making an impact: fire protection engineers › › resource › resmgr › ... · fire protection...

FIRE PROTECTIONFIRE PROTECTION

THE OFF ICIAL MAGAZINE OF THE SOCIETY OF F IRE PROTECTION ENGINEERS

WINTER 2003 Issue No.17

VIEWS FROM AN FPE ON ALICENSING BOARD

DEVELOPING STAKEHOLDERCONSENSUS

HUMAN CAPITAL IN FIREPROTECTION ENGINEERINGCONSULTING

22

38

33

ADVANCING THE SCIENCE ANDPRACTICE OF FIRE PROTECTIONENGINEERING

15

ALSO:

page 8

FIRE PROTECTIONENGINEERS

Making an Impact:

AND THE DESIGNPROCESS

www.sfpe.org 1

15 The Role of Post-Secondary Education in Advancing the Science and Practice of Fire Protection EngineeringExcerpts from The Arthur B. Guise Medal Honors Lecture, presented by Medalwinner David Lucht, P.E., at the 2002 NFPA World Safety Congress andExhibition held May 20, 2002 in Minneapolis. David A. Lucht, P.E.

22 An FPE on a Licensing Board: One Person’s ViewThe author shares perspectives he gained from serving four years on theMinnesota Board of Architecture, Engineering, Land Surveying, Geoscience, andInterior Design, responsible for 17,000 licensees and certificate holders inMinnesota. Michael A. O’Hara, P.E.

30 Engineering Failure, or Failure to Engineer?Examples showing how engineers and technologists can contribute to a project’ssuccess or failure. A supplement by the National Electrical Manufacturer’s Association

33 Human Capital in Fire Protection Engineering Consulting: HumanResource Challenges Faced by Managers of FPE ProfessionalsTopics covered include finding, recruiting, training, mentoring, and retaining topfire protection talent. Today’s human resources challenges are addressed.Ralph Transue, P.E. and David Czajka, SPHR

38 A Statistical Benchmarking Framework for Developing Stakeholder ConsensusThe author discusses resources for developing “acceptable risk” criteria using abenchmarking approach. He presents a risk analysis framework designed to pro-vide an objective basis and repeatable methodology to establish target risk levelsfor a variety of fire hazard and fire protection scenarios.Edward L. Fixen, P.E.

44 Products/Literature

46 SFPE Resources

50 Brainteaser/Corporate 100/Ad Index

52 From the Technical Director What can we learn from Enron and Worldcom? Morgan J. Hurley, P.E.

Cover photo by ©Tom Rosenthal/SuperStock

Online versions of all articles can be accessed at www.sfpe.org.

Invitation to Submit Articles: For information on article submission to Fire Protection Engineering, go to http://www.sfpe.org/publications/invitation.html.

contents W I N T E R 2 0 0 3

8COVER STORYMaking An Impact: Fire Protection Engineers and the Design ProcessCompelling reasons why fire protection engineers should be included in all phases of build-ing design. Includes real-life examples of the cost savings achieved when fire protectionengineers are utilized, as well as the financial losses that may occur when one isn’t used.Andrew Bowman

Subscription and address change correspondence should be sent to: Fire Protection Engineering, Penton Media, Inc., 1300 East 9th Street, Cleveland, OH 44114 USA. Tel: 216.931.9180. Fax: 216.931.9969.E-mail: [email protected].

Copyright © 2003, Society of Fire Protection Engineers. All rights reserved.

FIRE PROTECTIONFIRE PROTECTION

Fire Protection Engineering (ISSN 1524-900X) is published quarterly by the Society of Fire ProtectionEngineers (SFPE). The mission of Fire ProtectionEngineering is to advance the practice of fire protectionengineering and to raise its visibility by providing information to fire protection engineers and allied professionals. The opinions and positions stated arethe authors’ and do not necessarily reflect those of SFPE.

Editorial Advisory BoardCarl F. Baldassarra, P.E., Schirmer Engineering Corporation

Don Bathurst, P.E.

Russell P. Fleming, P.E., National Fire Sprinkler Association

Morgan J. Hurley, P.E., Society of Fire Protection Engineers

William E. Koffel, P.E., Koffel Associates

Jane I. Lataille, P.E., Los Alamos National Laboratory

Margaret Law, M.B.E., Arup Fire

Ronald K. Mengel, Honeywell, Inc.

Edward Prendergast, P.E., Chicago Fire Dept. (Ret.)

Warren G. Stocker, Jr., Safeway, Inc.

Beth Tubbs, P.E., International Conference of Building Officials

Regional EditorsU.S. HEARTLAND

John W. McCormick, P.E., Code Consultants, Inc.

U.S. MID-ATLANTIC

Robert F. Gagnon, P.E., Gagnon Engineering, Inc.

U.S. NEW ENGLAND

Thomas L. Caisse, P.E., C.S.P., Robert M. Currey &Associates, Inc.

U.S. SOUTHEAST

Jeffrey Harrington, P.E., The Harrington Group, Inc.

U.S. WEST COAST

Michael J. Madden, P.E., Gage-Babcock & Associates, Inc.

ASIA

Peter Bressington, P.Eng., Arup Fire

AUSTRALIA

Brian Ashe, Australian Building Codes Board

CANADA

J. Kenneth Richardson, P.Eng., Ken Richardson FireTechnologies, Inc.

NEW ZEALAND

Carol Caldwell, P.E., Caldwell Consulting

UNITED KINGDOM

Dr. Louise Jackman, Loss Prevention Council

Personnel

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SFPEKathleen H. Almand, P.E.

TECHNICAL EDITOR

Morgan J. Hurley, P.E., Technical Director, SFPE

PUBLISHER

Terry Tanker, Penton Media, Inc.

ASSOCIATE PUBLISHER

Joe Pulizzi, Custom Media Group, Penton Media, Inc.

MANAGING EDITOR

Joe Ulrich, Custom Media Group, Penton Media, Inc.

ART DIRECTOR

Pat Lang, Custom Media Group, Penton Media, Inc.

MEDIA SERVICES MANAGER

Lynn Cole, Custom Media Group, Penton Media, Inc.

COVER DESIGN

Dave Bosak, Custom Media Group, Penton Media, Inc.

Dear Editor,

The series of human behavior arti-cles in the Fall 2002 issue providedfire protection engineers with an ex-cellent review and focus on one of theevolving, yet least considered, areasby fire protection engineers.

However, it was particularly trou-bling to find that ignorance aboundsin the area of human behavior as evidenced by the two-page “PanicKills” advertisement, using a blurredphotograph of a crowd to suggest apanic event. While I understand theneed for marketing staffs to developattention-grabbing copy, I am com-pelled to note that this advertisementis contrary to the facts and studiesnoted by Guylene Proulx, Ph.D. in herarticle entitled, “Cool Under Fire.”

Proulx notes that researchers havelong ago rejected the concept of panicas it is portrayed in the media and

movies. I only hope that fire protec-tion engineers and others reading theFall 2002 edition take note of Proulx’sreview of prior research and factualdiscussion on the erroneous conceptof panic, rather than the artificial no-tion of panic suggested by the graphicadvertisement. Such advertising copysimply fosters mistruths and bolstersconcepts contrary to the mission ofthe SFPE.

Daniel J. O’Connor, P.E.Vice President-EngineeringSchirmer Engineering Corporation

◆

Dear Editor,

We agree that fire protection engi-neers must be cognizant of the factthat people will react differently underdifferent evacuation conditions andthat they must continue to specify systems that provide voice communi-cation with clear instructions duringfire events. We also agree that humanbehavior in fire situations is an evolv-ing field of study.

As the writer points out, the adver-tisement in question is designed tograb attention and it is obviously suc-cessful in this respect. But once thatattention is gained, the copy belowthe image explains that the flipside ofpanic – apathy – is also a danger. Inessence, the advertisement merely acknowledges that it is difficult to predict how people will behave in afire situation, and that clear communi-cation is the best means of removing

ambiguity from a potentially confus-ing (and dangerous) situation.

At EST we have a profound respectfor the ability of fire protection engi-neers to base their work on soundprinciples and current research intheir field. When it comes down to itour products and systems speak forthemselves, and we find it unlikelythat an image in a paid magazine advertisement would exert such influ-ence as to compromise in any way theprofessionalism of your readers.

I would like to take this opportunityto say how much we appreciate thehigh caliber of your magazine. Ourengineering and marketing staff readeach issue with great interest. Keepup the excellent work!

Mike BrowningDirector of Business DevelopmentEdwards Systems Technology, Inc.

WINTER 2003 www.sfpe.org 2

letters to the editor

On page 3 of the

Fall, 2002 issue,

Norman Groner’s name

was misspelled.

Correction

Fire Protection Engineering in

Building Design provides an

excellent overview of fire pro-

tection engineering and its role in the

building design process. Aimed at

architects and engineers in related dis-

ciplines, it does not explain how to

design fire protection for facilities and

processes. Rather, it offers insight into

the multitude of fire-related issues that

impact the design of a building and

presents a cogent argument for inte-

grating fire protection engineering

(FPE) into the design team at the earli-

est stages of a project.

Targeted at an audience that may be

unfamiliar with the discipline, the book

starts with an explanation of fire pro-

tection engineering. It points out that a

P.E. exam in fire protection engineering

is offered through the National Council

of Examiners for Engineering and Sur-

veying (NCEES), and provides the sub-

ject headings from the exam syllabus

for this exam along with the NCEES

standard of minimal competence for

fire protection engineers. The discus-

sion then turns to why it is important to

have adequate fire protection, what

types of fire protection systems are

available, why various systems might

be installed, and what function these

systems serve. How fire protection de-

sign is undertaken is discussed in chap-

ters on performance-based and pre-

scriptive-based design.

A significant portion of the book is

dedicated to the topic of interfacing

with other disciplines, a key element in

an integrated design approach. The dis-

cussion identifies several areas where

fire protection and other systems inter-

face, outlines specific concerns that

should be addressed relative to these

interfaces, and provides examples of

relevant standards. For the non-FPE,

this discussion is extremely useful in

providing insight into the wide range of

fire-related considerations that go into

an integrated building fire safety de-

sign. However, if there is any place that

the book misses an opportunity, it is in

not providing more discussion and ex-

amples of what could go awry if sys-

tems integration is not done properly.

Pointing out the range of information

one needs to know is very helpful: Ex-

plaining what could happen if things

are not done correctly helps keep peo-

ple from working outside of their area

of expertise.

The book closes with a brief discus-

sion on issues associated with new and

existing buildings, and spends a good

deal of time on the drafting of fire pro-

tection specifications. Numerous refer-

ences are provided throughout the text,

and a comprehensive list is provided as

the final section. Although the focus on

reference standards is the NFPA, the

document titles will assist persons from

outside of the United States identify rel-

evant standards in their countries.

As an introduction to fire protection

engineering for non-FPEs, Fire Protec-

tion Engineering in Building Design is

on target. It presents a concise treat-

ment of key issues that all members of

a building design team should under-

stand about fire protection engineering

and helps them understand why having

a qualified fire protection engineer on

the team is essential to the success of

the project.

Brian J. Meacham, Ph.D., P.E., FSFPE

Principal Risk & Fire Consultant

Arup Fire


viewpoint

Book ReviewLataille, Jane I. Fire Protection Engineering in Building Design Elsevier Science (USA), 2003

ALBANY, NY – The National Association of State Fire Marshals (NASFM) recentlyformed The Partnership for Safer Buildings to study U.S. building codes and pro-pose changes that will help protect the lives of people escaping burning buildingsand the firefighters working inside them.

The Partnership will bring together experts from the fire service industry, stan-dards organizations, and major fire engineering schools to apply lessons learnedfrom the World Trade Center collapse to the everyday business of fire protection.The goal is to ensure that the codes address reasonably foreseeable and potentiallycatastrophic fire hazards, and require the highest levels of building performance inthe interest of public safety and property protection.

For more information, visit www.firemarshals.org.

FAIRFAX, VA – On November 19, 2002, the International Association of Fire Chiefs(IAFC) announced publication of its Strategic Plan for 2003-2004. The plan outlinesspecific strategies to meet key objectives in seven categories: Building Relationshipsand Partnerships; Fire and Life Safety; Leading the Fire Service; Legislative/PoliticalAction; Marketing, Branding, and Communications; New Revenue and AssociationGrowth; and Professional/Executive Skills Development.

More than 100 fire service leaders collaborated in the plan’s development. Contributing to the effort were representatives from every IAFC division and sectionplus nearly 30 state fire chief association officers and a number of prominent fire ser-vice industry partners.

To view the plan, visit www.ichiefs.org.

4 Fire Protection Engineering NUMBER 17

flashpoints

fire protection industry news

HEADQUARTERSTERRY TANKER Publisher

1300 East 9th StreetCleveland, OH 44114-1503216.696.7000, ext. 9721fax [email protected]

NORTHEASTTOM CORCORAN District Manager

929 Copes LaneWest Chestor, PA 19380610.429.9848fax [email protected]

NORTH CENTRALJOE DAHLHEIMER District Manager

1300 East 9th StreetCleveland, OH 44114-1503216.696.7000, ext. 9279fax [email protected]

CENTRAL/WESTAMY COLLINS District Manager

3240 Shadyview Lane NorthPlymouth, MN 55447763.404.3829fax [email protected]

SOUTHEASTDEBBIE ISGRO District Manager

707 Whitlock Avenue SW, Suite B-24Marietta, GA 30064770.218.9958fax [email protected]

Sales OfficesSales Offices FIRE PROTECTION

Partnership forSafer Buildings

Formed

IAFC PresentsStrategic Plan for

2003-2004


By Andrew Bowman, P.E.

FPEs AND THE DESIGN PROCESS

While fire protection engineersare found in many differentsegments of the workforce

with many different responsibilities, alarge number of them are involved inthe design and review of fire protectionand life safety systems, fulfilling a roleas a key member of a design team.

How does the fire protection engi-neer’s role best fit into the design teamprocess, and what does this process en-tail? Generally, engineering design andconsulting services are conducted inthree major phases: concept develop-ment, system design, and construction.Each of these three phases has manysubparts that benefit from the participa-tion of fire protection engineers. Each ofthese three phases is part of any design,

whether it is a full building design withmany team members or a stand-aloneretrofit project pertaining solely to a fireprotection or life safety system.

The first contribution from fire protec-tion engineers occurs during the conceptphase. The concept phase is where theoverall scope of the project is deter-mined. It is during this phase that theapplicable codes are determined andthen evaluated. Typically, key buildingcode issues that affect the project can beidentified and dealt with in this phase. Itis also at this phase where a fire protec-tion engineer can identify if it would bebeneficial to evaluate the building orportions of the building in a perfor-mance-based manner in lieu of prescrip-tive code compliance. Additionally, thedesign criteria for fire protection systemsare usually developed during this phase.The development of design criteria in-volves a determination of the require-

ments that pertain to the design and in-stallation of the fire suppression, firealarm, and smoke control systems. Thisincludes preparing an analysis of variousoptions available to the design teambased on the intended fire protectionand building code approach.

Once all of the fundamental buildingand fire protection code requirementshave been conceptually fleshed out, theactual design typically starts. The designis often divided into three generalstages: Schematic Design, Design Devel-opment, and Construction Documents.It is during these stages that the systemdesign is completed, usually in an itera-tive manner. The process leads from thedesign basis information developed inthe conceptual phase to the completionof construction documents. During thisphase, the fire protection engineerworks closely with the design teammembers to not only adapt the fire pro-


tection system design to whatever archi-tectural and engineering changes mayoccur, but to also identify when and ifthose changes necessitate an evaluationof the design basis created during theconceptual phase. In addition to systemdesign, it is during the design phase thatthe fire protection engineer can providevaluable insight into building code re-quirements that may have a significantimpact on the overall plans for thebuilding.

