

measures. At this point most, architects and engineers

more than I have seen permitted in any code.

use the insurance industry as a crutch. They are un-

able to see the advantage in any expenditure that

The Importance of End Use

does not carry a fire insurance rate credit.

In addition to adhering to the applicable code,

Such an attitude was observed not long ago. I was

the designer should explore the client's proposed use

waiting for my appointment at the door of the office

of the building. If occupancy conditions are not fully

of the architect for the New York State Education De-

covered by code provisions, they should be analyzed

partment. A visiting architect was just leaving. Under

for possible hazards. If construction, location or financ-

his arm he had a roll of drawings he had just dis-

ing would 'Cause undue delay in replacement, evalua-

cussed. As he walked out, he turned his head and

tion should be made of insurance to cover the un-

ifnished his conversation with, "Please let me know

usual conditions as well as coverage for loss of use.

what you want us to do; we do not want to do any-

Loss of use might well be the most important consid-

thing we do not absolutely have to do." He is not

eration of all. The building is only a tool for the

alone in this attitude.

client to use in his business to make a profit; while

McCormick Place Fire

the tool is inoperative, the profit ,stops. This condition

can justify protective measures not contained in

It is in the exercise. of judgment as to exceeding

any code, for codes are not concerned with individual

the minimum that a fire protection engineer can be

problems but with community problems. A disclaimer

important. McCormick Place, in Chicago, for example,

from the client should not relieve the designer from

was designed to meet the Chicago building code for

taking the responsibility of recommending added

assembly occupancy. Fireproofing was applied to the

expense. He is the expert; the client depends on him.

steel columns to a height of

20' but the main roof

If he does not provide adequate protection, he has

trusses were not protected. The theory behind this

dodged his responsibility.

code requirement was that any possible fire could

One of the most formidable hazards encountered

not damage the structure more than

20' above the

in recent industrial procedures is the high piling of

floor. This arbitrary height, which also appears in

stock in warehouses. Some enormous and costly fires

other codes, was based on an occupancy with negli-

have resulted from this, and no building code con-

gible fire loading. When this building was. packed

tains provisions to cope with it. All codes, including

with combustibles to a fire loading of approximately

New York's publicized new one, contain cookbook

20 pounds per square foot, the stage was set for the

solutions to sprinkler system design, and the high-

holocaust that followed. The arrangement of combusti-

piling problem was not with us when the book was

ble displays was such that a fire would have the advan-

written. Insurance interests do not agree on the so-

tage of ventilation for the most rapid spread. With

lution, but they do agree that considerable research is

this condition, it is not surprising that temperatures

necessary to solve the problem satisfactorily. One

breached

1150F to

11350•, and the roof trusses

group of insurers requires sprinkler discharge rates of

buckled in 30 to 40 minutes.

5200 gpm over furniture stock piled 32' high. With

Is not there some lesson that could be learned

these or• similar conditions it should be obvious that

from this disaster? Of course there is, but the rea-

more than the minimum load-carrying ability should

son is not technical, for given the conditions at the

be proVided in structural members of the roof.

time, the course of the fire was predictable. If there

Must everything be built of concrete and sprin-

had been an analysis of the proposed uses of the build-

klered? The answer, of course, is "no," The amount of

ing, with realistic appraisal of contents, ample protec.

combustibles present in structure or contents or both

tive measures could have been taken. A properly

should affect decisions about all features, including

designed, operative automatic sprinkler system, with

protection. It is quite possible for the contents of a

draft curtains and roof vents, would have saved the

room, in a fire resistive building to sustain a com-

building. The lesson is psychological, for wishful think-

plete burn-out without harm to the structure and

ing often has more influence than reason. The thought

without extending beyond the room of origin. The

that "We are not going to have a fire" is more at-

combustible contents, or fire load, will govern the

tractive than involvement in the trouble and ex-

duration of the fire, if the building will resist fire to

pense of responsible design. When the uninsured loss-

that extent. The loss of life hazard would be minimal,

es have to be faced, then comes the rude awakening.

assuming that the occupants were awake and ambula-

Nevertheless, the building code was almost vindi-

tory because adjoining rooms and floors provide places

cated. Only one life was lost, and a conflagration did

of refuge. Where the occupants are not awake or am-

not develop. That the building was isolated from all

bulatory, the situation is different, and other factors

others accounted for the lack of fire spread. There

must be considered.

apparently were only

150 cleaning personnel and

All codes recognize that exits from a structure are

10 guards in the building when the fire started, and

the last resort in a fire emergency when all other

this accounts for the small loss of life. If the building

precautions have failed. In spite of this, loss of life

had contained the thousands that could have been

constantly occurs from causes that have been recog-

attending the show, the building exit arrangements

nized for years. The largest loss of life at any restau-

would have had a severe test. There were locations

rant fire in the Ti. S. occurred at the Cocoanut Grove,

in Boston, in

1942.

