Fire Safety

Engineering
The Methods Report
Comparison of International Fire Safety Engineering Guidelines, Fire Safety Verification Methods
and Practice Guides

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Warren Centre extends our gratitude to those individuals, government agencies, professional
organisations, and corporations who shared their views and insights for this report.

AUTHORS OTHERS INVOLVED IN THE PROJECT

• David Lange – The University of Queensland, Aust. • Document Review Workshop: Ashley Brinson,
• Jose Torero – University College London Melanie De Gioia, Peter Johnson, Andres Osorio,
• Andres Osorio – The University of Queensland Cristian Maluk Zedan, Jose Torero Cullen, David Lange,
• Nate Lobel – ARUP Juan Hidalgo Medina, Gavin Carballo, Nate Lobel,
• Cristian Maluk – The University of Queensland Brad (Hanyang) Liu, Bruce Watson, Damien Flynn,
• Juan Hidalgo – The University of Queensland Ian Dart, Jeff Wood, John Hewitt, Jonathan Barnett,
Marianne Foley, Mark Whybro, Max Towns, Melissa
SPONSORS TO DATE Chandler, Michael Wynn-Jones, Richard Kell, Shahil
• Alan Wilson Insurance Brokers Lal, Stephen Kip, Time Spies, Wayne Smith, Tobias
• ARUP Salomonsson, Jon Luey
• Aurecon
• Peer Review: Greg du Chateau, Michael Conway,
• Fire & Rescue NSW
Victoria Building Authority, AFAC Built Environment
• RED Fire Engineers
Technical Group, Mark Tatum, Peter Johnson
• Scientific Fire Services
• Tasmania Justice Department
• Victorian Building Authority

Authors attending 5 Feb 2019 Fire Safety Engineering Seminar, hosted at University of Sydney. L to R: Jose Torero (UCL);
Christian Maluk (UQ); Andres Osorio (UQ); David Lange (UQ); Nate Lobel (ARUP); Juan Hidalgo (UQ).

ABOUT THE WARREN CENTRE FIRE SAFETY ENGINEERING PROJECT

The Warren Centre brings industry, government and This is the second research project of The Warren
academia together to create thought leadership in Centre at the University of Sydney relating to Fire Safety
engineering, technology, and innovation. We constantly Engineering. The first project in 1989 paved the way
challenge economic, legal, environmental, social and for the creation of the Fire Code Reform Centre to co-
political paradigms to open possibilities for innovation ordinate fire research nationally in 1994 and gave major
and technology and build a better future. impetus to the development of the performance-based
Building Code of Australia, published in 1996. This
The Warren Centre advocates for the importance of current Warren Centre Project on fire safety engineering
science, technology and innovation. Our 30 years’ will address many of the major challenges facing
experience of leading the conversation through projects, governments, regulatory authorities and practitioners in
promotion, and independent advice drives Australian relation to fire safety engineering and community safety
entrepreneurship and economic growth. in buildings.

The Warren Centre promotes excellence in innovation This is the third report issued in this current series.
through delivering collaborative projects, supporting The report Current Status of Education, Training and
and recognising innovators across the profession, Stated Competencies, the “Education Report”, issued in
and providing independent advice to government and January 2019.
industry.

For more information about the Warren Centre visit

www.thewarrencentre.org.au

For enquiries about this report please email: warrenc@sydney.edu.au

 Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................. 2 9. APPENDIX 2: THE IFEG ....................... 50
9.1. WHAT ARE THEY? ....................................... 51
1. INTRODUCTION .................................... 8
9.2. WHAT INFORMATION IS IN THEM?............ 52

2. COMPONENTS OF A 9.2.1. Part 1: The Fire Safety

PERFORMANCE-BASED REGULATORY Engineering Process ...................................52
ENVIRONMENT .................................. 12
9.2.2. Part 2: Methodologies .................................53

3. THE DESIGN PROCESS ........................ 14 9.2.3. Part 3: Data .................................................53

3.1. THE DESIGN PROCESS ............................. 16 9.3. WHAT DO THEY ACHIEVE? ........................ 54

3.2. THE VERIFICATION PROCESS .................. 17 9.4. INCORPORATING THE IFE GUIDELINES
INTO REGULATIONS ................................... 55
3.3. THE DESIGN PROCESS IN FIRE
SAFETY ENGINEERING .............................. 19
10. APPENDIX 3: PRACTICE GUIDES ........ 58
3.4. VERIFICATION IN FIRE SAFETY
10.1. SFPE HANDBOOK FOR FIRE
ENGINEERING ............................................. 26
PROTECTION ENGINEERING .................. 59

4. DTS AS A PERFORMANCE 10.2. SFS PRACTICE GUIDES ........................... 59

REQUIREMENT FOR VERIFICATION ..... 28
10.3. LOCAL GOVERNMENTS’ GUIDES
AND PRACTICE NOTES ............................ 60
5. THE ROLE OF IFEG, PRACTICE
GUIDES AND THE VERIFICATION
METHODS IN DESIGN ......................... 32 11. APPENDIX 4: EXAMPLES OF
PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS
5.1. THE ROLE OF THE FSVM ........................... 34 FROM OTHER JURISDICTIONS .......... 62
5.2. THE ROLE OF THE IFEG ............................ 35 11.1. AUSTRALIA................................................. 63
5.3. THE ROLE OF PRACTICE GUIDES ............ 36 11.2. THE UNITED KINGDOM ............................ 63

11.2.1. England .....................................................63

6. CONCLUSIONS ................................... 38
11.2.2. Scotland ....................................................64

7. GLOSSARY OF TERMS ......................... 42 11.3. NEW ZEALAND .......................................... 64

8. APPENDIX 1: THE ABCB FIRE SAFETY

VERIFICATION METHODS .................... 46
8.1. WHAT ARE THEY? ....................................... 47

8.2. WHAT DO THEY TRY TO ACHIEVE? .......... 49

TO DOWNLOAD ADDITIONAL REPORTS

IN THIS SERIES AND TO GET THE LATEST PROJECT UPDATES
FROM THE WARREN CENTRE ON FIRE SAFETY ENGINEERING VISIT
HTTPS://INFO.THEWARRENCENTRE.ORG.AU/FIRESAFETY/ Fire Safety Engineering The Methods Report Page 1
 Executive Summary

THIS IS THE REPORT INTO TASK 2.1.1 project to develop detailed specifications of
OF THE WARREN CENTRE PROJECT an artefact that performs the required function
INTO FIRE SAFETY ENGINEERING. given in the design brief. Drivers are defined
THE REPORT DISCUSSES THE UTILITY by the stakeholders of a project, including,

Executive AND BENEFIT OF THE INTERNATIONAL

FIRE SAFETY ENGINEERING
GUIDELINES (IFEG), FIRE SAFETY
VERIFICATION METHODS (FSVM),
e.g. sustainability, cost, or safety drivers;
constraints are defined by the external world
and may include, e.g. material performance
or soft constraints related to the limits of

Summary AND PRACTICE GUIDES ISSUED BY

VARIOUS PROFESSIONAL BODIES.

The role of all of these supporting materials

knowledge and technical ability.

The specifications for the artefact that is the

outcome of the design process are such
in fire safety engineering design, analysis that the proposed artefact represents an
and assessment of adequacy is discussed. optimised balance between these drivers and
Shortcomings or other risks associated with constraints, whilst delivering the functionality
the use of an FSVM, an updated IFEG, or a required of it. The process of achieving this
set of Practice Guides are identified. Before balance, the design process, may utilise
this can be done however, a detailed review any combination of guidelines or tools, as
of the design and verification process in fire deemed suitable by the designer. In certain
safety engineering is undertaken. The report environments, there is an onus on the
then highlights how the use of each approach designer to demonstrate suitability of the tools
could impact the fire safety engineering design chosen to carry out this process as well as
of buildings. to use these tools responsibly and within the
bounds of the designer’s own competence
The design process is a process exercised by (respecting the constraints of their own
a designer in response to a design brief. (In ability) and the applicability of the tools. In fire
the case of engineering design this designer safety engineering, the desired level of safety
is an engineer.) The process balances imposed by the stakeholders represents a
constraints and drivers associated with a driver in the design process.