After the design has been finalizedand a contractor has been selected, therole of the fire protection engineerchanges. It is during the constructionphase that the fire protection engineerperforms a variety of services, includingresponding to contractor Requests forInformation (RFIs), conducting site visitsto observe the installation process, re-viewing shop drawings, and conductingfinal acceptance tests.

THE VALUE OF FIRE PROTECTIONENGINEERS

Fire protection and life safety are com-ponents of nearly every design project.However, fire protection engineers arenot always automatically asked to pro-vide these services. It is not unusual tosee fire protection systems designed bymechanical engineers, fire alarm systemsas part of the electrical submission, andthe evaluation of building code compli-ance left to the architect. While theremay be situations where this approach issufficient, more and more architects andbuilding owners are recognizing thevalue associated with having fire protec-tion engineers aboard. This value is asso-ciated with retaining engineers with edu-cation, experience, and licensurespecifically dedicated to the responsibleand thorough design and evaluation offire and life safety systems.

SPECIALIZED EXPERTISE

Despite the unique qualifications offire protection engineers, it is notenough to merely be experts in fire pro-tection and life safety. Until the actualvalue associated with having licensedfire protection engineers on a designteam can be properly communicated,many may feel that fire protection design is a component of typical me-chanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP)services and that code compliance isbest evaluated by the architect. How-ever, there are no other engineering dis-ciplines that can provide the same levelof education, expertise, and industry in-volvement relating to all aspects of fireprotection, life safety, and code compli-ance as fire protection engineering. Thatbeing said, what value does this level ofcapability bring to a design team?

Installation standards such as NFPA

131 and NFPA 722 are referenced in theInternational Building Code3 and thenew NFPA 5000 Building Code.4 There-fore, any fire protection and life safetysystem will have to be designed in accordance with these standards. In addition, many building code require-ments impacting architectural design aredirectly related to fire protection and lifesafety. As fire and life safety systemtechnology changes at an ever-increas-ing pace, the heavy emphasis on fireprotection and life safety in the buildingcodes and installation standards has cre-ated a need for the specialized expertiseprovided by fire protection engineers.

Does this mean that fire protectionengineers are needed on every project?Not necessarily. Fire protection engi-neers have been instrumental in codify-ing much of the testing and research in fire protection and alarms systemsinto easily used standards aimed atknowledgeable, but not necessarily ex-pert, design professionals. This meansthat one does not necessarily have to bea fire protection engineer to lay out anddetail a basic sprinkler or fire alarm sys-tem because the many years of research,testing, and codes and standards devel-opment by fire protection engineers andothers have provided a sufficientroadmap. However, design projectsrarely come in a neat and tidy package.More often than not, there are many de-sign decisions involving either issues ofcompliance with installation criteria, aes-thetics, or cost that need to be evaluatedon an individual basis. The most cre-ative and cost-effective solutions tothese concerns are not usually found inthe codes and standards. This is wherethe specialized expertise of fire protec-tion engineers provides significantvalue. Using a fire protection engineerprovides the best opportunity to designa system that will function as required,

Fire Protection Engineers and the Design Process


will be sensitive to the aesthetics of thebuilding, and will be cost-effective.

Mark Goska with the Facilities Divi-sion of the University of Alabama – Birmingham has witnessed the value ofspecialized fire protection expertise.

As he explains: “The University of Alabama – Birmingham has a majormedical school and hospital on its cam-pus. The ages and construction types ofthe buildings vary, which has on occa-sion been problematic during renova-tions. This can also be problematicwhen buildings of different ages andconstruction type are located immedi-ately adjacent to each other, such as one would typically see in a teachinghospital setting. Oftentimes, utilities willconnect through multiple buildings andreach a point where they no longermeet current code and guideline re-quirements.”

“This is the situation that we encoun-tered with a fire pump that was installedin the 1970s. The original fire pump wasdesigned to provide both sprinkler andstandpipe protection for several build-ings based upon the codes and stan-dards at that time. Over time, the univer-sity renovated several floors within thesebuildings, and these renovations weredone in accordance with the current edition of the codes and standards asadopted by the local and state Authori-ties Having Jurisdiction (AHJ). The exist-ing fire pump was sized adequately tomeet these demands until there was achange in the code that increased theminimum required pressure at the high-est point to 100 pounds per square inch(psi) (690 kPa). The original fire pumpwas not capable of meeting this require-ment. Unfortunately, this deficiency wasdiscovered during a test of a system toget final approval on a renovation pro-ject. A fire protection contractor wascontacted to investigate and to deter-mine what it would cost to correct theproblem. Their solution was to replacethe existing fire pump with a new pumpand to upgrade the existing standpipesto accommodate the increased waterpressure. The estimated cost for this

solution was $1,000,000.”“The university then retained the ser-

vices of a fire protection engineer to in-vestigate options for how this problemcould be resolved. The engineer metwith the maintenance staff to discuss theexisting system in order to determine

the existing conditions, how the systemwas fed, and to review the test recordsfor the system. They then reviewed theas-built drawings, traced the system, andproceeded with their code analysis.Once the code analysis was complete,the university received a written reportwith recommendations on an approachto upgrade the existing system. This re-port referenced sections of the buildingand NFPA codes and guidelines in orderto support the recommendations. Thiswas very important since the proposedsolution required review and approvalby both local and state AHJs. The fireprotection engineer met with the AHJsand was able to successfully describethe existing conditions and explain theproposed solutions in a manner thatthey were able to fully understand. Both the local and state AHJs agreed to the proposed solution, and the fireprotection engineer were authorized to produce the required construction documents.”

“The project is in the final stage of de-sign, and the current estimated cost forconstruction is $700,000, which is sub-stantially less than the original estimatereceived. This savings is due not only tothe fire protection engineer’s knowledgeof the governing codes and standards,but also due to their experience withsimilar situations and the ability to de-velop alternative solutions to a problem.”

SINGLE POINT OF CONTACT

Besides the value of specialized fireprotection expertise from a technical de-sign standpoint, it is important to have asingle point of contact dealing with thefire protection, fire alarm, and buildingcode requirements during design. This is especially important because these requirements are often interdependentand are best evaluated as a composite asopposed to individually.

There are often choices in how toachieve code compliance. For example,there are many buildings in which thebuilding code does not require sprinklerprotection. However, providing sprinklerprotection, even if not required, mayeliminate or reduce many other require-ments. These “trade-offs” can be signifi-cant enough that providing sprinklersbecomes an attractive option from a coststandpoint in addition to the improvedlife safety and property protection.

While there are many permutations ofthe costs and benefits associated withmixing and matching code requirementsand fire protection systems, one factorremains consistent. The full benefits oftrade-offs in the code are only likely tobe realized if all components are evalu-ated together. Many of these trade-offscan be overlooked if not overseen in acoordinated effort, and the fire protec-tion engineer is perfectly positioned toprovide this oversight and guidance.

The following example illustrates thecost implications associated with ad-dressing fire and life safety without theassistance of a fire protection engineer.The project involved a complex of fournew four-story residential buildings.Each building was to be of Type 5-Aconstruction (per BOCA5), which in-cluded protected combustible construc-tion throughout. Without a fire protec-tion engineer on the project, theplumbing engineer completed the fireprotection drawings, and the electricalengineer completed the fire alarm draw-ings. The architect completed the codeanalysis. The engineering design draw-ings were completed independently ofeach other, and independent of the codeanalysis. Both sets of design drawingsused generic notes to describe the ex-tent of the system and the contractor’sobligations. Essentially, the design docu-ments indicated that the contractor wasto design the fire protection system perNFPA 131 and the fire alarm system perNFPA 72.2

This was a situation where the relativelack of importance placed on thoroughfire protection and fire alarm design hada significant cost impact on the project.For example, all four of these buildingswere candidates for being protectedwith NFPA 13R6 sprinkler systems specif-ically provided for residential occupan-cies up to and including four stories inheight. This evaluation, if it had beenconducted, would have identified an es-timated $450,000 in savings relating toeliminating sprinklers in the attic spaces,reducing hydraulic demands, and elimi-nating sprinklers in the small closets.Furthermore, the use of residentialsprinklers was not specified (either foran NFPA 13 system or automatically ifusing an NFPA 13R system). As a result,the fire alarm drawings (specifying com-pliance with NFPA 72) did not pick upthe permitted omission of smoke detec-

■ Making an Impact


tors in bedrooms protected by residen-tial sprinklers. This oversight had a costimpact of approximately $55,000.

While certainly possible, it is unlikelythat the potential cost savings wouldhave been picked up and identified bythe contractor early enough to provide abenefit to the owner or design team.Had a fire protection engineer beenaboard during the design process, thesecost savings could have been weighedagainst the lower level of protection.From this evaluation, an informed deci-sion could be made early enough tobenefit the owner and the design team.

Nancy Pickens, senior vice presidentwith Peck Peck and Associates of Wood-bridge, VA, routinely uses the services offire protection engineers and offers in-sight into the benefits she has witnessed.“As an architect specializing in govern-ment contracts, my experience has beenthat fire protection engineers provide alevel of expertise not available fromother disciplines. Our company, PeckPeck and Associates, routinely utilizesthe services of fire protection engineers,and the benefits are numerous.”

“Fire protection engineers providespecific overall knowledge of the build-ing and fire codes that most architectsdo not possess. In the case of the fireprotection engineering firm that wework with, many of the staff are mem-bers of the committees who write andpropose changes to the codes. Fire pro-tection engineers have the training andability to see the big picture, the causeand effect of actions and changes withina building, and to provide workable so-lutions to problem areas in a timely andcost-effective manner.”

“Fire protection engineers contributetheir knowledge of life safety and fireprotection systems to provide more cre-ative solutions to issues encountered ina project. Having a separate consultantfocused on fire and life safety keepsthose issues in the forefront of a project,where they belong.”

“In many instances, owners require anevaluation of their facility in order toplan for future projects and program up-grades. While there is inherently someoverlap between disciplines when walk-ing through a building evaluating defi-ciencies, the fire protection engineerprovides additional insights into lifesafety and code issues due to his/herspecialized training and experience. The

architect or mechanical or electrical en-gineer can make an evaluation of manylife safety issues, but the fire protectionengineer sees and evaluates the largerscope.”

FOCUS ON FIRE

Quality in design can be attributed tomany factors including technical exper-tise, priorities, and available resources.While possessing the necessary technicalexpertise to develop quality design doc-uments is obviously essential, it is alsoextremely important to believe that thedesign of these fire and life safety sys-tems should be a top priority. This re-quires the dedication of the necessaryresources to ensure that the quality ofthe system design is commensurate withits future role as a fire protection and lifesafety system. This is one of the greatestbenefits of working with fire protectionengineers. They are focused solely onproviding a complete, thorough, and co-ordinated fire protection design. This isnot always the case when the design ofthese systems is merely a footnote tomechanical, electrical, and plumbing de-signs. It is purely a matter of priorities.

In addition to the value placed onquality, from a practical standpoint, theadvent of electronic architectural designdrawings has driven the need for re-sponsiveness and dedicated expertise.Architectural backgrounds come to engi-neers with less and less time to makeadjustments and finalize designs in prep-aration for an upcoming submission.When treating fire protection and lifesafety as a component of the mechani-cal, electrical, and plumbing design, it ismore likely that, as the project deadlinelooms, the issues pertaining to the otherdisciplines will take precedence. This of-ten leaves the fire protection and firealarm design as an afterthought and canlead to design by specification. This ap-proach may ultimately result in meetingthe deadline, but does little to ensurethat the fire protection systems havebeen properly designed. A haphazardlydesigned system may not provide the re-quired level of protection while mini-mizing the cost of installation. This is asituation where having a fire protectionengineer as part of the design team facil-itates a smoother submission processand increases the quality in the designsubmission.

This is another area where architectswho work with fire protection engi-neers can benefit. According to NancyPickens, “The expertise of fire protec-tion engineers in completing construc-tion documents contributes to the over-all quality of the project. Since fireprotection engineering is a specialty,fire protection engineers can provide amore accurate and complete set of con-struction documents including draw-ings, specifications, cost estimates, andanalyses required by the owner/juris-diction. My experience is that the workis better coordinated with all disciplinesbecause the fire protection engineer ismore focused on his/her tasks. Themost cost-effective and ‘best’ solution isachieved because various and creativefire protection options are exploredand designed rather than using ‘text-book’ solutions.”

“The Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library in Grand Rapids, MI required anaddition to house additional museumstaff and artifact storage. The fire protec-tion engineer was able to contribute hisexpertise and provide special fire pro-tection systems for the collection storagearea. Strobe devices required through-out the building were placed so as to beunobtrusive to visitors. Egress issueswere resolved early in the project. Theideas and quick response time of the fireprotection engineer helped to make thisa successful project.”

“However, as we discovered, fire pro-tection engineers do not always end upas a subconsultant. St. Elizabeth’s Hospi-tal, in Washington, D.C., required exten-sive renovations in the early 1980s in or-der to keep its accreditation. A fireprotection engineering firm was selectedas the prime consultant on the projectwith architectural, structural, mechani-cal, and electrical firms as the subcon-sultants. The construction documentsand entire renovation were completedwith life safety as the number one prior-ity. The project was completed on timeand under the original budget.”

“Architects are in the business of cre-ating ideas. Fire protection engineers arevaluable members of the team and helpdocument and turn these dreams intoreality. Design teams and owners benefitfrom the added expertise in designingthe fire protection and life safety sys-tems. This is true no matter the size ofthe project.”


COMMUNICATION WITH THEOWNER OR AHJ

Fire protection and fire alarm systemdesign services are not the only reasonfor having fire protection engineers on adesign team. Fire protection engineersare typically well suited to deal with theinevitable building code compliance dis-cussions with the Authority Having Juris-diction. Specific code requirements anddesign objectives are often subjective,and many critical decisions affecting thedesign of a building or its fire protectionsystems can come down to interpreta-tions of the intent of the code. Sincemany of the advances and insight intofire protection and life safety withinbuildings have made their way into verycarefully crafted code requirements, fireprotection engineers are usually heavilyinvolved in developing and applying therequirements in the code. Because ofthis, there is value in having fire protec-tion engineers assisting with determina-tion of code compliance and the subse-quent negotiations with the AHJ.

Due to the preponderance of fire andlife safety requirements in buildingcodes, a growing number of localitiesand government agencies are hiring fireprotection engineers. These fire protec-tion engineers are charged with ensur-ing that the fire and life safety provisionsof the codes are being applied correctlyin addition to dealing with the review offire protection and alarm system de-signs. Given the interrelation betweenthese three areas, dealing with a fireprotection engineer on the design teamis typically enthusiastically welcomed.The design team benefits because theyknow that their interests are beingwatched over during the permit process,and the AHJ feels that a member of the design team is sensitive to their concerns.

Tim Tess, the site senior fire protec-tion engineer with the EnvironmentalSafety & Health oversight office for Ar-gonne National Laboratories outside ofChicago, IL, prefers to deal with fire pro-tection engineers.

“A problem I have seen all too oftenat large architecture and engineering(A/E) firms is the absence of qualifiedfire protection engineers. Often, fire pro-tection engineering tasks are spread out to the various design groups. Oftenfire protection is not given adequate

priority, and the installing contractorsare relied upon to actually design thesystems. This creates real problems foreveryone involved.”

“Often, the architectural group is notfully aware of life safety requirements,which creates interior designs that donot meet the life safety and local build-ing codes. In addition, they are unfamil-iar with equivalency concepts and thenewer thinking in the area of perfor-mance-based design. The electrical engi-neers rarely keep up with changes in firealarm system hardware and software,and typically the specifications they putout are not current. The mechanical en-gineers are often in the same position asthe electrical engineers when it comes tofire protection. They rarely provide atrue sprinkler system design because, inpart, they do not understand the systemand they have not kept up with all theadvancements in sprinkler head technol-ogy. Unfortunately, it is common prac-tice in the construction industry to relyon the installing contractor to make upfor the weaknesses in the design and toknow what should be installed eventhough it was not specified.”