Three important factors contribut-

If no other motive will dictate safe design

ing to the tragic loss of

492 lives were inadequate

against loss by fire, self-preservation should soon be-

exits, combustible interior finish, and lack of a sprin-

come a constructive factor. One legal opinion is that

kler system. Twenty five years later, in Montgomery,

any third person whose negligence causes or contrib-

Alabama another restaurant fire occurred and caused

utes to the origin or spread of a fire may be held

the death of 25 persons. The 'same factors that were

liable for the resulting loss.

vital in the Boston fire were present in the Mont-

Most improvements in design will come from re-

gomery fire. The wonder is that it is possible to repeat

search by manufacturers of building components and

the same errors year after year. In Montgomery there

equipment. There is no over-all comprehensive pro-

were two elevators and one stairway. Both elevators

gram for improvement in building fire safety although

were inoperative at the crucial time, and the single

a measure has been introduced in Congress for Fed-

stairway was blocked by the fire. At 10 stories above

eral conduct of such a program. Industries that pay

the street, some occupants found an open roof area,

the bills for insurance, which includes fire losses and

but others had no place to go. There was a stair tower

costs of administering the payment, have been reluc-

at the end opposite the one stair, but it terminated

tant to organize joint experimental research in pro-

at the floor below. The architect for the remodeling

tection. Hence, any such undertaking by the Federal

complied with the code in effect in the city at the

government will be of a general nature and only mar-

time, but this apparently did not require the exten-

ginally useful to any given industry, Insurance inter-

sion of the second stair tower. After the fact, this

ests now are doing more than ever before in defining

seems a simple solution and is required by the pres-

ifre hazards and perhaps will graduate from the use

ent code. It is too late for the 25 who perished.

of cookbook, or sledgehammer, solution to protection

Time Limits on Liability

problems. It remains to be seen, however, if they will

be able to resist the huge safety factors they always

In most states the responsibilities of the designer,

have required and bring forth rational engineering

engineer or architect, are with him all his life. A few

solutions.

■∎

states have placed a limit on the time for starting

suit for negligence in design. Except for these limita-

Mc CORMI CI< PLACE F IRE, TRIGGERS ...

tions, it is never too late for a designer to be called

LAS VEGAS_

iff NT I 0 N CENTER 0I

0i'

to legal account for his work. Third parties as well

L00% FIRE PROTECT ION FOR THE IR

as owners have recovered damages many years after

TION CENTER.

Sprinkler bids received

a project has been built and put in use. In addition,

as of March

1968, are as follows:

there is a definite trend for insurance companies to

subrogate losses whenever feasible. Whereas in fanner

Co sco Fire Protection

$21

1,925.00

years an insurance company would pay a fire loss

FIRE ENGINEERING CO

216,075.00

and file it, now the tendency is to analyze fire causes,

Orvin Engineering Co

222,000.00

and if possible recover from the responsible party,

Shouldn't Salt Lake consider fire pro—

be it the designer, builder, owner, or occupant. There

tection for the new Civic Auditorium

are some cases on record with weird interpretations of

now?

To act now will save t ime—I abor—

negligence. It is becoming more dangerous for a de-

signer to indulge his favorite prejudices, such as that

insurance costs and future inconveni—

of so many. architects toward automatic sprinkler sys-

ence.

6 IMPORTANT STEPS IN DECISION-MAKING

(Peter Drucker)

FOLLOW these steps for more effective decision-making:

1) The classification of the problem.

Is it exceptional or

unique? Or is it the first manifestation of a new genus for

which a rule has yet to be developed?

Definition of the

problem.

What are you dealing with?

Specifications.

What are the "boundary" conditions into which the solution

must fit?

4) The decision as to what is "right", rather than

what is acceptable.

In other words, what will fully satisfy

the specifications before attention is given to the compro-

mises, adaptations and concessions needed to make the decision

acceptable?

5) Building into the decision the action needed

to implement it. What action commitment is there? Who will

carry it out?

6) The feedback which tests the validity

and effectiveness of the decision against the actual course

of events.