Fire Safety Engineering The Methods Report Page 3

Executive Summary Executive Summary

Verification is a separate process from the be verified to meet these levels of safety in a
design process, undertaken by a verifier. The separate process. At this point, however, the Codes define the societal goals, the functional
verifier may be, but does not have to be, a practice of design and verification in fire safety
separate individual or entity to the designer. engineering becomes confused in Australia
requirements and the performance objectives.
The purpose of verification is to demonstrate and in many other countries. These may represent some of the drivers or
based on available evidence that specific
drivers or constraints have been respected. Verification methods for fire safety typically constraints to which a design is forced to adhere.
prescribe specific scenarios against which a
In the case of engineering, verification is
design should be checked. This method of
Guidelines describe accepted methods or means
typically applied to codified requirements and
is used to prove that the artefact specifications verification inevitably influences the design of developing a design.
resulting from the design process meet these process because the scenarios are a function
requirements. of the design (i.e. the Fire Safety Strategy).
Reference to the verification methods for
In fire safety engineering for buildings, fire safety engineering in the NCC 2019 in
the product of the design process is the Australia perpetuates this. The result is that,
specification of a Fire Safety Strategy (the whilst the FSVM defines a minimum number
specific design. As discussed elsewhere, this Performance Solution, or via a combination
artefact) for a building that conforms to the of scenarios, other scenarios may not be
approach often results in the lowest common of DtS and Performance Solutions. In the
drivers and constraints specific to the project, considered in the verification process, and
denominator for safety becoming the expected regulatory environment described above, the
including an agreed level of safety. The those scenarios considered might not be
and accepted standard. New challenges need DtS Solution is a tool which can be used by the
specifications for this artefact should then appropriate given the characteristics of a
not be addressed, and emerging risks need person specifying a Fire Safety Strategy (who
not be considered. Clearly this situation is should ideally be a competent Fire Safety
Verification is a separate process from the design process in fire safety engineering.
unacceptable. Engineer) in much the same way as the tools
required for development of a Performance
A performance-based regulatory environment
Solution are.
should include as a minimum three main
components: i) codes, ii) guidelines and iii) When adopting a DtS Solution the onus
evaluation / design tools. Codes define the is therefore on the person specifying the
societal goals, the functional requirements components of the Fire Safety Strategy to
and the performance objectives. These may demonstrate that the building described in the
represent some of the drivers or constraints to design brief falls within the classifications of
which a design is forced to adhere. Guidelines the building code that permits the adoption
describe accepted methods or means of
of that DtS Solution. This is where the need
developing a design. They may be referred
for verification lies. The DtS Solutions,
to in the codes, although they do not have to
ideally, should have been shown elsewhere
be. The evaluation / design tools are tools that
to meet the Performance Requirements of
are used to quantify the results of the design
the building code, and thus there is no need
process and to develop specifications for
for further verification. When developing a
an artefact; and/or to verify that the artefact
Performance Solution for fire safety, however,
meets the required performance as dictated
there is significant breadth in the availability
by the societal goals described in the code.
of approaches and tools for undertaking the
Meeting the Performance Requirements of design process, and thus there is a need for
the NCC/BCA in Australia can be achieved explicit verification that the artefact specified
via three routes, via adopting a Deemed meets the Performance Requirements as
to Satisfy (DtS) Solution, via developing a defined by the code.

Page 4 The Warren Centre Fire Safety Engineering The Methods Report Page 5
Executive Summary Executive Summary

The 2019 version of the NCC contains developed by various building code authorities
only functional requirements. These are around the world, and Practice Guides issued
nominally referred to as Performance by the Society of Fire Safety (SFS) and others
Requirements, however they are worded in issued by organisations such as SFPE and
such a way that verification of performance state and territory authorities.
against them is impossible. Thus, when
exercising a Performance Solution, the level In the performance-based regulatory
of safety provided by an artefact that is environment described, the FSVM, if it is to
specified according to the nearest available form a part of the regulatory environment,
classification that enables a DtS Solution is should ideally fit into the third component,
the de facto performance requirement. This as an evaluation tool for the purposes of
is incorrect, since the DtS Solutions have verification of the design and Fire Safety
never been shown to provide an adequate Strategy. However, at present, by influencing
level of safety for a building outside of the the design process and perpetuating the
related classification. This is a product of use of a DtS Solution as a benchmark level
the retention of prescriptive solutions in of safety, it traverses the three parts of this
the performance-based building code and environment and tries to serve the purpose
regulatory environment as these evolved from of both a code and a guideline as well as an
a prescriptive framework without a return to evaluation tool.
first principles of the design process. The DtS
The IFEG should fit into the second component,
Solution is currently therefore not only a tool
as a guideline that is referenced in the code.
available for the designer but is also confused
Thus, it should be supported by and updated
with Performance Requirements.
by regulatory authorities who rely on its use. Controlled phasing out of old editions, such as IFEG 2005, is recommended.
Further, as indicated above, the NCC/BCA It should provide support for the fire safety
permits a partial solution, with the adoption of engineer in the use and appropriateness of
a DtS Solution for some aspects of the Fire tools and well as potential design approaches.
Safety Strategy, and the development of a At present the IFEG largely fulfil this role,
Conclusions and recommendations arising 3. That the FSVM be revised such that it
Performance Solution for other aspects. This although they are in need of revision.
from this report are summarised thus: respects the independence of the design
represents a deconstruction of the overall process and that it adequately verifies that
The role of Practice Guides and Notes 1. That the Performance Requirements
Fire Safety Strategy that obstructs the overall the Performance Requirements are met.
developed by the SFS and others is more in the NCC/BCA be revisited and that
objective which is normally related to life
obscure. They are not referenced in the NCC/ the de facto use of a DtS Solution as an 4. That the IFEG be updated and that a
safety of the occupants or firefighters. Thus,
BCA, and thus could fall under the classification evaluation tool for an acceptable level of controlled phasing out of old editions be
the Fire Safety Strategy as a whole is never
of guidelines, or arguably design or evaluation safety be carefully reviewed. This must undertaken regardless of the timeline for
subject to verification.
tools for fire safety engineering. However, it is be done in such a way that Performance updating.
There exist three types of documents which not clear what the purpose of these Practice Requirements are traceable to societal 5. That the purpose of Practice Guides issued
have been reviewed in this report and which Guides is, and for example the Practice goals and functional requirements. by professional societies and others be
are intended to enable the design process: Guide for facades includes a statement of 2. That the adoption of partial DtS / clarified and that it be ensured that these
verification methods, guidelines and Practice Performance Requirements. Thus, parts of Performance Solutions through separation remain outwardly compatible with existing
Guides. In fire safety these are the Fire Safety it clearly fall under the definition of a code. It of the Fire Safety Strategy into requirements articles of reference.
Verification Method (FSVM) and Handbook must therefore be recognised and reinforced based on individual components be
published by the ABCB, the International that the code should contain the governing prevented and that the holistic nature of
Fire Safety Engineering Guidelines (IFEG) definition of performance requirements. the Fire Safety Strategy be reinforced.

Page 6 The Warren Centre Fire Safety Engineering The Methods Report Page 7
 1. Introduction

Australia needs nationally consistent guidelines for Fire Safety Engineers.

The aim of this Warren Centre Project and its research agenda is to provide a nationally
consistent set of reform proposals to address:

1. Introduction • The most appropriate role or roles for fire

safety engineers in building design and
construction
• Common registration (or licensing) programs
at the state and territory levels
• Common language for adoption of all these
• The most appropriate set of competencies recommendations into state and territory
required for the roles to be undertaken regulations for building and construction.
• The accredited education programs • A plan for transition to full competencies and
and training required to achieve first-tier professionalism, recognising the need to lift
accreditation. standards, but at the same time being able
• The second-tier accreditation with one or ensure there is sufficient supply of fire safety
more professional bodies for fire safety engineers to serve the industry over the
engineers to control competencies transition period.

This report is the third report of the current project and seeks to address the question of the
utility and benefit of the Fire Safety Verification Methods which are currently being adopted into
the regulatory environment here in Australia, as well as the International Fire Safety Engineering
Guidelines and various Practice Notes.

It is anticipated that many of the details of the

review may be transferrable to other jurisdictions
around the world.