“As a facility owner with nearly 5 mil-lion square feet of space to maintain, itis very important that the facility has acommon approach to fire protection andlife safety. Consistency is needed frombuilding to building, so that on-sitemaintenance personnel become expertsin the systems we have and therefore donot have to rely on many different man-ufacturers for parts and service. Consis-tency is also needed in the approach tolife safety, particularly in older facilitiesin which equivalent approaches to meet-ing the Life Safety Code were applied. Acommon design and installation meth-odology is desirable for all sprinkler systems that allow flexibility for futurechanges and which have water suppliesdesigned to meet HPR requirements.The way to easily and effectively getthese things is to utilize a qualified fireprotection engineering firm for the de-sign of fire protection systems and theassessment of fire protection and lifesafety conditions. Additionally, on large projects, it is very important thatqualified fire protection engineers be in-volved throughout the project to insurethat an integrated final product that isconsistent with our existing facilities isproduced.”

PERFORMANCE-BASED DESIGN

In most of the current and prior build-ing codes, the requirements are set forthin a manner that dictates precisely how abuilding will be built. This is the prescrip-tive approach to building design. Theprescriptive approach is useful in that therequirements are easily enforceable andfairly obvious to those involved with thedesign of a building. The downside of theprescriptive approach is that most build-ings have unique design features or re-quired uses that have not properly beenaddressed in the code. Compliance withall of the requirements of the prescriptivecode can come at the expense of func-tionality, aesthetics, or additional costwith little or no additional benefit.

Fire protection engineers understandthat evaluating the level of safety within abuilding is not necessarily limited to veri-fying the compliance with the buildingcode. A new generation of analytical toolshas been developed that allows the evalu-ation of a building for its own unique in-herent ability to withstand a fire and dis-cards the notion that all buildings must betreated by a cookbook prescriptive ap-proach. This is performance-based design.

Performance-based design is a conceptthat has been around for many years butis only recently being formally recognizedin the prescriptive codes. The 2000 Edi-tion of the Life Safety Code7 comes com-plete with a new chapter that providesthe framework for a performance-baseddesign option. The 2000 InternationalBuilding Code3 comes with a comple-mentary 2001 International PerformanceCode.8 These two instances clearlydemonstrate that performance-based de-sign is becoming a viable alternative totraditional prescriptive code compliance.

The potential benefits of performance-based design can be significant but aremost likely to be realized if identifiedearly in a project’s design. This is where itis extremely beneficial to have a fire protection engineer on the design teamduring the concept phase. As the projectprogresses, many of the design detailsstart to firm up. As these details becomecritical components of the design, theflexibility afforded by performance-baseddesign diminishes. Eventually, at the lateststages of a design project, the value of aperformance-based design solution canbe significantly reduced.

Fire protection engineers are essential

■ Making an Impact


in the performance-based designprocess. By the nature of their experi-ence, education, and training, they arebest positioned to understand the com-plexities and intent of the prescriptivecodes governing the building, the scien-tific basis for the necessary evaluationmethods, and the necessary measures toapply this knowledge to a practical situ-ation. Furthermore, fire protection engi-neers have the ability and the necessaryprofessional experience to communicatewith the AHJ during the process.

There is no question that when usedprudently and competently, perfor-mance-based design can be a powerfuloption to prescriptive code compliance.The implementation of these techniqueswill likely grow as the benefits of perfor-mance-based design become morewidely known within the architectureand engineering design community.

AN EYE TOWARDS SAFETY

The design of a building is a compli-cated process. Not only are there immea-surable architectural hurdles to clear, butalso the engineered systems within thebuilding must work together (or at leastcoexist) for the design to be a success.This is true for the mechanical, electrical,and plumbing systems among many oth-ers, and is most certainly true for the fireprotection and life safety systems.

Fire protection engineers possess aunique expertise, an ability to deal withcomponents of other disciplines, and abelief that fire protection and life safetyare a top priority, which makes them avaluable and important member of anydesign team.

Fire protection and life safety designshould never be treated as a minor ele-ment of the design process. One of thefundamental guiding principles for everybuilding design should be to ensure that,no matter what form or function the build-ing eventually takes, the occupants shouldbe safe from the threat of fire. This is therole of the fire protection engineer. ▲

Andrew Bowman is with Gage-Babcock& Associates.

REFERENCES

1 NFPA 13, Installation of Sprinkler Systems,National Fire Protection Association,Quincy, MA, 2002.

2 NFPA 72, National Fire Alarm Code, NationalFire Protection Association, Quincy, MA, 2002.

3 International Building Code, InternationalCode Council, Falls Church, VA, 2000.

4 NFPA 5000, Building Construction and SafetyCode, National Fire Protection Association,Quincy, MA, 2003.

5 National Building Code, Building Officials and Code Administrators International,Country Club Hills, IL, 1999.

6 NFPA 13R, Installation of Sprinkler Systemsin Residential Occupancies up to andincluding Four Stories in Height, NationalFire Protection Association, Quincy, MA,2002.

7 NFPE 101, Life Safety Code, National FireProtection Association, Quincy, MA, 2000.

8 International Performance Code forBuildings and Facilities, International CodeCouncil. Falls Church, VA, 2001.


By David A. Lucht, P.E.

The question is asked from timeto time as to why so fewschools offer fire protection

engineering degree programs. After all,for decades the demand for FPE grad-uates has been exceptionally strong..well in excess of the supply. Onemight think engineering schools wouldbe eager to establish new programswhere there is a recognized demand.This essay will offer some thoughts onthis question and suggest some strate-gies for expanding the availability ofdegree programs worldwide.

THE FINANCIAL CRUNCH

It will come as no surprise that fiscalconstraints are a major inhibitor to thestartup of new degree programs. Privateschools, like Worcester Polytechnic Insti-

The Role of Post-Secondary

Education in AdvancingFire Protection

Engineering

This essay is based on the Arthur B. Guise HonorsLecture presented by Professor David Lucht on

May 20, 2002.


tute (WPI), are nonprofit corporationswhich must be operated on a soundbusiness footing. The income must atleast equal the outgo on a continuingbasis. State universities may receive sub-sidies from the state government, butthey, too, have fiscal constraints, and thedemand for resources usually exceedsthe supply.

In recent decades, engineeringschools have had to raise their prices(tuition) faster than the rate of inflationin order to stay even. For example,American universities have increased tu-ition at twice the rate of inflation overthe past 10 years (75% tuition increasevs. 36% inflation). During the same de-cade, the median family income only in-creased about 10%.1 This, along withother factors, has heavily increased thepressure for the university to provide fi-nancial aid. Over the past 20 years fed-eral assistance has shifted from scholar-ship grants to loans, which placeadditional debt burdens on students andtheir families. In 1980, about 42% of fed-eral aid was in the form of loans; in2000, the proportion had increased toapproximately 60%.2 It’s a vicious cycle.

To compound matters, the “customer

base” of potential engineering studentshas shrunk significantly over the past 20years. The fraction of high school gradu-ates interested in engineering has de-clined from 12% of the graduating classin the early 1980s to 9% last year... a 25%drop. This is further exacerbated by thefact that the overall population of col-lege age students declined 20% between1981 and 2000. All of this means that theengineering schools have had to com-pete for a bigger piece of a smaller pie.This has caused universities to incuradded costs for marketing and advertis-ing to increase market share and fill thefreshman class. This year, WPI launcheda multimillion-dollar television and radiomarketing campaign in order to com-pete for market share. This is a first-of-its-kind investment for this 137-year-oldinstitution.

While universities have been facingincreased costs and a shrinking market,it should also be noted that they do nothave the same cost-cutting flexibilitiesas do industry and many other non-profit businesses. University professorsare tenured... making it more difficult toexecute layoffs, terminations, or reas-signments. And most physical plantcosts for classrooms, laboratories, andother support functions are fixed.Schools can’t easily downsize or moveto a cheaper labor market. It is difficultfor university administrators to justifynew investments in an entirely newacademic degree program... especiallyin a nontraditional, little-known disci-pline like FPE.

SHORTAGE OF PROFESSORS

University professors are the back-bone of any academic program, and it isextremely hard to find candidates whofit the profile universities normally de-mand when hiring new faculty.

The typical university professor hasthree degrees – B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. – inthe discipline within which he or she ishired. A new assistant professor has typ-ically spent 10 years studying at severaluniversities and has conducted signifi-cant Ph.D. dissertation research underthe direction of a senior expert in thefield. Fire protection engineering doesnot have this luxury. WPI’s FPE programhas five fire protection engineering pro-fessors. None of them has three degrees

in the FPE discipline. They all receivedtheir fundamental education in one ofthe founder disciplines: mechanical orcivil engineering.

If one thinks about this within thecontext of the university culture, FPEprofessors are somewhat at a disadvan-tage. New professors in the founder dis-ciplines begin their first faculty job withmany years of academic momentum. Amechanical engineering professor, forexample, has been studying mechanicalengineering at the B.S., M.S., and Ph.D.level for a decade. Teaching a junior- orsenior-level ME course is relativelyeasy... the subject matter is very familiar.The new ME professor has more timeand energy to spend on preparing fortenure and promotion, while the FPEprofessor has the added burden of get-ting up on the learning curve in newfire-specific areas he or she never stud-ied in their own undergraduate or grad-uate coursework. Unlike the founderdisciplines, there is not a robust feedersystem of faculty candidates for new po-sitions, candidates who have completedformal undergraduate and graduate education in FPE.

SHORTAGE OF RESEARCH FUNDING

Research is of importance to engi-neering degree programs of all kinds forseveral reasons. First, part of the role ofacademe is to uncover and disseminatenew knowledge through teaching andpublication in the archival literature. Re-search keeps university professors onthe cutting edge. And their involvementin the research community helps thembring fresh, state-of-the art informationto the classroom. On the operationalside of the equation, there are somemore pragmatic reasons research is im-portant. This has to do with the fiscalcrunch of engineering schools in generaland the issue of tenure.

Tenure is certainly a concept that dis-tinguishes the academic institution frommost other workplaces. Once a profes-sor earns tenure, it lasts for the remain-der of his or her career. Basically, atenured professor can only be involun-tarily terminated for misconduct orwhen the academic program is shutdown. The tenure decision is basicallymade by a tenure committee of profes-

■ The Role of Post-Secondary Education


sors. Typically the decision comes in theprofessor’s sixth year. If the decision isno, the professor is terminated. If thedecision is yes, he or she is grantedtenure.

The tenure decision is based on thecandidate’s record and potential for fu-ture excellence in three areas of perfor-mance: teaching, service, and scholar-ship. To receive tenure, the candidatemust demonstrate good teaching, ser-vice to the profession, and good schol-arly performance (research). A profes-sor’s research is expected to contributeto the body of knowledge as docu-mented in scholarly journals, textbooks,and other forms of the literature.

The research or “scholarship” criterionweighs heavily in the tenure equationand can be the big challenge for anynew professor in any discipline, but es-pecially FPE. The phrase “publish orperish” is more than a slogan. It is asober reality.

How does a professor get research ac-complished? The answer to this questionmost often involves graduate students.Most university professors are very busypeople. They are usually employed on anine-month salary, and the academicyear is very intense, with preparation forclass, teaching, advising, service, and ahost of other duties. Graduate studentsare recruited to do a bulk of the re-search legwork, under the supervisionof the seasoned professor. And the re-search forms the basis for the student’sthesis or dissertation.

Normally, in engineering disciplines,graduate students do not agree to workon a professor’s research without remu-neration. They usually receive researchassistantships which cover tuition and astipend for living expenses.

For the most part, the money for sup-porting graduate student tuition andstipends, and summer pay for professorsdoing research, is not funded by theuniversity operating budget. Most oftenthe funding comes from off-campussources. Research grants and contractsalso provide revenue for the university.

A typical graduate student would bepaid about $30,000 a year for serving asa research assistant. This, combinedwith charges for the professor’s timeplus university overhead, brings the totalcost to sponsor a graduate student to atotal of $50,000 to $60,000 per year. The

M.S. with thesis normally requires twoyears’ time; the Ph.D. another three orfour years.

Following this research supportmodel, it is clear that, in addition to theirteaching and research skills, professorsmust have entrepreneurial talent in or-der to secure the external fundingneeded to establish and operate a robustresearch program... skills in addition tothose needed to be a good teacher andscholar. The money normally does notcome from the school, it must comefrom outside sources. And, like every-thing else, there is a lot of competitionfor the research dollar.

FUNDING SOURCES

Research dollars come from externalsources such as government or industry.Some government agencies, such as theNational Science Foundation (NSF), aremandated by Congress to fund research.Other agencies, like the military services,FAA, and Department of Energy (DoE),fund research that supports their mis-sion. And industries fund graduate stu-dents and professors who are willing towork on projects that are in the spon-sor’s commercial interest.

The National Science Foundation isthe prime research funding source foruniversity professors and their graduatestudents. The NSF budget is currentlyabout $5 billion, with support going notonly to engineering and the physical sciences but also mathematics, biology,computer and information science, geo-science, and the social and behavioralsciences. In years past, there was a fireresearch program at NSF. In 1973, NSFfire research funding totaled $2.2 million(which, with inflation, would be $9.6million today). While modest in amount,this NSF program did support some im-portant research outcomes... fire model-ing to name one. Harvard ProfessorHoward Emmons, universally known asthe father of computer fire modeling, received ongoing fire research supportfrom NSF. During his career, Emmonsproduced 50 Ph.D. graduates, severaldozen of whom concentrated on fire research. This program was shut downin 1973, and NSF has not had a fire re-search focus since.

The Emmons story is a great exampleof the importance of ongoing research

funding. NSF support was robustenough to enable high-quality researchover a long enough period of time toyield real tangible results. And the valueof Harvard’s output was not limited tothe research results themselves. Many ofEmmons’ students went on to contributelifetimes of fire safety work to society.These include noted professionals likeDr. John deRis at FM Global Research,Dr. David Evans at NIST, and Dr. CraigBeyler at Hughes Associates. There wascritical mass at Harvard, a community oftalented scholars who, over the years,made incremental progress toward ma-jor accomplishment. Research fundingwas the enabler. When Emmons retiredand the funding ended, Harvard lost in-terest.

In 1974, the Fire Prevention and Con-trol Act created the Center for Fire Re-search at the National Bureau of Stan-dards, now the Building and FireResearch Laboratory (BFRL) at the Na-tional Institute of Standards and Tech-nology. At that time, a $2 million fire re-search grant program was put in place,with the idea of continuing support ofsome of the former NSF-sponsored re-search. The fire research grant programat BFRL is now about $1.4 million (com-pared to $8.7 million if the original grantprogram had simply grown with infla-tion).

Other government agencies supportfire research that assists them in fulfillingtheir specific mission-related objectives.The SFPE recently released a surveywhich documents federally funded re-search totaling some $37 million.3 Thebulk of these research expendituresgoes to support the salaries of federalresearch staff workers, consultants, andcontractors, with a smaller amount foruniversity research grants. About 14% ofthe dollars go to supporting universityprofessors and students; about 1.2% toFPE schools. Indeed much of the workis shorter-term, “contract-deliverable-ori-ented” and is not particularly amenableto higher-risk M.S. thesis or Ph.D. disser-tation work.

In the end analysis, sources of fire re-search funding for university FPE profes-sors and students are limited, which is akey factor inhibiting the startup of newprograms. New programs need newprofessors; professors need tenure;tenure needs research papers; research


needs graduate students; graduate stu-dents need financial support from off-campus sources. A break anywhere inthis chain can make for a difficult situa-tion. The existing FPE programs muststruggle and juggle to keep all thesevariables working in the right direction.