Fire Safety Engineering The Methods Report Page 9

1. Introduction 1. Introduction

associated with the use of a FSVM, an • In so doing, the current design and verification
updated IFEG, or a set of Practice Guides process in Fire Safety Engineering needed
highlighting how each could impact on fire to be reviewed. This was to be done from
safety design, fire safety engineering and an Australian perspective; however it is
analysis, and the level of safety of buildings. anticipated that many of the details of
• The study was not required to undertake the review may be transferrable to other
a detailed analysis of the highly technical jurisdictions around the world.
aspects or data inputs within each document This document first outlines the components of
but rather the higher level technical and a performance-based regulatory environment,
general issues related to their application to before reviewing the design and verification
the process of performance-based design in processes in fire safety engineering. It then
Australia and their respective benefits. goes on to discuss the use of DtS solutions as a
• The research for this report was based benchmark for the current level of safety before
on as source materials the current IFEG finally identifying where the FSVM, the IFEG
and proposed FSVM, as well as the ABCB and practice guides fit into the performance-
Summary Report for the FSVM issued based regulatory environment described and
by ABCB, Practice Guides prepared by the one that is in place in Australia. Finally,
Significant changes in materials, safety technologies and fire research necessitate updates SFS, AFAC and others in Australia, recent conclusions and recommendations are drawn.
in engineering methods.
conference papers on verification methods,
and research papers by Dr Brian Meacham
In developing the brief for this report further • However, the IFEG has not been updated
and others.
and in setting a more detailed scope for this since 2005, and there have been significant
research task and report deliverable, the changes to materials, system technologies,
following were considered: and fire research more generally which
• The ABCB has agreed and issued a Fire suggest an update is necessary. It is
Safety Verification Method (FSVM) for understood that ABCB have that IFEG
inclusion in the NCC for 2019 with an update on their agenda.
accompanying FSVM Overview or Handbook • Internationally, only New Zealand has
document. a FSVM within their building code and
• The FSVM has led to concerns by some about regulations, but other countries such as
its technical content and application and as Scotland and Spain are considering the
to whether it is an appropriate methodology introduction of a FSVM, and some countries
which could ensure buildings of adequate like Sweden have a scenario- based fire
safety or not. safety engineering process document.

• Some regulatory authorities, ABCB, AFAC • This study and report were designed to
and others such as SFS already have some examine the structure and process of the
Practice Guides or Notes to assist designers, proposed FSVM and compare them with the
and SFS is looking to provide further detailed process contained in the IFEG for fire safety
Practice Guides for fire safety designers. design and analysis, as well as any relevant
design and analysis processes included in
• Some practitioners have expressed a view
SFPE and other Practice Guides.
that the IFEG should be more strongly
referenced in the NCC or state and territory • The report aims to identify the role played
building regulations as the preferred fire in FSE design and analysis, the utility and The ABCB have proposed an updated FSVM Handbook.
safety engineering process document. the benefits and deficiencies or other risks
Page 10 The Warren Centre Fire Safety Engineering The Methods Report Page 11
 2. Components of a Performance-Based Regulatory Environment

According to Beck in the first Warren Centre compliance), or engineering standards,

project into Fire Safety Engineering1 and to practices tools or methodologies as may be
Meacham in collaboration with the SFPE,2 used for verification of compliance.
a performance-based regulatory system
comprises three components: These components have been further
expanded on and further detail added
• The code or codes, which explicitly state elsewhere,3 however the basic structure
the societal goals (the expectation from remains largely unchanged. Note that the
the building), functional objectives (how DtS, or prescriptive, solution can exist in the
the building or systems function to meet performance-based environment since it has
the goals) and Performance Requirements by definition to be one of many along the
(a statement of the level of performance spectrum of solutions which may be shown to
that must be met in order for the building to meet the explicit Performance Requirements
meet the societal goals and the functional of the code or codes.
objectives) that are a reflection of the
expectations of all relevant stakeholders As was argued in the Education Report (task
in society of the expected level of safety 3.1.1),4 an item in addition to those proposed
provided by a building; by Beck and Meacham is necessary for the

2. Components of • Guidelines, standards or practices that

describe accepted methodologies for
compliance with the code. These may
be referenced in the code but should be
implementation of such a code, and this is a
clear and explicit definition of the knowledge
and attributes necessary for the designer who
is to deliver the Fire Safety Strategy. Given the

a Performance- separate documents; and

• Evaluation and design tools which
comprise accepted methods for assisting
in the development, review and verification
structure of any performance-based regulatory
system and its heavy reliance on competence,
this is an unavoidable requirement.

Based of designs. These may include the

DtS provisions (if these are a route to

Regulatory This has led to the current situation whereby there

Environment is significant confusion as to what constitutes design

and what constitutes verification and where the
boundary between these processes lies.

1
Vaughan Beck, Claude Eaton, Peter Johnson, Ted Merewether, Caird Ramsay, John Richardson, Ross Freeman, Ray Lacey, Hamish MacLennan, Lawrence
Reddaway, Ian Thomas (1989) Fire Safety and Engineering Project Report, the Warren Centre for Advanced Engineering, Sydney
2
Meacham, Brian J.(1997) Concepts of a performance-based building regulatory system for the United States; proceedings of the fifth international symposium
on fire safety science
3
IJRCC (2010) Performance-Based Building Regulatory Systems Principles and Experiences, Brian Meacham (editor)
4
Torero J., Lange, D., Horasan, M., Osorio, A., Maluk, C., Hidalgo, J., Johnson, P., (2019) Current Status of Education, Training and Stated Competencies for
Fire Safety Engineers; The Warren Centre for advanced engineering, Sydney

Fire Safety Engineering The Methods Report Page 13

 3. The Design Process

IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND THE UTILITY AND BENEFIT OF DIFFERENT TOOLS

AVAILABLE TO FIRE SAFETY DESIGNERS AND WHERE THESE FIT INTO THE
REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT, IT IS NECESSARY TO DEFINE THE DESIGN
PROCESS AND TO IDENTIFY WHERE THESE TOOLS FIT INTO THIS PROCESS.

Since the introduction of the first fully these processes lies. There is therefore no
performance-based BCA96 in legislation in recognition of the separation between these
1997, much of what has been labelled “fire two processes. As a consequence of the
safety engineering” has been more akin to current state in Australia, in only a limited
verification of some elements of building number of projects have fire safety engineers
design considered as “Alternative Solutions” worked closely and proactively with architects
or “Performance Solutions”. Often these and engineers to become engaged in all
alternatives to the DtS provisions have been phases of the design process to develop
put forward by architects or building surveyors, creative design solutions, before then going
and fire safety engineers have had a limited on to verify that these proposals meet the
scope to demonstrate that these alternative Performance Requirements of the codes.
design solutions meet the Performance
Requirements. This section discusses the design and

3. The Design This has led to the current situation whereby

there is significant confusion as to what
constitutes design and what constitutes
verification processes in fire safety engineering,
firstly through a review of the design process
itself; followed by the verification process and
then through a discussion of these processes

Process verification and where the boundary between applied to fire safety engineering.

Co-ordination of fire response in urban settings is complex.

Fire Safety Engineering The Methods Report Page 15

3. The Design Process 3. The Design Process

3.1. THE DESIGN PROCESS Every engineering project is subject to specific

“Engineering design is the systematic, intelligent generation and evaluation of specifications for
drivers, or objectives, and constraints.
artefacts whose form and function achieve stated objectives and satisfy specified constraints.” 5

Every engineering project is subject to specific Note that the tools used in the design process
drivers, or objectives, and constraints. Drivers
The design process requires the use of many
different tools that enable the designer to many times serve to simplify the design in 3.2. THE
are quantifiable targets (e.g. functional
specifications, maximum energy efficiency,
structure the drivers and constraints in a
manner such that an optimised solution to the
such a manner that the tool can be confused
with the process. Codes and standards are VERIFICATION
minimum construction time, adequate or
tolerable level of safety, etc.) while constraints
brief is demonstrable. The next step of the
process is therefore for the designer to identify
a tool for the designer. However, in some
cases, these can be so restrictive that the PROCESS
are bounds that need to be respected the tools necessary for the optimisation process of design can become an apparently
minor exercise. For example, the use of span- ISO 9000 defines verification as “confirmation,
(e.g. cost limits, materials that cannot be process. These tools comprise a combination
through the provision of objective evidence,
used, regulatory constraints, constraints of:7 capacity tables in structural engineering is
an example of a simplified process; one that that specified requirements have been
of knowledge, etc.) Design is a process by • a representation of the artefact proposed fulfilled”.9 The ABCB defines a verification
may result in the specification of an artefact
which a designer will address the challenge that allows the design problem including method in simple terms as:
that satisfies specific drivers related to the
of identifying the optimum balance between the drivers and constraints to be recast
factored bending or shear stress applied to an
these often-competing concepts. The accordingly for evaluation; and “A Verification Method is a means of
element whilst respecting constraints related
successful realisation of this process requires • problem-solving techniques that allow the demonstrating that a Performance Solution
to material strength and available section
the consideration of how these drivers and enumeration of various design alternatives. complies with the relevant Performance
sizes from a given manufacturer.
constraints are expressed and how the final Requirement.”10
design may be implemented.6 The outcome of The person exercising the design process, Depending on the problem, the design
In other words, verification is the process
the design process is the detailed specification the designer, is an individual who by training process can be simple and managed by a
or practice has demonstrated the capacity whereby it is proven that any part, or the
of an artefact that successfully balances these single designer or be complex and managed
to design. This not only includes sufficient ensemble, of a system as designed conforms
drivers and constraints. by a team that as an ensemble compiles all
mastery of the tools but also an understanding to its requirements or specifications.11,12 It is
necessary knowledge and attributes. If the
When the designer is presented with the brief of how to balance the drivers and constraints the process of checking that the constraints
object of the design is of such importance and
of a project, the first step of the process is to to deliver and demonstrate in an explicit have been respected while the drivers
complexity, as is the case with buildings, the
identify what are the drivers and constraints. manner an optimal solution. have been achieved.13 The outcome of
designer should be a professional, regulated
the verification process is nothing more
by means of a rigorous assessment of
than confirmation of this.14 If this cannot be
knowledge, skills and attributes. The need
evidenced by verification, then the design
for a process of professional regulation in
process should be iterated. Verification is a
Fire Safety Engineering is discussed in detail
process separate from, or parallel to, design.
in the report into task 3.1.1 (The Education
As a separate process, verification should not
Report) of this Warren Centre project.8 The
influence the design process. Verification is
design process is always the responsibility of
the responsibility of the verifier; who may or
the designer.
may not be a separate entity from the designer.

8
Torero J., Lange, D., Horasan, M., Osorio, A., Maluk, C., Hidalgo, J., Johnson, P., (2019) Current Status of Education, Training and Stated Competencies for Fire
Safety Engineers; The Warren Centre for advanced engineering, Sydney
9
Every engineering project is unique. AS/NZS 9000:2016 Quality management systems – fundamentals and vocabulary
10
ABCB (2018) NCC Volume One: Energy efficiency provisions handbook
5 11
Dym, C. and Brown, D. (2012) Engineering Design; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press ISBN: 9781139031813 NASA Systems engineering handbook; SP/2007-6105
6 12
A. Law, N. A. Butterworth, Jamie Stern-Gottfried and Y. Wong (2012) Structural Fire Design: Many Components, One Approach, 1st international conference NSW Government, Transport for NSW; TS10506:2013 AEO Guide to Verification and Validation
13
on performance based and life cycle structural engineering PLSE 2012 Chandrasekaran, B. (1990) Design Problem Solving: A Task Analysis, AI Magazine Volume 11 Number 4
7 14
Dym, C. and Brown, D. (2012) Engineering Design; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press ISBN: 9781139031813 NASA Systems engineering handbook; SP/2007-6105

Page 16 The Warren Centre Fire Safety Engineering The Methods Report Page 17
3. The Design Process 3. The Design Process

the design process. This is correct, since Common to all of the above-mentioned
verification, as discussed above, is a separate verification methods are two fundamental
process from design. Where design has as its characteristics. First each verification method
objective the delivery of specifications for an targets a single performance requirement
artefact which balances the stated drivers and which is explicitly defined and therefore
constraints, verification has as its objective verifiable. Second, the use of these verification
the confirmation that the artefact which is methods does not interfere with the design
specified meets these performance criteria. process.

3.3. THE DESIGN PROCESS IN

FIRE SAFETY ENGINEERING
The design process in Fire Safety Engineering the former, there is an explicit demonstration
should in principle be very similar to that that objectives have been met meaning, in
described above, with specific drivers and the case of Fire Safety Engineering, that as
constraints identified for a project and the use a consequence of a Fire Safety Strategy an
of different tools to perform the optimisation. acceptable level of safety is demonstrably
Barangaroo towers, Sydney. Nominally, fire safety engineering in many achieved. Whereas in the latter, the
jurisdictions is undertaken in an environment achievement of this acceptable level of
that facilitates both a prescriptive approach safety is never demonstrated and is implicit
Verification methods generally fall under disciplines, in particular structural engineering,
and a performance-based approach (both by adherence to accepted classifications and
four categories: analysis, demonstration, exist, e.g. the verification methods related
as a means of meeting the performance solutions. In a comprehensive performance-
inspection and testing.15 Verification in the to structural reliability and robustness as
requirements). based approach, there is therefore the need
form of analysis is typically done during the referenced in the NCC of Australia.18,19 The
for quantified or quantifiable parameters that
concept, development and early production verification methods for robustness and A performance-based regulatory environment set the acceptable level of safety. These must
phases of the design process.16 Whereas reliability are used for the verification of is based on enabling regulatory acceptance be quantifiable so that compliance of a design
other types of verification are typically done structures based on loading requirements of a design contingent on the ability to to the required performance parameters can
following construction or assembly and during which are prescriptive in nature and in the demonstrate that specified objectives be verified.21
use of the final product. case of the reliability verification method, have been met. Conversely, a prescriptive
reliability targets which are incorporated in the regulatory environment is based on the In Australia, as in other countries, Performance
The implicit or explicit use of verification NCC. Other examples include the verification regulatory acceptance of a design contingent Requirements are given in the National
methods in design has existed since the of ultimate limit state criteria according to the that a strict set of rules have been followed. In Construction Code that must be met. The
inception of the engineering practice and is partial factor method in the Eurocode.20
currently ubiquitous in engineering design. For
example, in the NCC in Australia, combinations All of these verification methods have in All of these verification methods have in common
of the DtS clauses are considered verification common that they address the verification of
methods associated with the individual particular clauses or objectives in the codes that they address the verification of particular clauses
Performance Requirements.17 Examples of which reference them, and all of these have or objectives in the codes which reference them,
verification methods in other engineering in common that they do not interfere with
and all of these have in common that they do not
15

16
NASA Systems engineering handbook; SP/2007-6105
NSW Government, Transport for NSW; TS10506:2013 AEO Guide to Verification and Validation
interfere with the design process.
17
ABCB (2019) National Construction Code
18
ABCB (2015) Structural Reliability Handbook
19 21
ABCB (2016) Structural Robustness Handbook Beck, Vaughan (1997) Performance-based Fire Safety Engineering design and its application in Australia; proceedings of the fifth international symposium on
20
H. Gulvanessian, J.-A. Calgaro, M. Holický and Haig Gulvanessian; (2012) Designers’ Guide to Eurocode: Basis of Structural Design: EN 1990, Second edition fire safety science

Page 18 The Warren Centre Fire Safety Engineering The Methods Report Page 19
3. The Design Process 3. The Design Process

route to meeting these is either to exercise buildings. These specifications should have This approach results in a narrow range of the risk that the apparent magnitude of
a design according to the DtS provisions in been demonstrated elsewhere to provide an possible solutions to the problem of ensuring the process overshadows its importance
the National Construction Code (as part of adequate answer to a specific set of variables fire safety of a building. It is a “one size fits or complexity. In the case of Fire Safety
what may be termed a prescriptive approach of the optimisation process, and thus respond all” approach that is founded on the basis Engineering, prescriptive design is very
based on the above description, but which to the societal constraint of guaranteeing a that there are minimal variations between detailed and restrictive. It therefore leaves
is in fact simply another means of arriving tolerable level of safety for building occupants, buildings and thus a solution that works very little space for decision-making leading
at specifications for a fire strategy that emergency responders and the general public. for one can work for others that fall under to the misconception that prescriptive design
have elsewhere been deemed to meet the the same classification. As noted above, requires little skill. This is not the case, and in
performance requirements) or to exercise However, solutions generally cannot apply this means that these solutions are never a prescriptive environment or when working
a performance solution. Many construction to all problems; therefore, the process of explicitly demonstrated in application to meet with DtS Solutions, it is the responsibility of the
codes around the world include these, or very adoption of a DtS Solution has a critical any of the Performance Requirements of the designer to demonstrate that the “one-size-
similar, Deemed to Satisfy (DtS) provisions for component, which is namely the classification. building regulations, but rather it is widely fits-all” solution is applicable to the problem
satisfying specific objectives. According to the (Here classification refers to the specific accepted that they provide a level of safety at hand. Further, this misconception has
ABCB, the DtS Provisions represent a ‘recipe features of the building which dictate which of satisfactory to all relevant stakeholders. This resulted in an environment for practice where
book’ solution where the required performance the DtS solutions on offer may be adopted if can be, and is, tolerated in most cases based the designer can be poorly regulated, with the
of each design element is described in detail. following the DtS approach.) The classification on the collective experience of the fire safety restrictions imposed by the codes obscuring
They are included as a route to compliance corresponds to the specific buildings to profession of what has worked in the past. the poor regulation of the individuals practising.
for a designer that does not want to develop which the solution applies. This classification Since adequate safety is never demonstrated This was discussed in the Education Report
a new means of achieving the Performance introduces limitations, for example the explicitly, in the case of new projects relying produced by The Warren Centre in early
Requirements,22 in other words in instances building height, its use, surface area, location, on prescriptive code-based solutions, it is 2019.26
which do not warrant the development of a materials of construction, etc. In application assumed.
performance solution. the classification also imposes assumptions Performance-based design is applicable
about the expected performance of certain As alluded to above, the restrictive nature either when buildings fall outside of the
When exercising a DtS Solution this needs aspects of the Fire Safety Strategy, thus of prescriptive or DtS design results in classifications available in the codes or when
to be combined with evidence of suitability limiting the fire scenarios to which the building
and / or expert judgement. When exercising could be exposed, for example no vertical
NASA’s engineering processes
a performance-solution this needs to be flame spread for high rises, acceptance of offer an example of the meaning
of verification in design.
further combined with a combination of either total loss for buildings with no suppression
a comparison of the resulting level of safety or little to no structural resistance to fire, a
with DtS provisions, in accordance with the defend-in-place strategy for hospitals, etc.
fire safety verification method (FSVM) of
schedule 7 of the NCC 2019, or some other An approach to design that is based on a DtS
verification method.23 The role of the FSVM in Solution as a means of meeting the designer’s
the design and verification processes will be social responsibility to provide infrastructure
discussed in the next section. that is safe from fire only works when the
building that is the subject of that design
In fire safety, however, the DtS provisions do falls within the scope of the classifications
not describe the required performance of each available in codes.24 It should be the role of
design element and are in fact specifications the engineer responsible to demonstrate that
for those design elements that comprise a this is the case and that the DtS Solution is
Fire Safety Strategy for specific classes of suitable.25