THE FUTURE

So far, the picture painted abovecould be viewed as pretty grim. The cli-mate has not been favorable for univer-sities to decide to create new programsin nontraditional disciplines. In fact, dur-ing the most recent decades, several es-tablished FPE degree programs wereshut down. The Illinois Institute of Tech-nology’s BSFPE program was terminatedin the mid-1980s. It was the flagshipprogram, having been the first in theU.S., started in 1903. The MSc programat the University of Edinburgh was shutdown during the same era. In fact, WPIpresident Jon Strauss proposed shuttingdown the WPI FPE program in 1989... itwas only the protests of friends andalumni that saved the day. Dr. JohnBryan, the founding FPE departmenthead at the University of Maryland, re-ports similar threats during his tenure.The University of British Columbiastarted and terminated a program as

well over the past decade.There is little doubt the demand for

FPE graduates will continue to grow.The demand has been wholesome forgenerations; there is no reason to be-lieve it will not continue. The emergenceof performance-based building codes inAustralia, New Zealand, and the UK, aswell as other countries, has been an-other employment driver for FPEs. In1999, Australian fire protection engineerPeter Johnson reported, “There is now amajor fire engineering consulting indus-try in Australia that was not evident at allin 1991.”4 The first American model per-formance-based building code was justreleased by the International CodeCouncil (ICC) in 2001. As it is adoptedinto law in states, cities, and countiesthroughout the U.S., it, too, will be a dri-ver for more FPEs. And the World TradeCenter event has set a new context forthe use of FPEs on the design teams ofthe future.

And so we find ourselves in this co-nundrum. On the one hand, FPE offers awonderful product which is in high de-mand and which serves the public good.On the other hand, we see a somewhatgrim picture as to the future of FPE de-gree programs, at least for establishmentof more new programs. Yet there arereasons for optimism.

• Fire research funding may get better

Most of us have been hoping for avery, very long time that our federalgovernment would place stronger pol-icy-level emphasis on fire research.Hope was piqued in 1973 when, in itsreport to Congress, the National Com-mission on Fire Prevention and Controlrecommended that the federal fire re-search investment be increased by $26million per year ($113 million in today’sdollars).5 This was to come to naught,but some renewed efforts are beingseen. Hearings have been held by theHouse Science Committee in the wakeof the World Trade Center collapse, and$16 million has been appropriated tofurther investigate the incident. (It is in-teresting to note that the SFPE ResearchAgenda6 developed in 1999 did notmention structural fire protection on itslist of priorities. The agenda was createdduring a two-day workshop involving 70participants from all segments of fire

protection practice. Priorities then wererisk-based concepts, fire phenomena,human behavior, and data.)

And, prior to the September 11 disas-ter, on its own initiative NSF took a re-newed interest in fire research. In 2001,NSF engaged the National ResearchCouncil to “develop a clearly articulatedstatement of research, education, andtechnology transfer needs for improvedfire safety in the United States.” A work-shop was held in Washington, D.C., inApril 2002; its report is expected in early2003. It is hoped that this NRC reportwill add another credible focus to na-tional fire research needs in the U.S.

• Expanding degree programs usingadvanced technology

There is reason for optimism aboutfuture opportunities for expanded FPEdegree programs, worldwide. The futuremay see creation of some additional“bricks-and-mortar,” on-campus pro-grams of the type we are used to seeing,with professors lecturing to students inthe on-campus classroom... programswhich can produce more graduates andprovide the research laboratoriesneeded to do scholarly work and con-tribute to the body of knowledge. Andreal breakthrough opportunities areavailable through advanced communica-tion technology, the same technologythe for-profit industrial sector uses everyday to conduct global business opera-tions.

Today the professor does not alwaysneed to be in the same room with thestudent. Distance learning technologycan bridge the oceans and link studentsin any country with professors in anyother country. It is estimated that 86% ofAmerican colleges and universities willoffer distance learning of one kind or an-other in 2002, up from 62% in 1998.7 Ithas been estimated that distance learningenrollments increased from 500,000 to2,000,000 during the same period. Thisapproach to higher education in FPE canopen up entirely new ways of thinking.

The proof of concept has alreadybeen accomplished for developmentand delivery of high-quality, university-level FPE courses to students conti-nents away from the professor. WPI hasbeen doing this since 1993 and now of-fers 14 full-semester courses via dis-tance. Over one-third of WPI’s FPE en-



rollees are practicing professionals whocannot leave their jobs and come toWorcester for instruction. The technol-ogy works well. WPI has graduated students with the MSFPE degree whohave never set foot in Massachusetts.But much more can be done, especiallywith the younger college-age popula-tion and with interscholar cooperation.

• Talent sharingWhen we open our minds to the new

paradigm which allows that the profes-sor and the students do not have to bein the same room at the same time, lotsof interesting ideas can emerge. For ex-ample, WPI realized that it is possiblefor on-campus students to be taught byprofessors at other universities. Lastyear, UC Berkeley Professor PatrickPagni taught a course in fire safety sci-ence for his UCB students in Californiaand simultaneously delivered it to WPIon-campus and distance learning stu-dents. He was merely appointed as aWPI adjunct professor, and the technol-ogy took care of the rest. This was ahighly successful course, bringing aspecialized expert to the WPI curricu-lum in a way that would otherwisehave been impossible.

Last year, one of WPI’s distancelearning students in the State of Wash-ington wanted to take a lab course tolearn how to use a specialized ignitionapparatus which was available in a local laboratory. Dr. Vyto Babrauskashappened to live in the area, and hewas agreeable to teaching the labcourse to the student... again as a WPIadjunct professor. There are experts atuniversities and government/industrialfire research labs worldwide, of the cal-iber of Pagni and Babruaskas, who canpotentially serve as specialized teachersfor engineering students at any engi-neering school, using remote-learningstrategies.

• Interuniversity networkingOver past years, the line of thinking

for universities starting FPE programshas followed the path that has been fa-miliar to WPI and all other schools, i.e.,an on-campus program, with on-campusprofessors, staff, offices, and laborato-ries. But again, the distance learningparadigm can open up new lines ofthinking. Does each and every FPE

school need to have all the program ele-ments, or can elements be shared? Shar-ing and collaboration are definite possi-bilities.

In 1999, WPI and the University ofCosta Rica (UCR) began working to-gether to help UCR get an FPE programstarted. The University of Costa Ricahad approval from the university lead-ership, but did not have the resourcesto hire a cadre of FPE experts to form a complete, self-sufficient academic department. WPI worked with UCR,making WPI’s distance learning course-ware available to UCR professors. Forexample, UCR used WPI video-recordedlectures as “video textbooks” for UCRstudents. Over the past three years,UCR has made remarkable progress indeveloping and delivering FPE coursestailored to their local needs.

Another approach is underway inKorea, under a new Memorandum ofUnderstanding with Seoul National University (SNU). There, some 18 FPEstudents are meeting as a class on aweekly basis to receive graduate in-struction which will lead to the MSFPEdegree. Courses are taught in variousformats: (1) directly by WPI professorsvia distance learning; (2) jointly by WPIand SNU faculty; or (3) by SNU profes-sors working in areas where they havespecialized expertise, such as processsafety management and industrial fireprotection. The program in Seoulwould not have been possible were itnot for the school-to-school coopera-tion and distance learning technology.

• Reaching college-age studentsThe recruiting of young men and

women into FPE is an “easy sell.” Forsome young folks, there is an attractionto careers that make a difference, some-thing “different.” Fire protection engineer-ing can be seen as fun and cool. But it isdifficult to reach high school students,because of the large numbers and thesmall fraction that is even interested inengineering (less than 9%).

There are over 300 engineeringschools in the U.S., with nearly 400,000young men and women who have been“prescreened” with an interest in engi-neering. A surprising fraction of them really do not know what discipline theymight end up choosing. They are alsocandidates for recruiting into FPE.

To take this a step further, the dis-tance learning paradigm can open upnew lines of thinking for this group ofpotential FPEs. All of these 300+ engi-neering schools teach the fundamentalsneeded by any FPE – math, physics,chemistry, statics, dynamics, fluid mechanics, thermodynamics, and heattransfer. And potentially they can gainaccess to FPE courses via distancelearning. This is a chance to introducethem to the formal discipline of FPEwhile they are still undergraduate stu-dents at their home universities. For example, one young woman graduatedlast year from Illinois Institute of Tech-nology with a BSCE degree and a minor in FPE. She earned FPE creditsby taking several courses from WPI bydistance learning, using them as trans-fer credits toward her IIT civil engineer-ing degree. She has now taken a jobwith Rolf Jensen & Associates in Chicago. Ultimately, she has the optionof going on to finish her MSFPE havingalready completed some of the M.S. degree requirements at WPI. ▲

David Lucht is with the Worcester Poly-technic Institute.

REFERENCES

1 “Financing Higher Education”, Journal ofthe New England Board of HigherEducation, Volume XVI, No. 2, Spring2002.

2 “TRENDS in Student Aid”, The CollegeBoard, 2000.

3 “Federal R & D for Fire ProtectionEngineering: A Baseline Report.” Societyof Fire Protection Engineers, Bethesda,MD, 2002.

4 Johnson, P.F., “Benchmarking the 1991Conference Report: How Far Have WeCome?”, Proceedings of the SecondConference on Firesafety Design in the21st Century, Worcester PolytechnicInstitute, Worcester, 1999.

5 “America Burning”, Report of the NationalCommission on Fire Prevention andControl, April, 1973.

6 A Research Agenda for Fire ProtectionEngineering, SFPE, Feb. 2000.

7 “Online Distance Learning for HigherEducation,” 1998-2002, International DataCorporation.



An FPE on aLicensing Board:

OnePerson’s

View


By Michael A. O’Hara, PE

Serving as an FPE on theMinnesota Board of Architecture,Engineering, Land Surveying,

Geoscience, and Interior Design(Board) expanded my knowledge andappreciation of the diverse needs oflicensed design professionals. Beingappointed by former Governor ArneCarlson and serving for four years, twoas chair, were both an honor and aprivilege.

The Board’s mission is to providereasonable assurance that design pro-fessionals practice competently andethically in order to protect the health,safety, and welfare of the citizens ofMinnesota. Education, examination,and experience establish the founda-tion of professional practice enforcedby the Board. The 21-member Board,16 from the design professions and 5from the public at large, had responsi-bility for 17,000 licensees and certificateholders, less than 40 of which are fire

protection engineers. Minnesota “li-censes” design professionals in generalrelated to their general profession (en-gineer, architect, etc.) and not by spe-cific engineering discipline. TheBoard’s activities center on the designand construction process, given thepresence of industrial licensing exemp-tions for engineers in certain employ-ment settings such as government ormanufacturing.

During my tenure as chair, I inheriteda Board with scarce resources and an

When first appointed to the Board, it was very apparent to me that no one truly comprehended andappreciated the technical discipline of fire protection engineering (i.e., what and who we are). At the time ofmy appointment, the Board was struggling with licens-ing issues with respect to sprinkler design and layout.This proved to be one of the major reasons I was appointed to the Board – to help sort out this dilemma.The Board unsuccessfully struggled to claim sprinklerdesign as within the realm and purview of a licensed design professional. Minnesota law, initiated by theState Fire Marshal’s office, pre-empts the Board’s authority and allows a NICET Level III or higher techni-cian to design and lay out sprinkler systems. During thedebate, I established a voluntary technical advisorygroup (a wonderful way for fire protection engineers toget involved with their licensing board) comprised of in-dustry representatives, engineers, contractors, a fewBoard members, and even an occasional lobbyist. Thejurisdictional authorities believed the sprinkler contrac-tors were as competent (if not more) than the practicingengineers at large (i.e., mechanical) and that there werejust not enough FPEs to suffice the demand if the lawwere changed. It was the old chicken-and-egg argu-ment. In the end, the law remained but the lively dis-course resulted in building a communications bridgebetween the State Fire Marshal’s office and the Board.

Similarly, the Board became more proactive with the State’s Building Codes Division. The design pro-fessionals gained a better understanding of the jurisdictional authority challenges and needs, and viceversa. The professional attributes of fire protection engineering were elevated. While those intimately involved in this debate enjoyed a better understandingof fire protection engineering, it was very apparent thatother regulatory groups, professional associations andthe public at large were still ignorant of the role of theFPE in the design process.

The Minnesota Designer Selection Review Board,which is responsible for the selection of design teamsfor select state construction projects, asked me tomake a presentation to the Selection Board, describ-ing the role of the fire protection engineer in the designprocess. It was quite evident by the questions askedby the Selection Board that their understanding of thediscipline of fire protection engineering was extremelylimited to that of sprinkler design. It still persists today,and the definit ion the SFPE community uses to describe our profession is foreign to mainstream design stakeholders. The Selection Board concludedthat there were non-FPE-licensed engineers compe-tent to design sprinklers and fire alarm systems, yetwrongly neglected the other attributes of a fire protec-tion engineer.


unstable budget; communicated withlegislators concerned about ineffectivestatutes and overregulation; withstoodan unsuccessful lawsuit against theBoard; skirted a movement to abolishthe Board by a disenfranchised minor-ity; wrestled with the development,maintenance, and enforcement of Min-nesota Statutes and Promulgated Rules;tackled fire sprinkler licensing issues;addressed title and practice act issues;and managed formidable continuingeducation, ethics, examination, and licensing issues. Through it all, I wasblessed with competent and collabora-tive Board members and a gifted Exec-utive Secretary. Along the way therewere some tough decisions – some-times the choices were between twounpopular options, other times it wasmore clear-cut. At times, rigid statestatutes and rules blocked common-sense decisions. For the most part, theBoard effectively met its mission headon. The most difficult part of my job,even when the facts were indisputable,was the emotional strain of revoking alicense of a practicing professional. I al-ways did it in person.

I rarely thought of issues specific tofire protection engineering during mytime as chair. Essentially, the broaderchallenges facing design professionalsaffected FPEs. I set aside my personalprofessional interest so that I could ad-equately serve the design professions,execute our mission, and protect thehealth, safety, and welfare of the citi-zens of the State of Minnesota.

There are several issues into which Igained an insight as a result of my ex-perience on the Minnesota Board.These include:

Civic Issues

1. The value of the profession of engi-neering is being challenged frommany directions. The public ques-tions the value of having a PE li-cense. Is engineering dead as a pro-fession as we know it? Call it apathy,market efficiency, or professionalabdication; having a PE isn’t what itused to be. The public and evensome state agencies question thevalue of mandating a licensed pro-fessional in design. For example, incertain circumstances, Minnesotalaw does not require a licensed en-gineer to design bridges.

2. Licensing boards cannot increase thevalue of a profession. Daily conductand a continuous effort to demon-strate the value of an engineering li-cense to the public accomplish this.A mandated license only temporarilyraises the bar. A license will not pro-tect an engineer’s career.

3. A new design and construction para-digm is emerging, and state licens-ing boards, with the help of the en-gineering community, will needyears to figure it out. The lines be-tween design, layout, and installa-tion are blurred. Today, design andconstruction is a collaborativeprocess which is fluid and flexible.The public is demanding breakingdown the walls and ending turf bat-tles between the different entities inthe building design process. As engi-neers, we must listen to the public,view the trends, and embrace thechallenges. Our survival dependsupon it! The licensing board lags be-hind in the development of appro-priate regulations.

4. Laws can mandate requirements for a licensed professional, and in theshort term, they may create a de-mand. But the public at large canfind other ways to satisfy theirneeds. The public is way too clever

and will find ways to avoid (notevade) licensing laws. Of the fastest-growing design-construction-relatedfirms in the State of Minnesota, noneof them are pure consulting engi-neering or architectural firms. Aone-stop shop is a mantra to many.