22
ABCB (2018) NCC Volume One: Energy efficiency provisions handbook Photo credit: NASA/Sandra Joseph, Kevin O’Connell
23
ABCB (2016) Compliance with the NCC infographic Image # : sts127-s-038 | Date: July 15, 2009
24
Torero J., Lange, D., Horasan, M., Osorio, A., Maluk, C., Hidalgo, J., Johnson, P., (2019) Current Status of Education, Training and Stated Competencies
26
for Fire Safety Engineers; The Warren Centre for advanced engineering, Sydney Torero J., Lange, D., Horasan, M., Osorio, A., Maluk, C., Hidalgo, J., Johnson, P., (2019) Current Status of Education, Training and Stated Competencies
25
Note that in Australia, as in many other jurisdictions, this task is very rarely adopted by a person with competence in fire safety engineering for Fire Safety Engineers; The Warren Centre for advanced engineering, Sydney

Page 20 The Warren Centre Fire Safety Engineering The Methods Report Page 21
3. The Design Process 3. The Design Process

to demonstrate a balance between the drivers with the results of evacuation models to
DESIGN AND VERIFICATION – and constraints within which they are working. demonstrate the potential for safe evacuation
A GLIMPSE INTO THE NASA PROCESS This may take the form of, for example, the of building occupants. Alternatively, it may
NASA uses the Systems Engineering (SE) engine to ensures that a design process addressing the
development of a model or models and take the form of a finite element analysis of
drive the design process. The SE engine consists of stakeholders’ expectation and requirements was then their subsequent manipulation in the the structure to evaluate the impact of a fire
three main components: system design processes, carried out correctly. form of carrying out simulations to calculate on the structure until burnout. Also, it may take
technical management processes and product the impact of different scenarios on specific the form of simple hand or spreadsheet-based
realisation processes. System design processes NASA identifies four types of methods of verification:
aspects of a Fire Safety Strategy. This might calculations to perform similar analyses. It
define the expectations, generate technical analysis, demonstration, inspection and test.
In order to conduct any sort of verification it is
include, for example the use of Computational must be the responsibility of the engineer
requirements, and develop a technical solution
important to define a verification program which Fluid Dynamics (CFD) models to determine (designer) to select the most appropriate tools
capable of meeting the specified requirements.
Technical management processes are used to includes the procedures to be followed and the visibility or toxicity levels for comparison for this analysis as part of this process.
advance the design process, assess progress, and reporting to be conducted. A verification program
aid in decision making processes. Product realisation may include verifications at different levels, ranging
from individual components all the way up to the
VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION IN TRANSPORTATION
processes are used to implement a design and verify
and validate attainment of stakeholder requirements. systems level. Outputs of the verification processes INFRASTRUCTURE ASSETS
Verification and validation methods fall under product are typically recorded in requirements compliance/
The Asset Standards Authority of Transport for New processes in place that are appropriate to the
realisation processes and are typically defined in the verification matrices that allow tracing compliance
South Wales (TNSW) define verification as the engineering service or product that they supply.
early stages of the design process. It is important to from the individual component all the way to the
“process performed to ensure that the output of a They have requirements for the development of a
highlight that within NASA, verification and validation systems level.
design stage or stages meets the design stage input verification plan that includes various verification
do not mean the same. Verification is meant to show requirements”. Verification goes hand in hand with activities, including any combination of inspections,
compliance with requirements, whereas validation is Sources:
validation, defined as “the process to confirm that analyses, demonstrations, tests, all leading ultimately
• NASA Systems Engineering Handbook
meant to demonstrate effectiveness and suitability • Expanded Guidance for NASA Systems Engineering, Volume 1: the final product delivers defined operations and to certification. The verification plan comprises any
under realistic conditions. In essence, verification Systems Engineering Practices user requirements for its intended use”. According number of these different tasks as appropriate for
to TfNSW the outputs of the two processes provide the life cycle of the asset and has as its goal the
the narrow solution afforded by the DtS Fire Safety Strategy is intrinsically holistic assurances as part of product or safety case verification that a system as designed is capable
provisions is unsatisfactory to one or more of in its implementation the need to explicitly documentation that the requirements stipulated in of meeting all of the requirements stipulated at the
demonstrate and evaluate the safety of the the design stage have been met. The two processes start of the design process. The verification process
the stakeholders of the project. Thus, a DtS
run throughout the life cycle of a system and are should be linked to a requirements verification and
Solution would not be evidently suitable. In this solution arises.27 The role of the engineer in
used to ensure that the specifications of the system traceability matrix, which links evidence of verification
case, since a variation from the prescriptive this instance extends to being not only able to and the components of which it is an ensemble are, to the individual requirements.
codes is to be applied, the spectrum of evidence applicability of the solution chosen; and continue to be, met.
possible solutions widens. However, since it now includes responsibility for development
of said solution. TfNSW stipulate that any authorised engineering
either one, or both, of the classification and Source:
organisation have verification and validation • TS 10506: 2013 AEO Guide to Verification and Validation Version 1.0
the design solution have now departed from
Moving further from the influence of small
the boundaries of the prescriptive codes, the
extrapolations from the DtS requirements
implicit assumption of achieving a tolerable towards a performance solution, the design
level of safety based on these prescriptive process is of course unaffected and remains
codes no longer applies. There is insufficient the process of achieving a balance between
evidence for these complex buildings or drivers and constraints. However, the tools at
these bespoke solutions to be able to make the fire safety engineer’s disposal to achieve
any assumptions or implicit determinations this balance change. No longer applicable
with regards to the level of safety. Complex, are the codified DtS specifications which are
novel, or unusual aspects of specific buildings widely accepted to satisfy the performance
can challenge all aspects of the Fire Safety criteria. Now the fire safety engineer must
Strategy in unforeseen ways, and since the adopt some form of calculation method in order Transport for NSW is undertaking major
rail expansion in metropolitan Sydney.
27
Van Coile, R., Hopkin, D., Lange, D., Jomaas, G., Bisby, L. (2018). The need for hierarchies of acceptance criteria for probabilistic risk assessments in Fire Safety
Engineering. Fire Technology, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-018-0746-7

Page 22 The Warren Centre Fire Safety Engineering The Methods Report Page 23
3. The Design Process 3. The Design Process