5. Budget pressures continue to chal-lenge boards to find means of effec-tively conducting their duties. TheMinnesota Board focused energy onhiring investigators to followthrough on complaints received andenhance educational efforts. Increas-ing the number of volunteers to par-ticipate in the process has far greaterbenefits than just relieving bud-getary pressures. License fees do notnecessarily go directly back to aboard; Minnesota’s license fees wentto a general fund.

6. An informed public best achievesenforcement of licensing laws. Toomany individuals are practicing en-gineering design without a license.Technology, from simplified CADprograms to boilerplate, off-the-shelfdesign packages, makes it easy forunlicensed professionals to performdesign. Hiring investigators to han-dle cases is one thing; an educatedpublic regarding licensing laws castsa wider net of compliance. Unli-censed practice is a major threat tothe design profession and publicsafety. Code officials are the singlegreatest resource to curb problemsof non-compliance.

7. Boards sometimes forget they arethere to serve the public in a timelymanner. Elected officials are there toremind them of their duty in casethey forget. The Board is not a po-lice officer, but rather a promulgatorof regulations and an enforcer anal-ogous to a judge and jury.

8. There is a talent crisis in the engi-neering profession. Most highschool students shy away from engi-neering in general, creating vastshortages of engineering talent tobegin with. Compounding the prob-lem is the fact that many universitiesin Minnesota would rather produce

■ One Person’s View

“I set aside my personal

professional interest so that

I could adequately serve

the design professions,

execute our mission, and

protect the health, safety,

and welfare of the citizens

of the State of Minnesota.”


engineers who would invent thenext revolutionary heart valve, su-percomputer, or prosthetic limb, notgrovel in something as mundane asbuilding design.

9. Engineers think in concrete terms;black and white. Life is an inconsis-tently shifting shade of gray. HarryBeckwith’s classic business bookSelling the Invisible quotes actressMeryl Streep: “Life is more like highschool.” High school typically in-volves cliques, self-interest, illogicalevents, shifting alliances, and an un-bridled moodiness. With licensingboards, the political arena frequentlyclashes with the regulatory structureof a licensing board. Many engi-neers struggle to deal with shades ofgray when trained to quantify andsolve problems in a logical frame-work.

10. Minnesota mandated continuing education for design professionals.Lifelong learning should be an in-stinctual habit, yet it seems that itneeds to be mandated, becausemany professionals don’t see thepurpose or value of continuing ed-ucation. Continuing educationbuilds professional assets, buildscompetency, and protects the pub-lic. Technology changes so quickly,and all professionals need to stayabreast. The science of fire protec-tion engineering is a classic exam-ple of the changing body of knowl-edge that needs to be transferred tothe practicing engineer. Take ad-vantage of the plethora of educa-tional opportunities simply for thejoy of learning.

11. Engineers should cherish this li-cense. If they don’t, who will? The

public is already cynical about pol-itics and Wall Street. If engineersmake unethical choices, the skepti-cal public will be given a reason tomistrust the profession. Unethicalpractice dumbs down the value ofthe license.

Fire Protection Engineering Issues

12. Fire protection engineering isgrabbing for pieces of a shrinkingand ever-changing pie. Wheredoes a fire protection engineer fitin at the design table? Is the fireprotection engineer relegated tobeing a code consultant or calledin special situations only? Whatother services do fire protectionengineers offer to increase theirvalue? The public at large or the li-censing board does not under-


stand the role of a fire protectionengineer in the design process. Itis not their fault; it is the profes-sion’s fault for not effectively artic-ulating who we are. Boards needhelp from the profession to sort itall out. Otherwise, the public willdo it for the profession.

13. The Authority Having Jurisdictionmay be a fire protection engineer’sbest friend if they are convinced ofthe value of a fire protection engi-neer in the design process.

14. The definition of a fire protectionengineer in the SFPE Engineering

Guide to Performance-Based FireProtection Analysis and Design ofBuildings1 is ineffective in terms ofmaking the public at large under-stand the fire protection profes-sional. This definition is not onlyforeign to the public at large butfails to capture in pragmatic termsthe role of a fire protection engin-neer in the design process. Boardsdesperately need to be educated.Minnesota in general views a fireprotection engineer as one who designs sprinklers and maybe firealarm systems.

15. Fire protection engineers must takean active role in their licensingboards. The Minnesota chapter ofSFPE has a link on the Board’s Website. But it is just the first step. Fireprotection engineers should attendmeetings of the licensing board.

16. Fire protection engineers must con-tinue to educate the major stake-holders in the design and construc-tion process. They should be amissionary for the profession andshow its value.

17. Performance-based design will ei-ther be the savior or demise of thefire protection profession. Is it allsmoke and mirrors? The Board andjurisdictional authorities haveenough trouble with the basic defi-nition of fire protection. A legalcounsel aptly stated at WPI’s Sec-ond Symposium on Fire ProtectionDesign in the 21st Century that ajury decides how safe is safe.2

Licensing boards decide on theirown terms.

18 Fire protection engineers shouldbecome involved in the issues thataffect the profession. Fire protec-tion engineering is a specialty pro-fession in a crowded field. Firesafety is not necessarily the com-pelling safety aspect of a project.The fire protection engineer’s fateis joined at the hip with the fate ofall other licensed engineering pro-fessions. We can’t go it alone.

19 The U.S. fire problem, other thanwildfires, is perceived by the public

■ One Person’s View


at large and many legislators to be“statistically solved” and that in-creased expenditures to reduce firelosses provide diminishing returns.With competing problems andscarce resources to allocate, obtain-ing additional resources to promotelicensure activities, let alone fireprotection, continues to be adaunting task. Legislators have big-ger issues to tackle (and makeheadlines with). Based upon statestatistics produced by the Minne-sota State Fire Marshal’s office, firelosses in Minnesota cost the Stateof Minnesota approximately $175million in the year 2000. As tragicas fire losses are, they pale in com-parison to some of the other publichealth and safety challenges weface.

20. Volunteerism makes life great. Get-ting involved for the cause of theprofession is the earmark of a trueprofessional. Don’t know how?Every board has a Web site. Knowthe names of the board members.Make them aware of SFPE. If wedon’t care, neither will the licensingboard.

The issues facing fire protection areonly a microcosm of broader underly-ing trends within the design profes-sional’s sphere. Being licensed meansmeeting a certain level of competencythat is demonstrated through education,testing, and experience. As design pro-fessionals, we work very hard to obtainand maintain our licenses. However,obtaining a license is just the first step,because in the long run its true worthand value are based upon consistentethical conduct and relentlessly findingways to solve the needs and challengesto the public. When we look at our li-cense or that plaque on the wall, weshould reflect upon where the fire pro-tection engineer fits into the biggerscheme of things. We must deserve ourlicenses; Winston Churchill once said,“One must ‘deserve’ victory.” A designprofessional must deserve receiving thetrue value of the professional licensethat is granted, which comes as a resultof hard work, persistence, integrity, ed-ucation, insight, and preparation. Suc-cess comes to those deserve it. ▲

REFERENCES

1 SFPE Engineering Guide to Performance-Based Fire Protection Analysis and Designof Buildings, National Fire ProtectionAssociation, Quincy, MA, 2000.

2 Selby, T. “Legal Issues SurroundingPerformance-Based Codes,” Proceedingsof the Second Conference on Fire SafetyDesign in the 21st Century, WorcesterPolytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA,1999.


Codes and standards often requirespecific fire protection featuresfor certain occupancies, con-

struction methods, and hazards. In situ-ations not covered by the prescriptivecode approach, engineers are using“performance-based” solutions. Failures,when they do occur, can often beattributed to either a failure in the engi-neering of the fire protection or a fail-ure to apply engineering methods tothe selected situation or solutions. Thisarticle explores a few examples toshow how engineers and technicianscan contribute to success or to failure.

With sprinkler systems, the actual pip-ing layout and support details are oftenleft to a technician. Using “pre-engi-neered” solutions and well-establishedroutines for calculations, the technicianscan correctly lay out a system. However,selecting the type and performancecharacteristics of the system often re-quires a thorough engineering analysis.The application of science and scientificprinciples is needed to match the pro-posed sprinkler system to the hazardand to coordinate the system with otherfire protection and prevention measures.For example, regardless of whether youare in favor of or against the use of auto-matic roof vents in sprinklered ware-houses, there is no doubt that, if they arepresent, the sprinkler system requiresspecific engineering to properly workwith the vents.

One of the most common failures as-sociated with fire detection and alarmsystems is the failure to provide fire pro-tection. A fire detection and alarm sys-tem is not a fire protection system unlessit does something to affect the fire, theproperty, or the people. For example, acomplete fire detection system withsmoke detectors and heat detectors inevery room and space does little good ifthe system sounds a local alarm in themiddle of the night when the building isnot occupied and does not automaticallycommunicate to the fire department. If it

does summon the fire department, whatgood is it if the fire is too large for thearriving firefighters to safely attack? Per-haps this system is protecting an historiclibrary in a community with part paidfire company whose nearest apparatus isfive miles distant – uphill. This is a fail-ure to engineer.

A technician that specializes in fire detection and alarm systems may fail torecognize the greater benefits of sup-pression or containment that might bepossible in the example above. Almostexclusively, technicians specialize in oneaspect of fire protection – fire alarm,special hazards suppression systems, orsprinkler systems. They often lack theoverall fire protection engineering expe-rience to evaluate the risks rather thanjust the hazards. Combined with detec-tion and alarm, a fire protection strategythat includes even just containment, bythe closing of fire doors and dampers,may provide the time needed to allowfirefighters to contribute to successfulfire management.

Engineers sometimes fail to provideengineering. Projected beam smoke de-tectors are often employed in large,clear-span spaces to provide early warn-ing of a fire. For example, in a ware-house used to store battery packs for a

certain product, the owner may wish todetect a fire before sprinkler operationto allow a trained fire brigade the op-portunity to safely extinguish the firewith the result being a lower level ofdamage and no down time.

Figure 1 shows a beam being pro-jected through a smoke layer. In the ear-liest stages, there may be an undefinedplume as smoke from low-heat, smolder-ing combustion creates a haze in thespace. Later, as open flaming occurs,there may be a defined plume and ceil-ing jet. Then, a defined layer may de-velop. Using simple calculation methodsor more complex fire modeling, it is pos-sible to estimate the total obscuration orthe optical density that the projectedbeam smoke detector experiences atthese different fire development stages.It is also possible to engineer the detec-tor response by asking at what level oftotal obscuration or optical density thedetector should be set to trigger analarm. (See Example 16 in Chapter 4-1 ofthe SFPE Handbook of Fire ProtectionEngineering for sample calculations.1 )

Projected beam smoke detectors havevariable sensitivity. For one particularmodel, the range is from 20% to 70% to-tal obscuration in 10% increments beforean alarm is triggered. The manufac-

Figure 1. Smoke layer andprojected beam smoke detector.

ENGINEERING FAILURE orFailure to Engineer?


turer’s instructions contain recom-mended sensitivity settings based on thetotal projected distance. These settingsare in turn based on requirements in theproduct listing standard. For example, ina space 30 m (98 ft) long, the recom-mended setting is on the order of 40%total obscuration, or a total optical den-sity (D) of about 0.22. If the smoke layeris well defined and well mixed, thiswould correspond to a unit optical den-sity (Du) of about 0.0074 m

-1, or a unit

obscuration of about 0.52% ft-1 acrossthe entire 30 m (98 ft) path length. How-ever, if the project goals require earlierdetection, it may be necessary to set thedetector to a sensitivity higher than themanufacturer’s recommendation – per-haps 20% total obscuration, or a totaloptical density (D) of about 0.097.

Certainly, an engineering sensitivityanalysis is needed to understand the ef-fects of having a plume and ceiling jetwithout a well-mixed layer, as well asthe effects of stratification and thesmoke-production characteristics of dif-ferent fuels or combinations of fuels.Failure to determine the required set-tings is a failure to engineer. Failure toselect the correct data for the variablesand failure to conduct engineering sen-sitivity analyses are engineering failures.

Another failure that might occur forthe example above would be if the re-sulting system were prone to false ornuisance alarms. Will a setting of analarm level at 20% total obscuration(0.09 total optical density) result in nui-sance alarms from the exhausts of forklift trucks or due to atmospheric haze orthe combined smoke from 10 workerspuffing on cigars and blowing the smoketowards the detector? Do some engineer-ing. Estimate and calculate the resultingcloud size and obscuration.The unit opti-cal density needed to get 20% total lossacross 30 meters is 0.0032 per meterwhich is 0.00098 per foot. But could theyproduce a higher unit optical densityacross a smaller path? Could they smokeenough cigars to block 20% of the lightbeam? What size clouds (obscurationpath lengths) at what unit optical densi-ties will result in 20% total obscuration?

Another, less common, failure mecha-nism occurs when the proper operation

of one protection system causes the fail-ure of another system. In fire protection,because of the many uncertainties weface, we often use the “belt-and-sus-penders” approach – two systems, eitherof which will meet our protection goals.Perhaps our belt is successfully holdingup our pants with little or no load on thesuspenders. We’ve tested the system andknow that the suspenders are properlyadjusted and can hold up our pants justfine without a belt. However, if the beltsuddenly fails, the resulting momentumand impact load on the suspenders maycause failure of the clasp. We might callthis an exposure failure. The same se-quence can occur with protection systems.

Consider an oven used in a coatingprocess involving flammable solvents.Explosion relief is provided by the useof shear bars on relief doors. We mustcalculate the range of expected pres-sures, the area of the doors, and the re-sulting forces. In consultation with theowner, it is decided that this is a mission-critical process, and it would be better ifwe suppressed the deflagration beforean explosion occurs. This can be doneusing high-speed suppression systemsactuated by pressure sensors capable ofsensing the initial pressure rise as theflame progresses outward in the vapor/air mixture from the point of ignition.

Failure to engineer occurs if the de-signer fails to check which will happenfirst: the sensing by the pressure detec-tors or the relieving of the pressure bythe explosion relief doors. Engineeringfailure occurs if the designer calculatedthe incorrect range of possible pressuresor failed to account for relief through thenormal ductwork and vapor incinerator.It is possible for the doors to relieve be-fore the pressure sensor actuates. Theresulting decrease in pressure preventsthe suppression system from operating.

An everyday example of similar fail-ures involves personal computers. Acomputer may have transient protectionto guard against damage caused by light-ning or other faults. The computer mayalso employ some level of line condition-ing to be sure the power being suppliedis clean and at a steady voltage. If theyare not engineered to work together andin the correct sequence, it is possible that

the conditioning system will change thecharacteristics of a voltage spike suffi-ciently to cause the transient protectionto delay or fail to operate before damageis done to the computer.

As fire protection engineers, our workis subject to both types of failures – fail-ure to engineer and engineering failure.Pre-engineered solutions are often suc-cessfully deployed and used withoutany engineering taking place. Our codesand standards such as NFPA 13,2 NFPA72,3 and NFPA 964 help engineers andtechnicians to employ proven pre-engi-neered solutions. As engineers, it is in-cumbent upon us to understand the lim-itations, assumptions, and bounds ofpre-engineered solutions that we specifyor review. It is also the responsibility ofthe manufacturers of pre-engineeredsystems or design guides, as well as thedevelopers of codes and standards thatpermit their use, to document and con-vey this information to the users whomay not be expected or even qualifiedto do detailed engineering analyses. ▲

REFERENCES

1 Schifiliti, R.p., Meacham, B.e., and Custer,R.l., “Design of Detection Systems”,Chapter 4-1, in Philip J. DiNenno Ed.,SFPE Handbook of Fire ProtectionEngineering, 3rd Edition, National FireProtection Association, Quincy, MA, 2002.

2 NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation ofSprinkler Systems, National FireProtection Association, Quincy, MA, 2002.

3 NFPA 72, National Fire Alarm Code,National Fire Protection Association,Quincy, MA, 2002.

4 NFPA 96, Standard for Ventilation Controland Fire Protection of CommercialCooking Operations, National FireProtection Association, Quincy, MA, 2001.

Editor’s Note – About This ArticleThis is a continuing series of articles that issupported by the National ElectricalManufacturer’s Association (NEMA), SignalingProtection and Communications Section, andis intended to provide fire alarm industry-related information to members of the fireprotection engineering profession.


By Ralph Transue, PE, and David Czajka, SPHR

Asuccessful fire protection engi-neering practice achieves clientsatisfaction, provides technical-

ly sound and practical professionalservices, and maintains a supportiveand rewarding working environmentfor its people. The key to accomplish-ing all three of these corporate objec-tives begins and ends with excellent“human capital.” These are the talent-ed technical professionals who haveconfidence in their engineering sci-ence, knowledge of its technology andart, and the ability to develop effectivesolutions for clients that achievedesired fire protection objectives.

Although simple in concept, acquir-ing this top-caliber talent is a difficulttask for engineering firms, particularlyfor firms that have not invested in a hu-

man resources program. Adding to thedilemma is the current state of affairs inthe world in general and the fire pro-tection engineering profession specifi-cally.

Driven by the new economy, the fireprotection engineering profession’scompetitive landscape is changingrapidly. Global expansion, high-speeddelivery of products and services, tech-nical advances, and redefined businessmodels represent changes that thisnew economy has introduced. Organi-zational leaders are beginning to real-ize that the ability to acquire, develop,retain, and motivate the “right talent”remains a key to establishing competi-tive advantages in their marketplaces.In fact, according to Development Di-

IN FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEERING PRACTICES

Human ResourceChallenges Faced byManagers of

FPE Professionals


mensions International, a noted leader-ship development company, manyCEOs around the world have placedhuman capital initiatives at the top oftheir business agendas for the new mil-lennium.

The tragic events of September 2001have also heightened public and corpo-rate awareness of the importance of theservices that fire protection engineersprovide. This awareness has created aneven greater demand on an alreadytight labor supply of fire protection en-gineering professionals.

Against this backdrop of an evolvingworkplace, there are human resourcechallenges that remain constant for anengineering firm.

CHALLENGE ONE: RECRUITING

To meet human capital require-ments, management in engineeringfirms must understand the core compe-tencies they require and target them intheir recruiting efforts. One advantageto this target competency approach isthat it permits a firm to look outsidethe fire protection specialty into otherengineering disciplines while still fo-cusing on the factors that are criticalfor the company’s technical and busi-ness success. It also lays a foundationfor development and management ofeach employee’s career growth bymaximizing and leveraging their indi-vidual potentials.

For example, as part of a best prac-tices regimen, Rolf Jensen & Associates,Inc. (RJA) encourages their offices todevelop relationships with local engi-neering schools. The purpose is toidentify individuals who are interestedin FPE and who have core engineeringskills. Distance learning programs, tu-ition assistance for engineering studentsattending local colleges, and intern-ships contribute to developing newFPEs by building on students’ core en-gineering competencies. This is benefi-cial in two ways. First, the approachhas opened up the recruiting pipelinebeyond the traditional FPE schools.Second, and possibly more important,it has provided the exposure of fire

protection engineering as a viable op-tion to individuals who may not haveotherwise known about or consideredFPE as a career choice.

Of course, not all human capital isrecruited out of college. Since there isno replacement for experience, engi-neering firms need to recruit veteran in-dividuals, provide challenging assign-ments, and motivate them to mentorothers. A company’s system of perfor-mance rewards must include recogni-tion of the importance of a senior engi-neer in building teamwork andproviding mentoring to younger engi-neers with less practical experience. Of-ten the quality of the project assign-ments and the caliber of theengineering team are as important to asenior engineering recruit as the com-pensation package.

Even as market conditions have tem-porarily slowed some of the funding forrecruiting, the labor pool of FPEs hasremained tight. Many firms may haveexperienced a downturn in business asa result of delayed or cancelled pro-jects. Consequently, there has been arecent increase in available FPEs in thejob market. However, this situation willquickly reverse as projects resume andclient spending increases. We will onceagain be faced with a major shortage ofFPE professionals.

CHALLENGE TWO: RETENTION

Once hired, the next challenge is toretain the FPE. Retention efforts are not“canned,” off-the-shelf programs.

Rather, a good retention program fo-cuses on all aspects of the employmentexperience. A company’s success in re-taining excellent employees is the re-sult of the effectiveness of its entire hu-man capital program includingrecruiting, employee orientation, train-ing and development, mentoring; per-formance management; compensationand benefits, and career growth.

The changing dynamics of fire pro-tection engineering employment andshifting client demands have requiredorganizations to refine the way theyoperate. Management’s challenge toconstantly balance professional staffactivities among business develop-ment, client relations, technical deliv-ery, project management, and collec-tions is difficult for large and smallfirms alike. More and more, companiesare looking to a core competency ap-proach to increase their human capitalefficiency and become more proactiveto market changes.

The high cost of engineering special-ists presents yet another challenge. It isno secret that FPE firms have beensubject to rising salary costs over thelast several years. This is a result ofmany factors. First, by the pure natureof being schooled in a specialty engi-neering discipline, FPEs may demand apremium in the labor market com-pared to other engineering disciplines.Second, in recent years, FPE firms haveescalated salaries while competing fortalent fresh out of college as well asexperienced engineers. Companies thathave met the rising salary costs now

■ Human Capital

HUMAN


find themselves faced with the needfor higher billing rates. Billing-rate es-calation has created an opportunity fornon-FPE firms to enter the FPE market-place, typically with lower rates.

Naturally, one could argue that thedepth of knowledge in fire behaviormay be somewhat limited in non-FPEfirms. They may not fully meet theneeds of the client, but they still repre-sent competition and yet another chal-lenge in how firms market and posi-tion professional services and theirvalue to the client. This threat fromnon-FPE organizations is best met byconstant promotion of the SFPE imageand the attributes of the FPE specialtydiscipline to all types of clients.

Along with rising salary costs, firmsare also are faced with escalating benefitand healthcare costs. In 2002, manycompanies experienced increases of upto 30%. This trend of escalating health-care costs is likely to continue over thenext several years, causing a negativeimpact on firms’ ability to recruit and re-tain exceptional talent. The answer liesin balancing a market-competitive salarywith a comprehensive, affordable bene-fits package. Gaining a better under-standing of the attitudes and motivatingfactors of the FPEs a firm is seeking toattract and retain will provide insight onhow to achieve that balance. Organiza-tions must design employee programsthat are flexible enough to accommo-date the differences in motivational fac-tors while still providing a common fo-cus toward achieving the organization’sgoals and objectives.

CHALLENGE THREE: MOTIVATION

In a recent survey at RJA, the qualityof engineering assignments was thenumber one reason FPEs joined thefirm, followed by the reputation of thefirm, salary, office location, and bene-fits. This indicates that RJA has suc-ceeded in creating an atmosphere inwhich fire protection engineers want tocome to work each day, because theyenjoy the project challenges and theybelieve that they are growing in theirprofessional and personal lives.

Professionals who are motivated pri-marily by money are usually not thebest fit for a professional services posi-tion. Successful FPEs tend to be moti-vated by performing at a high profes-sional level for their clients, workingclosely with an excellent team, and be-ing rewarded – both financially and interms of professional recognition – forbuilding their consultancies.

The apprenticeship of engineering isa professional development conceptthat requires individual initiative, per-sonal responsibility, and the support ofthe organization. Even when givenchallenging work assignments, the FPEfeels most comfortable if surrounded bya team of available mentors and peerreviewers.

In some cases, young professionalsperceive that their value is greater tothe organization than it may really be.Managers may find that reconciling thesalary expectations of younger, less-ex-perienced professionals with the fiscal

realities of a modest profit margin busi-ness can be difficult.

CHALLENGE FOUR: MENTORING

Career development in fire protec-tion engineering is an apprenticeship.Over time, the fire protection engineerdevelops a broader understanding ofhis/her science and its art. FPEs learnfrom those who are practicing andleading the profession now, as well asthose who have led in the past. Sincefire protection engineers tend to iden-tify with their profession even morethan with their employer, mentors canbe found in both their own organiza-tions and throughout the fire protectionindustry.

The need for mentoring is immediateand constant. According to engineeringmanagers within RJA, certain practicalknowledge is missing in some new FPEgraduates. They may be able to de-scribe the principle of operation of asmoke sensor or configure the inputfile for a computer fire model, but theymay never have seen a hydrant flowtest or inspected a fire pump. This maybe even more acute in graduates fromother disciplines. In the long term, get-ting the proper engineering core com-petencies in school is more importantthan watching a flow test, but the ab-sence of the practical orientation innew graduates places the responsibilityfor practice training directly on a firm’smentoring program – the apprentice-ship of engineering.

CHALLENGE FIVE: TRAINING

Building on an FPE’s core competen-cies through mentoring and practicalproject experience is the number onepriority in an individual’s professionaldevelopment program. A great engi-neer does not necessarily make a greatconsultant or a great manager. But toconsult or manage in this professionrequires a sound technical education.

Beyond the technical aspects of thejob lie skill sets equally important tothe success of the FPE and his/herfirm. These skills include the ability to

CAPITAL


develop new business, manage timeefficiently, and communicate effec-tively with clients and team members.As FPEs move up the ladder in theirfirms, they will undoubtedly becomeinvolved in managing people and di-recting activities ranging from billingand collecting fees to developing busi-ness plans.

While on-the-job training and men-toring are valuable tools in support ofprofessional development, they shouldnot be the only form of training. Spe-cialized training and education are re-quired to develop the knowledge andskills necessary to meet a firm’s organi-zational goals as well as the needs ofits individuals. Such training should bebroadly supported by the organization.

RJA has taken a very robust ap-proach to the challenge of ongoingtraining by developing an internal edu-cation center: The RJA Academy. TheAcademy provides opportunities for

orientation and training in the areas ofleadership, operations management, fi-nance, business development, and pro-ject management. Technical trainingprograms – in audio, video, and printformats – are developed by RJA’s sistercompany, Protection Knowledge Con-cepts, and made available to all RJA of-fices for ongoing education of FPEsand support staff.

THE HUMAN CAPITAL BOTTOMLINE: COMMITMENT ANDCONSISTENCY

The common denominator with allthe challenges we’ve discussed is thatthey involve human resources. How-ever, the managers faced with thesechallenges are not HR professionals.They are FPEs managing a group oroperation for a larger company, orpresidents and CEOs of smaller compa-nies. Some companies have dedicated

HR professionals on staff, others donot. If the human capital of an organi-zation represents its true differentiatorand competitive advantage, then thefirm must make a commitment to de-velop an effective HR program.

The program may involve establish-ing an HR department or at the veryleast, providing additional training forthe people entrusted with the humancapital responsibilities within the com-pany. The HR function must beplanned and funded. It must prioritizethe tasks – from recruiting to ongoingtraining – to be accomplished and pro-vide a way to measure the progress.But above all, the HR effort must beconsistently implemented, in periodsof downturn as well as good times. ▲

Ralph Transue and David Czajk, arewith The RJA Group, Inc.

■ Human Capital


A STATISTICAL BENCHMARKING FRAMEWORK FOR

DEVELOPING STAKEHOLDERCONSENSUS


tive. Arguably, the largest obstacle tosuccessful implementation of perfor-mance-based design is not the technicalevaluation of fire in the built environ-ment or the exercise of engineeringjudgment, but the lack of widely recog-nized “acceptable” building fire risk crite-ria. Most building officials and fire offi-cials are reluctant to reach consensus onthe issue of determining what is “accept-able” in fire risk terms in lieu of prescrip-tive code terms. This challenge is notlimited to building or fire officials. Ingeneral, fire protection engineers aremore willing to address issues of “ac-ceptable risk” but can have very diver-gent views on the appropriate criteria.This should not come as a surprise since,as noted by Watts and Hall, determina-tion of “acceptable” fire risk is more of aphilosophical issue than a technical one.1

The use of risk criteria seems to befurther complicated by the fact that

while risk is generally understood on anabstract level, the units of risk and its’use in design criteria are not always eas-ily or intuitively understood. For thesereasons, it seems that one approachsuited to developing stakeholder con-sensus with regard to “acceptable risk”is on a comparative basis. It is suggestedthat one alternative to overcome the is-sue of “acceptable risk” criteria is theuse of risk benchmarking to establishrisk-based fire safety goals.

The framework discussed in this arti-cle utilizes a combination of The Na-tional Estimates Approach to U.S. FireStatistics2 and revisits an approach tocorrelate fire hazard analysis with firefrequency data originally presented inThe National Fire Risk Assessment Pro-ject Final Report.3 To demonstrate onepotential application of the framework,a case study of benchmarking buildingconstruction type is presented.

ACCEPTABLE RISK VS. BENCH-MARKING

Although it may appear to be a some-what subtle distinction, the use of abenchmarking approach in lieu of speci-fying acceptable risk can reduce the bar-riers to developing stakeholder consen-sus on subjective issues involving fireand societal risk. Identifying “acceptablerisk” requires a philosophical judgmentthat is unlikely to be shared in commonby all stakeholders. On the other hand,utilizing benchmark levels of risk elimi-nates the need for judgment and insteadrelies on statistical data to establish abenchmark level of risk.

There are numerous pros and cons as-sociated with using a benchmark ap-proach to establish acceptance criteria.Most notably, implicit in a benchmarkingapproach is an assumption that historicalrisk is a surrogate measure of acceptablerisk. While the use of historical risk forevaluating acceptable risk can be contro-versial, it is nonetheless a valuable toolfor benchmarking. While improvement(i.e., reduced risk) is always desirable,there is a point of diminishing return atwhich additional improvement may notbe beneficial (e.g., too costly) to societyas a whole. This optimal point of risk-benefit often requires a rigorous analysisbeyond the technical and financial meansof most projects. It is suggested that abenchmarking framework not only elimi-

By Edward L. Fixen, P.E.

The fire safety goals and objec-tives underlying modern buildingcode requirements have become

obscured with time and can be difficultto objectively define. In addition to thebenefit of enabling cost-effectivedesign, the development of perfor-mance-based design is intended to pro-vide an alternative process to prescrip-tive codes that reduces subjectivity andfacilitates consensus-building. At thefoundation of performance-baseddesign is the development of clearlyunderstood fire safety goals and objec-tives that reflect stakeholder consensus.

One of the key challenges of estab-lishing acceptable goals or objectives isthat it inherently involves an assessmentof uncertainty and risk. For numerousreasons, this assessment is most oftenqualitative in nature rather than quantita-


nates many of the hurdles associatedwith determining acceptable risk criteriabut perhaps more importantly provides arepeatable, objective method for deter-mining risk-based goals and objectives.

It is beyond the scope of this article toresolve the numerous technical andphilosophical issues related to establish-ing acceptable risk criteria. In fact, it isbecause of the philosophical trappingsof determining what is “acceptable” thatbenchmarking is suggested as a practicaland objective method of establishing ac-ceptance criteria.

NATIONAL ESTIMATES APPROACHTO U.S. FIRE STATISTICS

Key to the development of fire riskbenchmarking is the use of The NationalEstimates Approach to U.S. Fire Statis-tics.2 The National Estimates Approachuses a combination of the NFIRS data-base and the NFPA Annual Survey to es-timate fire experience for the U.S. NFIRSis a national database designed to docu-ment and report fires and the casualtiescaused by fire. As of 1995, fire depart-ments in 39 states and the District of Co-lumbia participated in the program. Us-ing NFPA 901,4 data from these differentdepartments are standardized. NFIRScaptures roughly one-third to one-halfof all U.S. fires each year and providesthe most detailed incident informationof any national fire-incident database.