EXPLICIT SPECTRUM OF PERFORMANCE

COMPLEX LEGAL AND REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT
VERIFICATION POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS BASED DESIGN
The scope of this report does not extend to a review Issues raising liabilities in the case included:
of the full legal and regulatory environment governing • Warranties for suitability of materials, compliance
Fire Safety Engineering in Australia, but the Victorian with the law, and fitness for purpose. These
Civil & Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) decisioni on warranties were both express and implied;
the Lacrosse fire issued 28 February 2019 illuminates
• Necessity to exercise due care and skill;
the complex and overlapping issues currently being
• The reasonableness of “peer professional
LARGE LEVEL OF discussed in the Australian building industry.
opinion” in the industry regarding materials
CONSERVATIVENESS
At about midnight on Monday, 24 November 2014, a selection and professional services;
PRESCRIPTIVE carelessly discarded cigarette caused a balcony fire • Design defects;
EXPERIENCE DESIGN at the Lacrosse apartment tower at 673-675 La Trobe • Compliance to the contract standards and to the
Street, Docklands, Melbourne. From level 8, the fire Building Code of Australia; and
moved rapidly up to the roof of the apartment tower.
Figure 1: Expanding spectrum of possible solutions with performance-based as opposed to prescriptive design. • The conduct of professionals resulting in
More than 400 residents were rapidly evacuated, and
representations that were misleading and
no injuries were experienced, but the property loss
The successful adoption of a performance- duties it remains the prerogative of the deceptive in contravention of Australian Consumer
exceeded $12 million. The building owners via their
Law.
based approach to design results in an designer to make best use of this information. Owners Corporations sued the builder, the building
expanded spectrum of possible solutions in It is the designer’s professional judgement surveyor, the architect and the fire engineer. Judge Woodward held that the specification and
comparison to a prescriptive approach alone, whether and how to use these guidelines installation of aluminium clad panels (ACPs)
In the decision of the Tribunal, Judge Woodward
as illustrated in Figure 1. The performance- or not. Practice Guides serve a similar breached the warranties of suitability of materials,
reviewed the legislative and compliance regime
based design process is an open-ended purpose to guidance documents, and while compliance with the law and fitness for purpose and
and considered how the contracts specific to the
these arguably fall outside of the regulatory did not satisfy the “Deemed-to-Satisfy” provisions
process as opposed to a closed process Lacrosse project affected the responsibilities of the
of the BCA.ii He confined the critique of ACPs and
in that there are usually many acceptable environment they are no more subject to the various parties including the builder, the building
said, “[T]hese reasons should not be read as a
solutions to the problem. need for the professional to demonstrate their surveyor, the architect and the fire engineer.
commentary generally on the safety or otherwise of
suitability for the task at hand than guidance ACPs and their uses.”iii He deferred future particular
Guidelines and Practice Guides can be used documents. applications as “a matter for regulators and building
by practitioners at various stages of the engineering experts.” He also confined his judgment
design process. The specific stage at which It is worth noting, at this stage, that it is saying that these “findings have been informed by
these fit depends on their subject matter and common to confuse the design process with the particular contracts between the parties in this
the intended outcome. Guidelines, referenced the application of the codes and standards. case and by events occurring in the course of the

in standards or building codes, are tools As discussed above, in a performance- based Lacrosse project that may or may not be duplicated
i ii
Owners Corporation No.1 of PS613436T v LU Ibid at [7] in other building projects.”iv
regulatory environment, codes, or parts of Simon Builders Pty Ltd (Building and Property) iii
Ibid at [10].
that present best practices for designers to iv
codes, are tools which enable the design [2019] VCAT 286. Ibid at [11].
use when relevant. Guidelines cannot be
process as opposed to a representation of the
compulsory, because they are just an aide
process itself.
to the designer. They should be regularly
updated. If guidelines were to become All of the above examples of tools in the
obsolete or inappropriate, it remains the design process serve to deliver specifications
responsibility of the designer to determine for an artefact, namely the Fire Safety
whether they are fit for purpose and whether Strategy, which satisfies the design criteria Fire Safety designs are undertaken in a
complex environment.
to use them or not and discard them. Given laid out at the outset. The only difference in the
that guidance can be issued by governments examples is the tool that the engineer decides
but can also come from manufacturers, to use for executing this process. Only once
professional bodies and organisations such a design has been delivered can the process
as the fire service or insurance bodies, within of verification that the design achieves the
the boundaries of the designer’s professional required performance objectives begin.

Page 24 The Warren Centre Fire Safety Engineering The Methods Report Page 25
3. The Design Process 3. The Design Process

3.4. VERIFICATION IN FIRE

SAFETY ENGINEERING
When adopting a DtS Solution, verification is fits, within the available classifications in the
not required of the DtS Solution itself, since NCC/BCA. Then this is a valid solution.
this has already been deemed to result in
a tolerable level of safety. What requires A small departure from the DtS (for example
verification, as discussed above, is that trade-offs to achieve a small increase in the
the classification (which implies limitations number of possible solutions) may arguably
be achieved through the adoption of a large
on the applicability of that DtS Solution)
level of conservatism; however, a significant
has been respected. For a DtS Solution,
departure from the DtS is accompanied by
it is therefore the role of the designer to
a need for explicit verification of the level of
demonstrate explicitly that the codes and
safety achieved by the design.
standards being used can be applied to the
specific building. This implies respect for the For any building code to enable a performance-
classification, its assumptions and limitations, based approach and therefore to call itself a Fire Safety verification occurs throughout the life cycle of a building.

as well as the correct implementation of the true performance-based code, it must include
prescriptive solution. Once the designer has an explicit statement of the Performance
In fire safety, verification methods manifest • Smoke management systems in stairs have
demonstrated this, then the performance Requirements against which verification can
both early in the design process, in the pressure sensors to monitor the evolution of
explicitly defined through the development of be made. These must be linked to functional
form of analyses undertaken; or during the pressure.
the codes and standards may be assumed to objectives and societal goals for fire safety.
the final stages of construction and later • Sprinkler systems and their pumps are
have been met by the specific building. In a
Further, it must be noted that the need for during occupancy while undertaking subject to numerous tests that guarantee
professional framework, the responsibility for
explicit verification of the level of safety in turn routine performance checks of the different performance, and some smoke detectors
this explicit demonstration should rest with
brings with it a need for greater competence components. For example, during the design have fault indicators that indicate when the
the professional. In practice, in Australia,
of the fire safety engineer implementing process, referring to Structural Fire Safety detector is not powered.
the designer and the approval authority,
Engineering for example, identification of
or certifier, often share this responsibility. this design as opposed to the prescriptive
Notwithstanding the need for verification, the
solution, as well as of the person certifying the collapse based on models is very challenging
The current role of the authority is to certify verification process should not influence the
design.28 It also imparts a significant onus on and most engineers will look for runaway or
that the designer has classified the building
the engineer in performing their duty to society non-convergence of the model.29 Both of these process of developing the Fire Safety Strategy.
correctly and that the DtS Solution has been
as well as to other stakeholders on a specific criteria are examples of simple verifications The Fire Safety Strategy is the outcome of the
implemented adequately. design process and therefore incorporates a
project. The means and complexity of the that are used to demonstrate compliance with
requirements related to collapse of structures. series of variables that are being optimised,
A DtS Solution may therefore be considered demonstration of compliance therefore varies
as an option if and only if the building being with increasing departure from prescriptive During the final stages of construction or and it is the designer who is responsible for
designed fits, or can be modified such that it regulation. during occupancy examples of verifications adequately performing this optimisation.
include these examples:
• The use of clean agent fire suppression
The verification process should not influence the systems relies on agent containment within
the enclosure, so leakage of the enclosure is
process of developing the Fire Safety Strategy. verified by fans that develop the pressure to
test leakage.

28 29
Torero J., Lange, D., Horasan, M., Osorio, A., Maluk, C., Hidalgo, J., Johnson, P., (2019) Current Status of Education, Training and Stated Competencies D. Lange, L. Boström; A round robin study on modelling the fire resistance of a loaded steel beam; Fire Safety Journal,2017;
for Fire Safety Engineers; The Warren Centre for advanced engineering, Sydney http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf. 2017.05.013

Page 26 The Warren Centre Fire Safety Engineering The Methods Report Page 27
 4. DTS as a Performance Requirement for Verification

In areas such as structural engineering, 1911.32 The use of so-called ‘magic numbers’
prescriptive components of the design in fire safety engineering is a well-known
framework, such as the definition of loads, practice that has had an inexplicable influence
are the explicit outcome of research that on the profession for nearly a century.33
demonstrates that for a certain classification
the choice of loads prescribed by the In general, prescriptive codes are separated
building code are within the bounds of what from the nature of the building design, and
will be expected for a building meeting the any research implemented tends to focus on
classification requirements. This can, and the implementation of countermeasures that
normally does, include societally acceptable are deemed adequate for a building within
factors of safety. The demonstration of the classification. This is how prescriptive
tolerability of a DtS Solution should be rules are developed for example for sprinkler
explicit for the development of the codes design, for detection and alarm, passive fire
and standards. Once a solution has been protection, etc. This approach distances the
demonstrated to fulfil the desired objectives, implementation of prescriptive fire safety from
then it can be inscribed within building codes, the design process because the objective
and any subsequent application is explicitly changes from designing a building to be safe
acceptable so long as the DtS Solutions can to designing a sprinkler system that can be