However, the NFIRS data underre-ports the total number of fires in the U.S.Therefore, to project NFIRS results to na-tional estimates one needs at least an es-timate of the NFIRS fires as a fraction ofthe total so that the fraction can be in-verted and used as a multiplier or scal-ing ratio. The NFPA annual fire depart-ment survey provides this scaling ratio.Although not nearly as detailed as theNFIRS database, the NFPA survey pro-vides a much broader picture of theoverall U.S. fire problem. Incorporationof both data sets allows the detailed dataof NFIRS to be projected to the entirecountry. A more detailed discussion ofThe National Estimates Approach can befound in Hall and Harwood.2

Historical fire data obtained from TheNational Estimates Approach to U.S. FireStatistics can be used to estimate thelikelihood or probability of fire in abuilding based on several attributes such

as occupancy, building height, sprinklerprotection, construction type, etc. Addi-tionally, the NFIRS data can be used toestimate the conditional probability of aspecific fire consequence given a fire,characterized by extent of flame orsmoke damage. For example, the condi-tional probability of a fire confined tothe room of origin would be the numberof fires confined to the room of origindivided by the total number of fires forthat occupancy. The probability of fireand the conditional probability of a haz-ard given a fire can be combined to esti-mate the risk associated with a definedfire severity or consequence.

For example, Figure 1 was createdfrom NFIRS data for one- to six-storyapartment buildings over the last de-cade. Figure 1 identifies the risk associ-ated with extent of flame damage. Theeffective risk in deaths per fire associ-ated with flame damage was normalizedto one by dividing each category offlame damage by the risk associatedwith “Confined to Object of Origin” toprovide a means to directly compare therisk of each category.

From Figure 1 it is possible to drawseveral conclusions and/or establish tar-get risk levels. For example, the risk ofdeath in a one- to six-story apartmentbuilding is roughly 3-1/2 times greaterwhen fire is confined to the area of ori-gin when compared to fire confined tothe object of origin. Figure 1 indicatesthat the risk of death increases substan-tially, on the order of 48, when firespreads beyond the room of origin. Theincreased risk associated with firespread beyond the room of origin, oftenassociated with flashover, appears tosubstantiate the commonly recognizedfire safety goal of preventing flashover.

CORRELATING FIRE SEVERITYWITH FIRE DATA

As originally suggested in The Na-tional Fire Risk Assessment ResearchProject Final Report,3 the NFIRS databaseprovides a mechanism for correlating firedata and fire consequence. The fire dataare not correlated with fire consequencein the statistical sense but rather from anengineering standpoint. One of the data-

■ Developing Stakeholder Consensus

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Confined toObject of

Origin

Confined toArea ofOrigin

Confined toRoom of

Origin

Confined toFire-Rated

Compartment ofOrigin

Confined toFloor ofOrigin

Confined toStructureof Origin

BeyondObject of

Origin

Flame Damage

Effe

ctiv

e Ri

skNo

rmal

ized

to O

bjec

t of O

rigin

Figure 1. Risk Aassociated with Extent of Flame Damage

Table 1. NFIRS Flame Damage Linked to Fire-Spread Criteria

NFIRS DatabaseExtent of Flame Damage

Object of Origin

Area of Origin

Room of Origin

Beyond Room of Origin

1

3

15

20

100

200

450

600

Radiant Flux fromUpper Layer (kW/m2)

Max. Upper LayerTemperature (˚C)


base fields included in the NFIRS data-base is “Extent of Flame Damage.” The“Extent of Flame Damage” category canbe used to estimate the probability asso-ciated with a specific fire scenario. The“Extent of Flame Damage” field includesseven potential categories ranging from“Confined to Object of Origin” to “Be-yond Structure of Origin.” Clarke, et al.,3

developed an approach, summarized inTable 1, to link the categories of flamedamage with fire-spread characteristicssuch as radiant heat flux and maximumupper layer temperature. Table 1 doesnot include flame damage categoriesmore severe than “Beyond Room of Ori-gin” because this event can be consid-ered representative of flashover, gener-ally considered unacceptable for mostfire protection analyses.

Using available fire models and/or fireprotection engineering calculations, it ispossible to estimate one or both of theparameters identified in Table 1 for agiven fire scenario. The predicted valueof radiant flux or maximum upper layertemperature can then be linked to one ofthe “Extent of Flame Damage” cate-gories. Once a category is identified foreach fire scenario, the risk associatedwith each scenario can be estimated.This method of linking a fire scenariowith a risk value would be useful in de-termining the overall risk associated withall credible fire scenarios. The resultingestimated risk value could then be com-pared against “acceptable risk” criteria.

CASE STUDY: CONSTRUCTION-TYPE BENCHMARK

There are many instances in modernbuilding codes where the intent of thecode can be qualitatively outlined butnot quantified for the purpose of objec-tively evaluating an equivalency or per-formance-based design. The followingcase study is intended to demonstrateone potential application and use of riskbenchmarking to develop stakeholderconsensus.

The allowable areas and heights asso-ciated with building construction typesare a prime example of code require-ments that have become obscured withtime and are difficult to establish quanti-tative goals and objectives. Constructionheight and area limitations have notchanged dramatically over the past sev-

eral decades despite significant advance-ments in fire protection engineering,structural engineering, and constructionmaterials and methods.

The basis for the area and height lim-itations can be qualitatively describedbut are difficult to objectively define,much less quantify. For example, itwould seem reasonable that a compre-hensive fire protection and life safetystrategy could be developed that wouldresult in a six-story building of 1-hourconstruction being as safe as a buildingof 2-hour construction. The ability toquantitatively substantiate the strategyand reduction in construction is difficultat best and highly subjective. However,if a baseline risk benchmark can be es-tablished for the 2-hour building andthe 1-hour building without the en-hanced fire protection features, itwould be possible to establish a riskbenchmark for the acceptable goal (i.e.,2-hour building) and a reference point(i.e., 1-hour building) with which toevaluate the effects of enhanced fireprotection features.

Correlating Construction Type withExtent of Flame Damage

Using the same data compiled forone- to six-story apartment buildingsidentified in Figure 1, the followinganalysis shows an application to de-velop a risk benchmark for buildingconstruction type. The first step is todetermine if the type of constructionhas any effect on the extent of flamedamage and ultimately life safety. Fig-

ure 2 was created by dividing the num-ber of fires that spread beyond theroom of origin by the total number offires for each construction type. A best-fit regression line through the data doesshow a trend that the frequency of fireextension beyond the room of origindoes in fact increase for lesser con-struction types. Per the regression line,fire will extend beyond the room of ori-gin 7.5 percent of the time for fire-resis-tive construction and approximately 22percent of the time for unprotectedwood frame construction.

An R-squared analysis of the datashows a value of 0.88. The R-squaredvalue is an indication of the precisionwith which the regression line explainsthe variability or uncertainty in the dataor measure of goodness of fit. An R-squared value of 1.0 would indicate100% precision and is ideal. The best-fitline is a linear fit of the data. The R-squared value can be interpreted as theproportion of the variance in y attribut-able to the portion of the variance in x.The accept/reject value for R-squareddepends on the application, but a valueof 0.88 shows a strong relationship be-tween construction type and firespread. Based on the strength of therelationship, it is reasonable to con-clude that construction type can beused on a comparative basis to estimateliklihood of flashover. Further, it is rea-sonable to establish a benchmark levelof risk associated with flashover (i.e.,flame damage beyond room of origin)for each construction type. It must beacknowledged that construction type

R2 = 0.8809

0

5

10

15

20

25

Fire-Resistive

ProtectedNon-

combustible

UnprotectedNon-

combustible

ProtectedOrdinary

UnprotectedOrdinary

HeavyTimber

ProtectedWoodFrame

UnprotectedWoodFrame

Construction Type

Freq

uenc

y of

Fire

Ext

ensi

on b

eyon

dRo

om o

f Orig

in p

er F

ire (%

) Figure 2. Frequency of Fire Spread beyond Room of Origin per Fire vs.Construction Type


may be a surrogate measure of multipleattributes such as sprinkler protectionand other life safety factors that affectfire spread, but from a statistical per-spective, this predictive model can beconsidered statistically significant.

Correlating Construction Type withProperty Damage

In addition to life safety, the goal ofbuilding codes is to protect property.Using a similar approach, it is possibleto establish a property protection riskbenchmark for each construction type.Figure 3 is a graph of average propertydamage per fire for one- to six-storyapartment buildings of various construc-tion types. As might be expected, fire-resistive construction suffers the leastamount of damage per fire, $4,000, andunprotected wood frame constructionsuffers the most, $11,000. A best-fit, re-gression line through the data shows anR-squared value of 0.975. The graphwas created by dividing the total directproperty damage per construction typeby the total number of fires in that con-struction type yielding the averageproperty damage per fire.

While the trend of increasing averageproperty damage is not surprising, thestrength or precision of the relationshipis impressive. The strength of the rela-tionship provides strong support foruse of the data for developing propertyprotection risk benchmarks using thisapproach. For example, the averageproperty damage of $4,700 for pro-tected noncombustible constructioncould be used as the property protec-tion risk benchmark to evaluate theability of enhanced fire protection fea-tures in a protected Ordinary buildingto reduce average property damagefrom $7,000 to $4,700.

Correlating Construction Type withFire-Related Deaths

Based on Figures 1 and 2, it wouldseem reasonable to expect that the fre-quency of death per fire will increasefor lesser construction types. Figure 3appears to strongly reinforce the hier-archical ranking of construction typesin relation to fire hazard. Figure 4 is agraph of the risk of death per fire ver-sus construction type in one- to six-

story apartment buildings. The graphwas created by dividing the number ofdeaths by the total number of fires foreach construction type. A best-fit linethrough the data shows an increase inthe risk of death per fire for lesser con-struction types. However, the R-squared value for this line is 0.498 andsuggests a weak-to-moderate degreeof predictive precision.

Figure 4 indicates that, while there isa positive upward trend, there are fac-tors other than construction type thatmore strongly influence and explain thefrequency of death than constructiontype only. Use of a multiple regressionanalysis considering sprinklers, smokedetection, or other features wouldlikely result in a better predictive modelfor estimating the risk of death per fire.Although the relationship between con-struction type and risk of death per fireis not as strong as fire spread and prop-erty damage previously discussed, Fig-ure 4 still provides a useful tool for

comparative analysis and establishing arisk benchmark. ▲

Edward Fixen is with Schirmer Engi-neering Corporation.

REFERENCES

1 Watts, J., and Hall, J., “Introduction toFire Risk Analysis,” SFPE Handbook ofFire Protection Engineering, 3rd Edition,National Fire Protection Association,Quincy, MA, 2002.

2 Hall, J., and Harwood, B., “The NationalEstimates Approach to U.S. Fire Statistics,”Fire Technology, May 1989, pp. 99-113.

3 Clarke, F., Bukowski, R., Stiefel, S., Hall, J.,and Steele, S., The National Fire RiskAssessment Research Project Final Report,The National Fire Protection ResearchFoundation, Quincy, MA, July 1990.

4 NFPA 901. “Standard Classifications forIncident Reporting and Fire ProtectionData,” National Fire ProtectionAssociation, Quincy, MA, 2001.

■ Developing Stakeholder Consensus

R2 = 0.9756

0

4000

2000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

Fire-Resistive

ProtectedNon-

combustible

UnprotectedNon-

combustible

ProtectedOrdinary

UnprotectedOrdinary

HeavyTimber

ProtectedWoodFrame


Construction Type

Aver

age

Prop

erty

Dam

age

($)

R2 = 0.491

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

Fire-Resistive

ProtectedNon-

combustible

UnprotectedNon-

combustible

ProtectedOrdinary

UnprotectedOrdinary

HeavyTimber

ProtectedWoodFrame


Construction Type

Freq

uenc

y of

Dea

th p

er F

ire (%

)

Figure 3. Average Property Damage per Fire vs. Construction Type

Figure 4. Deaths per Fire vs. Construction Type


Emergency Lighting Monitoring

Determined to ensure the quality of itslightning conductors, INDELEC has setup a new test system using real lightconditions at a facility in Brazil.According to the company, it is theonly Electronically Activated StreamerEmission manufacturer to use this typeof test, which makes it possible toobtain more conclusive results, due to the differences between an elec-tric arc from natural lightning and an artificial electric arc.

www.indelec.com—INDELEC

Oseco has improved low-pressure reliability with therelease of its new PRO(Precision Reverse-Operating)Rupture Disk. The PRO,developed for liquid or vaporenvironments, features low burst pressures in a single-membrane con-figuration. The disk offers temperature service of up to 900°F and isguaranteed for operating pressures up to 90% of the disk rating.

www.oseco.com—Osceo

Xtest™ Emergency Systems aredesigned to ease the process of main-taining life safety lighting. They areself-diagnostic and self-testing; thetechnology combines a micro-con-troller and surface-mount chip tech-nology to accurately and effectively

allow for complete control. Because Xtest can signal the failure of asingle LED lamp in an exit sign, it ensures the exit will remain evenlyilluminated and meet code-specific light output requirements.

www.dcolighting.com—Day-Brite Lighting

Dry Type Sprinkler GuidelinesTyco Fire & Building Products announcesthe availability of a technical analysis forthe “Use and Maintenance of Dry TypeSprinklers.” Produced after completion ofan extensive analysis of the design, use,and maintenance of dry type sprinklers, theguidelines are available for free upon directrequest or may be downloaded from theTyco Web site.

www.tyco-fire.com—Tyco Fire & Building Products

Astaris’ Phos-Check fire retardants and foamsare used in many applications, includingbattles against wild land fires. Once thepowder form is mixed with water, it becomes the familiar red liquidthat is dropped from planes and helicopters to extinguish stubbornfires. Phos-Check’s retardants meet stringent corrosion requirements forcritical magnesium components in helicopters with fixed tanks.

www.astaris.com—Astaris LLC

FM-Approved Preassembled UnitsViking announces FM approval on the TotalPacproduct line. According to Viking, TotalPac is thefirst fully UL-listed and FM-approved integrated fireprotection system. TotalPac units are compact andcome fully assembled with individual serial num-bers, which are kept in a database for easy mainte-nance and reference for many years. Each system issubjected to water and air pressure tests, and eachfunction and every component are tested and certi-fied before shipping.

www.vikingcorp.com—The Viking Corporation

New Testing for Lightning Conductors

New System Sensor literature focuses onSpectrAlert® ceiling- and wall-mounted firenotification products that feature low-drawelectrical circuitry for energy-efficienthorn/strobe/speaker systems that are easy toinstall and synchronize. A complete specifi-cation table with product name/model number spans two pages of thefoldout, which makes for a handy reference guide.

www.systemsensor.com—System Sensor

New SpectrAlert® LiteratureFire Retardants/Foams

PRO Rupture Disk

SimplexGrinnell delivers application-specific inte-grated security solutions for healthcare, educa-tion, office towers, manufacturing, technology,and other vertical markets. Examples of solutionsinclude complete environmental control systems that can integrateemergency communications, paging, access control, and occupant andasset monitoring. Solutions may include direction-control systems, van-dal-resistant video, and more.

www.simplexgrinnell.com —SimplexGrinnell

Specialized IntegratedSecurity Capabilities

Products/Literature


New Nursecall Systems

The UniNet 2000 integrates fire, security,access control, and CCTV on a singlenetwork. UL-listed for fire, safety, andaccess control, it is designed with newfeatures and options offering operatorsintegrated networking with a compre-hensive interface for diverse systems. Itsstate-of-the-art client-server technologyallows easy upward migration as new features become available andcan also monitor non-NOTIFIER fire alarm panels.

www.notifier.com —NOTIFIER

Pilkington Pyrostop™ Fire-ResistantGlass has been UL-tested andapproved for a 45-minute fire rating.Typical applications include high-activity areas such as recreationaland indoor court facilities in schools,

colleges, and health clubs. Specific applications include transoms, win-dows, and doors, including hollow metal doors. Pyrostop™ is approvedfor 45-, 60-, 90-, and 120-applications, and maximum areas of 4,500square inches.

www.us.pilkington.com —Pilkington North America, Inc.

Free CD-ROM Highlights Product LineSystem Sensor has released a MAC- orWindows-compatible, interactiveEoDOCS™ CD-ROM, which is free toqualified individuals. It includes infor-mation about Innovair™ Duct SmokeDetectors, as well as product datasheets, installation manuals, part num-bers, UL two-wire compatibility listings,

agency listings, and a full-line product catalog.www.systemsensor.com

—System Sensor

BlazeMaster® CPVC pipe and fittings arenow listed by UL-Canada (ULC) for use inunfinished basements with exposed solidwood joist installations in accordancewith NFPA 13D; in exposed system risersin accordance with NFPA 13D and 13R;and for use with listed light-hazard,quick-response, extended-coverage sprin-

klers that may be installed without protection (exposed).www.blazemaster.com

—BlazeMaster® Fire Sprinkler Systems

Web-Based MonitoringUniNet™ Online is a Web-based service designed to offer facilitymanagers convenient access to infor-mation on building systems integrat-ed on the UniNet network. Via theInternet or an intranet, facility man-agers may monitor systems such asfire, security, CCTV, card access, andmore – all from one main source.Operators may view event informa-tion and track system history, whether on- or off-site.

www.notifier.com —NOTIFIER

Integrated Networking

The Radionics D6600 NetCom Systemhas a patented design that allows it tohandle alarm communications fromalmost all manufacturers’ alarm panels.It uses the Internet and private intranetsfor reporting over local and wide areanetworks. In addition to reducing signal reporting time from minutes tomilliseconds, the D6600 provides cost-effective, real-time supervision ofthe reporting path that is unavailable with telephone dialers and mostother existing forms of alarm communication technologies.

www.boschsecurity.us —Bosch Security Systems

Fast Reporting Via Internet/IntranetsCPVC Pipe Now ULC-Listed

Fire-Resistant Glass

The Filtrex™ Smoke Detector is a speciallyenclosed intelligent photoelectric smokedetector. The sealed enclosure contains twohigh-density air filters that capture dust, dirt,and water spray while allowing smoke topass through the sensor. A small fan drawsin filtered air samples. One filter is field-cleanable, and the other is permanent toprotect the sensing chamber. Internal circuitry can detect a clogged fil-ter or fan failure. May be interior-ceiling or wall-mounted.

www.systemsensor.com —System Sensor

Filtering Indoor Smoke DetectorEdwards Systems Technology announces twonew nursecall systems. The StaffCallPropatient/staff communication system is a net-workable platform engineered to provide aflexible and cost-effective audio and visualcommunications solution in healthcare settings.The StaffAlert tone-visual nursecall systemoffers a reliable means of providing call andstaff presence annunciation in a simple-to-install and easy-to-use con-figuration. Benefits include greater caregiver mobility, enhanced patientsafety, and improved overall patient satisfaction.

www.est.net —Edwards Systems Technology


Society of Fire

Protection Engineers

Spring Professional

Development Week

March 24-27, 2003

SeminarsPrinciples of Fire Protection EngineeringThis ten-session, four-day seminar will review the basics of fire protectionengineering. Topics include combustion, fire endurance, material applica-tions, sprinkler system developments, and much more.

Fire Alarm Systems DesignThis three-day seminar will address equipment selection, systems design,specification writing, and performance-based design concepts, and devel-opment of inspection, maintenance, and training programs.

Changes to NFPA 72 and 13This seminar will provide highlights of all the major changes made to thecodes in 2002 along with useful information to incorporate the changes infire alarm system designs and installation of sprinkler systems, respectively.

Tenability Systems for Smoke ManagementThis seminar will provide information about smoke management systemsdesigned to maintain tenable conditions. The five subject areas covered aredesign fires and Heat Release Rate (HRR), tenability, people movement,smoke transport, and CONTAMW.

Performance-Based Design and the CodesThis one-day seminar will review in detail the performance-based designprocess and its application with the ICC Performance Code for Buildingsand Facilities, and the performance options in the NFPA Life Safety Codeand the NFPA Building Construction ans Safety Code.

Sprinkler Design for EngineersAspects of both introductory and advanced sprinkler system design for en-gineers will be reviewed in this four-day seminar. Topics include design approaches, water supply, sprinkler spacing, fire pumps, hydraulic calcula-tions, and much more.

Introduction to Fire Dynamics Simulator and SmokeviewThe Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS) is the newest model developed by NIST,consisting of two programs – FDS and Smokeview. Review the features andapplication of this model, as well as its strengths and weaknesses.

How to Study for the FPE/P.E. ExamPrepare for the FPE/P.E. Exam! Formulate preparation strategies, obtain anoverview of the exam process and technical scope, discuss resource materi-als, and determine the solution to sample problems from each of the eighttechnical areas.

For detailed information, visit us at www.sfpe.org or e-mail us at [email protected].

Resources

Continuing education is essential in

today’s fast-changing workplace. To meet

the demands of our Members, Allied Pro-

fessionals, and, increasingly, state licensing

boards, the SFPE Spring Professional

Development Week (PDW) will be held in

Las Vegas from March 24-27, 2003.

A total of eight seminars, ranging from

an Introduction to the Fire Dynamics

Simulator and Smokeview Computer

Model to Sprinkler Design for Engineers,

will be offered. These intensive four days

will provide the construction community

with state-of-the-art training in Fire

Protection Engineering from beginner to

advanced levels. Continuing Education

Units will be granted for all completed

events.

Detailed information on each course

may be found on SFPE’s Web site,

www.sfpe.org, or by contacting Julie Gor-

don, Program Manager, at Headquarters at

301.718.2910.


ResourcesUPCOMING EVENTS

February 25-27, 2003Workshop on Fire Suppression TechnologiesMobile, ALInfo: [email protected]

February 26-18, 2003Fire Asia 2003Hong KongInfo: [email protected]

March 24-27, 2003SFPE Spring Professional Development WeekLas Vegas, NVInfo: www.SFPE.org

April 6-8, 2003Taipei International Exhibition on Fire, Safety, &

Disaster ManagementTaipei, TaiwanInfo: www.secutech.com

May 8-10, 2003Strategies for Performance in the Aftermath of the

World Trade CenterKuala Lampur, MalasiaInfo: www.cibklutm.com

May 18-22, 2003NFPA World Safety Conference and ExpositionDallas, TXInfo: www.nfpa.org

June 8-13, 2003Third Mediterranean Combustion SymposiumMarrakech, MoroccoInfo: www.combustioninstitute.it

June 22-25, 200313th World Conference on Disaster ManagementToronto, CanadaInfo: www.wcdm.org

August 20-22, 20032nd International Conference in Pedestrian and Evacuation

Dynamics (PED)Greenwich, LondonInfo: http://fseg.gre.ac.uk/ped2003/

September 8-12, 20034th International Seminar on Fire and Explosion HazardsNorthern Ireland, UKInfo: www.engj.ulst.ac.uk/4thisfeh/

September 22-25, 20036th Asia-Oceania Symposium on Fire Science and TechnologyInfo: [email protected]


Ansul Incorporated .....................................Page 14

BlazeMaster® Fire Sprinkler Systems ..........Page 37

Chemetron Fire Systems .............................Page 28

Chemguard ..................................................Page 51

Commercial Products Group ......................Page 43

DecoShield Systems, Inc. ............................Page 36

Detection Systems, Inc................................Page 13

Edwards Systems Technology...............Page 26-27

Gast Manufacturing, Inc..............................Page 25

Grice Engineering........................................Page 29

Harrington Signal ........................Inside Back Cover

Kidde Fire Fighting .....................................Page 25

Koffel Associates, Inc..................................Page 47

Potter Electric Signal Company ..................Page 49

Reliable Automatic Sprinkler ......................Page 19

Ruskin ..........................................................Page 36

Siemens Building Technologies, Inc.

Fire Safety Division.....................................Page 7

SimplexGrinnell .............................................Page 4

System Sensor ................................................Page 2

The RJA Group...........................Inside Front Cover

Tyco Fire Products.................................Back Cover

Vision Fire & Safety.....................................Page 21

Wheelock, Inc..............................................Page 32

Index ofAdvertisers

CORPORATE 100

Solution to last issue’s brainteaserYou have six weights. One pair is red, one pair is white, and one pair is blue. In

each pair, one weight is slightly heavier than the other, but otherwise looks exactlylike its mate. The three heavier weights all weigh the same, as do the three lighterweights.

How can you identify the heavier weights in only two separate weighings on abalance scale?

Place a red weight and a white weight on one side of the scale and a red weightand a blue weight on the other side. Either the scale will balance or it will not.

If the scale balances, one of the weights that is not red is light and the other isheavy. Now compare the red weights. The heavy red weight was with the lightwhite weight or light blue weight in the first weighing. The light red weight was withthe heavy white weight or heavy blue weight. All weights are then determined.

If the scale does not balance, whichever side is heavier has the heavy red weight.The three possibilities are:

1. RHWH > RLBH

2. RHWH > RLBL

3. RHWL > RLBL

Now, compare the two red weights with the other two weights already on thescale. If the red weights are lighter, then case 1 is determined. If the red weights arethe same, then case 2 is determined. Otherwise, if the red weights are heavier, thencase 3 is determined.

Water discharges through an Underwriters playpipe with a 29 mm diameternozzle. The playpipe is oriented at a 45° angle to the horizontal. A pitotgauge measures the velocity pressure at the nozzle discharge as 200 kPa. Ifthe playpipe is located on a level surface, how far from the nozzle will thestream land?

B R A I N T E A S E R The SFPE Corporate 100 Program was founded in 1976to strengthen the relationship between industry and thefire protection engineering community. Membership inthe program recognizes those who support the objec-tives of SFPE and have a genuine concern for the safetyof life and property from fire.

BENEFACTORSRolf Jensen & Associates, Inc.

PATRONSCode Consultants, Inc.Edwards Systems TechnologyHughes Associates, Inc.The Reliable Automatic Sprinkler CompanySchirmer Engineering CorporationSimplexGrinnell

DONORSGage-Babcock & Associates, Inc.National Fire Protection AssociationUnderwriters Laboratories, Inc.

MEMBERSAltronix CorporationArup FireAutomatic Fire Alarm AssociationBFPE InternationalCybor Fire Protection CompanyFM Global CorporationFire Suppression Systems AssociationGE Global Asset Protection ServicesHarrington Group, Inc.HSB Professional Loss ControlHubbell Industrial ControlsJames W. Nolan Company (Emeritus)Koffel Associates, Inc.Marsh Risk ConsultingNational Electrical Manufacturers AssociationNational Fire Sprinkler AssociationNuclear Energy InstituteThe Protectowire Co., Inc.Reliable Fire Equipment CompanyRisk Technologies LLCTVA Fire and Lifesafety, Inc.Tyco Services, PtyWheelock, Inc.W.R. Grace Company

SMALL BUSINESS MEMBERSBourgeois & Associates, Inc.Demers Associates, Inc.Fire Consulting Associates, Inc.Grainger Consulting, Inc.J.M. Cholin Consultants, Inc.MountainStar EnterprisesPoole Fire Protection Engineering, Inc.Risk Logic, Inc.S.S. Dannaway & Associates, Inc.The Code Consortium, Inc.Van Rickley & Associates


public’s best interest above the interest ofothers, including clients. Historically, finan-cial auditors and engineers were trusted bythe public to police themselves, which wasdone through licensing or certification andthrough development, and if need beenforcement, of codes of ethics by theirrespective professional organizations.

In the cases of Enron and Worldcom,auditors did not reveal accounting irregu-larities that resulted in people outside ofthese companies having an incompletepicture of the financial conditions. Whenthe facts were revealed, investors, employ-ees, and financial markets suffered.

In the wake of the collapse of thesecompanies, the public began to lose trustin the financial auditing profession. Thepublic lost confidence in the ability of theaccounting industry to police itself, and inthe United States, the federal governmentwas directed to publish rules of profession-al conduct for financial auditors. Similarly,a government board was created and giventhe power to set auditing rules, inspectaccounting firms, and punish people whodid not follow the rules. These actions rep-resent a major shift for the financial profes-sion, from a system of self-regulation to asystem of government regulation.

The individual auditors of Enron andWorldcom undoubtedly faced moral dilem-mas in the conduct of their work. Theymay have received pressure from clients orsupervisors to take actions that were not inaccordance with standard accounting prac-tices. The auditors may have been temptedby promises of financial reward if theyreached certain conclusions. Or they mayhave feared repercussions if their reportsdid not meet real or perceived expectations.

As engineers, we may face similar pres-sures. The classic engineering ethics caseof the Citicorp tower in New York can beused to examine the type of moral dilem-ma that an engineer might face by havingto tell clients bad news or risking a per-sonal reputation. The lot in New Yorkupon which the Citicorp tower was builtcame with an unusual constraint, whichrequired cantilevering a portion of theCiticorp building over a church.1

William LeMessurier was the structuralengineer for the building, and to accom-

modate the constraint posed by the lot, hedesigned the main structural supports atthe middle of the tower’s walls, instead ofthe corners. After the tower was built, aninquiry from a student who was studyingLeMessurier’s design prompted LeMessurierto analyze the effect of quartering winds,or winds that impact the building at a 45°angle to one of the building’s exteriorwalls.

LeMessurier’s calculations revealed high-er stresses in quartering winds in some ofthe structural members and joints than hehad originally determined. This was exac-erbated by a change from welded connec-tions to bolted connections during fabrica-tion. Ultimately, it was determined that thebuilding was vulnerable to total collapse ina 16-year storm. The public inside andaround the building was exposed to ahigher-than-assumed risk. With this knowl-edge, LeMessurier commenced efforts tocorrect the problem in the building,including contacting the building’s owner,the building owner’s insurance company,and regulatory officials. After correctivemeasures were implemented, the buildingwas determined to be able to withstand a750-year storm.

Although he risked his reputation incoming forward, it can be argued that hisstanding in the structural engineering com-munity was elevated by his decision.Interestingly, despite having to make alarge payment, LeMessurier’s professionalliability insurance premiums decreased asa result of his actions. If he had made adifferent choice in the face of this moraldilemma, the outcome could have beenmuch different.

As engineers, we may be faced withmoral dilemmas similar to those faced byEnron’s or Worldcom’s auditors, or tothose faced by William LeMessurier.However, the lessons of Enron andWorldcom serve as a reminder that if wemake a wrong choice, we as individualscan suffer, as well as the profession andthe public at large.

1 Whitbeck, C., Ethics in Engineering Practiceand Research, Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, UK, 1998.

What Can We Learn from Enron and Worldcom?

Morgan J. Hurley, P.E.Technical DirectorSociety of Fire Protection Engineers

from the technical director

Although the dust has begun to set-tle, for awhile the daily newspa-pers were filled with stories of

unethical accounting practices. While theseinstances identified in the newspapersundoubtedly involved only a very smallfraction of accounting professionals, theimpact to the financial industry and thepublic at large was tremendous. In thewake of these scandals, billions of dollarsof market capitalization were erased,careers and companies were ruined, andinvestors lost significant investments. Therepercussions of these lapses were feltaround the globe. So what can the engi-neering community learn from theseevents?

Financial auditors review accountingand financial records to evaluate whetherthey conform to accepted industry prac-tices. The purpose of a financial audit is toprovide independent oversight of privateentities so that others, including regulatorsand investors, will have confidence infinancial records and statements.

Financial auditors and engineers haveseveral things in common, including hav-ing specialized knowledge that the publicat large does not possess and possessingthe public’s trust that they will hold the