4. DTS as a be evidenced as appropriate. In a similar

manner, when component performance has
been demonstrated then a standardised
shown to control a fire with the characteristics
that may result from the classification at
hand. This is an abstract decomposition of
Performance Requirements for a building’s Fire

Performance
procedure for performance assessment can
be constructed into a standard. Safety Strategy into detailed specifications of
the individual components implemented into
In the area of Fire Safety Engineering the this strategy. The holistic nature of the design

Requirement
process of code development does not process is then lost, and the role of the overall
necessarily follow the logical approach adopted Fire Safety Strategy in prescriptive design
by some other disciplines of delivering a pre- becomes obscure. A prescriptive design for fire
defined solution as a function of an explicit safety will state that a building belonging to a

for Verification demonstration of performance. It is often

founded on the experience of the profession30
or some other apparently arbitrary criteria. For
example, limitations of compartment areas in
certain classification will incorporate maximum
acceptable travel distances, sprinkler systems
with a given performance, a specific detection
and alarm system and some level of passive
Approved Document B in England are based fire protection. What will be the outcome of
on a survey of post-war buildings in the UK.31 this implementation on the overall safety of a
Also, the escape distances inscribed in codes specific building is never tested, and therefore
around the world have at their origin the it is argued that prescriptive fire safety is an
evacuation of a theatre in Edinburgh, UK in adoption of an unknown level of safety.

30
Van Coile, R., Hopkin, D., Lange, D., Jomaas, G., Bisby, L. (2018). The need for hierarchies of acceptance criteria for probabilistic risk assessments in
Fire Safety Engineering. Fire Technology, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-018-0746-7
31
Lennon, T. (2015) Compartment sizes – are they still fit for purpose? Presentation given at BRE fire conference 2015, available from:
http://www.bre.co.uk/filelibrary/ Fire%20Research%20Conference%202015/4-BRE-Fire-Conf-2015---Compartment- Sizes.pdf, accessed 9th January 2019
32
Ross, Liam; Invitation & Escape The Architecture of Fire Safety Regulation
33
Law, M. & Beever, P. (1995) Magic numbers and golden rules Fire Technology 31:77. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01305269

Fire Safety Engineering The Methods Report Page 29

4. DTS as a Performance Requirement for Verification 4. DTS as a Performance Requirement for Verification

Many of the Performance Requirements for these as the specifications of the components
fire safety in the NCC are not defined in such of a Fire Safety Strategy in a building is one
a way as they themselves can be used as an route to demonstrate compliance with the
objective for design. They are too vague and regulations.
abstract for this. (This is true of the Performance
Requirements as stated in many jurisdictions, Since the impact of each component of a
examples of which are given in Appendix 4.). Fire Safety Strategy on the overall safety
This results in the DtS Fire Safety Solution for of the building is not defined explicitly by a
a building that falls within the bounds of the prescriptive solution, an equivalent approach
nearest available classification being the de- cannot be quantified. Small extrapolations
facto performance requirement against which such as exceeding travel distances can be
performance-solutions for buildings that fall demonstrated to have no impact on egress
outside of the classifications are verified. This by using complex analytical tools. For
is incorrect, since the DtS Solutions have example, the calculation of egress times from
never been shown to provide an adequate a compartment can be quantified (Required
level of safety for a building outside of the Safe Egress Time) and tested against
related classification. In fact, in a calibration times to attain tenable conditions (Available
of the ABCB’s proposed FSVM, several Safe Egress Time), and it can be shown
simple buildings which comply with the DtS that the ASET > RSET. This might satisfy
provisions of the NCC/BCA were analysed, expectations of safety, nevertheless these
and it was found that they did not meet the calculations require many assumptions (e.g.
requirements or the acceptance criteria of the fire growth rates), calculation parameters (e.g.
FSVM. In addition to this, they were shown displacement velocities) and model precision
not to meet the risk tolerance criteria set by (e.g. zone model vs. computational fluid
the ABCB in that same work. This highlights mechanics model) and have no benchmark
the importance of objectively setting of against which they can be compared. An
performance requirements independently of increased travel distance alone will always
the DtS or any other historical approach to fire lead to a larger RSET, thus will never be as
safety and the dangers of continued reliance safe as the code compliant travel distance.
of the DtS as a benchmark level of safety for Equivalency is therefore not possible, and
performance solutions.34 the only alternative is to establish the overall
impact on the Fire Safety Strategy.
The DtS requirements have, as their origin,
previous evolutions of building regulations The question therefore arises as to what
which were in place prior to the advent of constitutes an adequately or tolerably
Performance Based regulations. These DtS safe design. It is here that the need to re-
requirements represent detailed specifications emphasise the role of the Fire Safety Strategy
for components of a Fire Safety Strategy that as the artefact being designed becomes clear.
were for the most part based on experience of And along with that the need for an explicit
the profession and not on a detailed analysis definition of the Performance Requirements
of the performance of the overall strategy. For and societal goals in addition to the functional
compatibility these regulations were retained requirements already included in codes. This
as the DtS requirements in performance- is a necessary and urgent reform for the fire
based environments, and the adoption of safety community.
Fire Safety regulation protects buildings and responders.
34
Fire Protection Association Australia (2017) Australian Building Codes Board Fire Safety Verification Method Calibration Project Draft Final Summary Report

Page 30 The Warren Centre Fire Safety Engineering The Methods Report Page 31
 5. The Role of IFEG, Practice Guides and the Verification Methods in Design

It is clear that the Australian code is

not a true performance-based code.

In comparison to the components of a Based on the above, it is clear that the

performance-based regulatory environment Australian code is not a true performance-
as outlined in section 3, the Australian code based code. Specifically, it lacks explicit
comprises the following components: Performance Requirements which can be
• The NCC/BCA building code describes linked through functional objectives to societal
Performance Requirements, which are the goals. It also confuses the role of the DtS
legal requirements referenced in state and between a design tool, which is correct, and a
territory building regulations, and detail how performance requirement, which is incorrect.
a building is expected to function to meet the A detailed description of the FSVM, the IFEG
societal goals. According to the definition

5. The Role of
and Practice Guides are given in appendices
given above, these more closely resemble 1, 2 and 3. The following subsections contain
functional objectives. As described in former a brief discussion about these documents,
sections, they are not written in such a way comparing them with the regulatory framework
that they can be referred to for verification.

IFEG, Practice This fact is acknowledged in the Schedule 7

FSVM of the NCC 2019;35
• Various guidelines and standards are
described, the current framework in Australia
and discussing their role in the design and
verification processes described previously.

Guides and referenced in the NCC, for example the

International Fire Safety Engineering
Guidelines or various testing standards for
component performance are referenced in

the Verification the DtS specifications;

• The only design tool referenced in the NCC is
the DtS specifications. However, in the NCC

Methods in
2019 these are confused with both verification
methods themselves and with Performance
Requirements. Other standards, such as
fire resistance testing standards or reaction

Design to fire testing standards are referenced.

The evaluation tool referenced in the NCC
is the FSVM in Schedule 7; this shares the
limitation of referring to the DtS specifications
as the desired performance requirement.

35
ABCB (2019) National Construction Code

Fire Safety Engineering The Methods Report Page 33

5. The Role of IFEG, Practice Guides and the Verification Methods in Design 5. The Role of IFEG, Practice Guides and the Verification Methods in Design

5.1. THE ROLE OF THE FSVM The built environment evolves quickly, and even
The concept of a verification method for In contrast, the decision of how the model will
building codes struggle to keep pace with the
fire safety has been introduced in New be used to establish the performance of the ever-changing construction industry.
Zealand and is in the process of entering design, or Fire Safety Strategy, is a matter
the regulatory structure in Australia.36 A Fire for the designer and cannot be verified. For
Safety Verification Method (FSVM) should example, the choice of how a fire can be
ideally fit into the third component of the
system described by Beck and Meacham,
constructed to challenge the performance of
a building design has to be the prerogative of 5.2. THE ROLE OF THE IFEG
as an evaluation tool for the purposes of the designer because such fires are a result of
verification of the Fire Safety Strategy. Based a design. Without a Fire Safety Strategy, the The positioning of the IFEG in the regulatory Regulation of the above listed items will help
on the discussions above, it should be a fire will follow a very different course than with environment described above is more clearly remove ambiguity in the discipline and provide
separate process from the design process a Fire Safety Strategy. Thus, the designer as a guideline referenced in the building code. a clear and traceable approach. Issues such
and should be a method for verification of has, with their decisions, the capacity to alter Like any other example of a best practice as what constitutes an acceptance criterion
individual Performance Requirements of the the course of the event. Testing a design with document, adherence to the IFEG can be should be avoided altogether and instead
Fire Safety Strategy. prespecified design fires as means to verify neither policed nor enforced. Ultimately, Fire be replaced with a quantifiable level of
the decisions of the designer is a contradiction Safety Engineers are the ones responsible performance. Provisions for the requirement
While effort has been made to create adequate in itself because through the design process for practicing the discipline properly, and they of peer reviews may be used to ensure that
verification processes, it is not clear that the the designer will determine the nature of may choose to do so with or without following a given solution is properly analysed or that
principles of verification described previously the possible fires. This is the same for the guidelines. They are also the ones trusted projects with a high degree of complexity are
have been considered adequately. In Fire egress scenarios and smoke management with safeguarding the profession and ensuring evaluated by someone else besides designers
Safety Engineering there are many areas calculations. that certain minimum standards of quality and and the approval officers.
where a verification is important and valid. competency are maintained.
Verification might be necessary to establish if The FSVM included in Schedule 7 of the NCC One additional challenge with implementing
complex tools have been used appropriately. 2019 however unduly influences the design Even with updates, the technical content of the entirety of the IFEG into the building code is
A well-known case of concern has been the process by prescribing scenarios. Further, by the guidelines may not be enough to conduct the long update cycle or lack of updates when
use of Computational Fluid Dynamics tools. comparison of any performance solution with a proper Fire Safety Engineering analysis. compared to the regulatory environments.
The question here is to separate the use of the the nearest available DtS Solution, it in fact In this case, requiring strict adherence to The built environment evolves quickly, and
tool (specific objective) from the application of traverses the three parts of this framework. It the guidelines may be counterproductive, even building codes struggle to keep pace
the tool for design. The tool has components perpetuates the DtS Solution as a performance which would result in the creation of paths for
with the ever-changing construction industry.
(i.e. grid resolution, treatment of boundary requirement, which as was discussed above exemptions that would defeat the purpose of
The international nature of the IFE Guidelines
layers, combustion models, radiative models, is an incorrect application of DtS, promotes the original regulation.
mean that any sort of revision requires a
etc.) that can have a major impact on the confusion between them as a tool for design
Incorporation of the current form of the significant time and resources investment.
result and that might need to be checked. The and a codified level of safety. It also falls under To this date, only one version of the IFEG
IFEG into national or state policies would be
objective is to avoid having to reproduce the the definition of a guideline and an evaluation
difficult, if not impossible. However, there are is suited for international application, and it
computations fully and instead to propose tool as defined above. is the one that has not been updated. When
portions of it that may be more amenable for
a verification approach that gives sufficient the guidelines were primarily developed for
implementation into regulations. Examples
guarantees that the model has been applied
include the clear definition of acceptance Australia, two versions where issued within
correctly. five years. There have been no updates to the
criteria, the role of third-party reviews and
standards for the preparation of the FER and international version since its initial release.
In Fire Safety Engineering there are many areas FEB and a clear definition of who is a fire As an authority that references the IFEG in
safety engineer, the knowledge, skills and their regulations, the ABCB should support
where a verification is important and valid. attributes he or she must have, certification and promote the updating and revision of the
requirements, etc. IFEG.
36
ABCB (2019) National Construction Code

Page 34 The Warren Centre Fire Safety Engineering The Methods Report Page 35
5. The Role of IFEG, Practice Guides and the Verification Methods in Design

5.3. THE ROLE OF

PRACTICE GUIDES
According to the SFS, the Practice Guides (or An important consideration that has not been
Practice Notes) are tools that summarise the a matter of discussion is the role of the SFPE
available equations, correlations and models Handbook for Fire Protection Engineering.38
for performing a certain type of analysis, along This document summarises the state of the
with data input requirements, data sources, art in all relevant domains of Fire Safety
details of the inherent assumptions and Engineering. Here there is clear and significant
limitations of these correlations. Engineering overlap between both the content and the
practice guides often describe acceptable intended function of the Practice Guides and
processes and procedures. the SFPE Handbook. The SFPE Handbook
is updated in regular cycles of five to seven
They are not referenced in the NCC/BCA, years and therefore provides current and
and thus could fall under the classification of relevant information.
guidelines, or arguably design or evaluation
tools for fire safety engineering. Their definition
as a design tool for fire safety engineering is
arguably more appropriate, especially given
the stated purpose of Practice Guides by the
SFS. However even in this instance, it can
be seen that the Practice Guides traverse
the different components of the framework
described herein, since for example the SFS
Practice Guide for Façade/External Wall
Fire Safety Design37 includes a statement of
Performance Requirements. Thus, parts of it
clearly fall under the definition of a code. This
situation is only acceptable if the performance
requirement stated is consistently at least as
onerous as those in the regulations. It must
therefore be recognised and reinforced that
only a code should contain the governing
definition of Performance Requirements.

Only a code should contain the governing

definition of Performance Requirements.

Example of access & egress stairway in a heritage listed 150 year old building.
37
Practice Guide on Façade/External Wall Fire Safety Design, Society of Fire Safety Practice Guide, February 2019.
38
SFPE Handbook for Fire Protection Engineering

Page 36 The Warren Centre Fire Safety Engineering The Methods Report Page 37
 6. Conclusions

THE PURPOSE OF THIS

REPORT HAS BEEN TO
REVIEW THE BENEFIT AND
UTILITY OF FSVM, IFEG AND
PRACTICE GUIDES FOR FIRE
SAFETY ENGINEERING.
AS PART OF THIS PROCESS HOWEVER, IT WAS DEEMED NECESSARY BY
THE AUTHORS TO REVIEW THE DESIGN AND VERIFICATION PROCESSES
THEMSELVES AND THE REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH THESE
ARE APPLIED.

6. Conclusions
The design and verification processes Safety Strategy or the individual components
are conceptually very different processes. of a Fire Safety Strategy have ever been
However, this is not the case in fire safety defined. Further, this approach abstracts the
engineering in Australia. The FSVM overall objective of the Fire Safety Strategy
confuses DtS provisions with Performance into specifications for individual components.
Requirements. The DtS provisions are in This means that partial solutions, comprising a
fact tools for a designer to develop the combination of components of a DtS Solution
specifications for a Fire Safety Strategy for and a Performance Solution, are never
a building that falls within the classifications actually verified to provide an acceptable level
described in the building code that permits of safety.
such a solution. These are one example of
many tools that should be available to an All of the above appears to be a symptom
engineer working within a performance-based of the fact that the NCC in Australia is not a
regulatory environment to facilitate the design true performance-based code since it lacks a
process. clear link between societal goals, functional
objectives and Performance Requirements.
This confusion between the DtS provisions This means that the value of the FSVM
as a tool and as a performance requirement is diminished and in fact that the risk with
is dangerous since the DtS provisions have their implementation is heightened since
never been shown to result in a safe building they promulgate the confusion of the DtS
when applied outside of the classifications provisions as a performance requirement
of the code. In fact, the DtS provisions have against which Performance Solutions can be
never been shown to satisfy explicitly any verified. Further, the FSVM, as it exists today,
specific performance objective since no is unnecessarily complicated and influences
explicit performance objective for a Fire the design process.

Fire Safety Engineering The Methods Report Page 39

6. Conclusions

There is a clear difference between the design

process and the separate verification process, and
neither should interfere with the other.

The IFEG are deemed to fit well into a Based on all of the above, the following
performance-based regulatory environment recommendations are made:
since they do not conflict with the building 1. That the Performance Requirements in the
code or codes and describe a methodology NCC/BCA be revisited and that the use of
for carrying out the fire safety engineering a DtS Solution as an evaluation tool for
design process. However, while these are in an acceptable level of safety be carefully
principle of value in practice, they are known reviewed. This must be done in such a
to be in need of updating. way that Performance Requirements are
The role of Practice Guides is far more traceable to societal goals and functional
straightforward since they represent what is requirements.
collectively considered to be best practice 2. That the adoption of partial DtS/
by the profession. However, in the examples Performance Solutions through
considered, they are found to confuse their role decomposition of the Fire Safety Strategy
by stating Performance Requirements in some be prevented and that the holistic nature of
instances. While this may often represent an the Fire Safety Strategy be reinforced.
increased desired level of performance than 3. That the FSVM be revised such that it
the code, their subservience in relation to the respects the independence of the design
codes must be reinforced. process and that it adequately verifies that
the Performance Requirements are met.
Against the current background in Australia,
4. That the IFEG be updated or that they be
this report makes three research findings
removed from reference in future editions
that suggest fundamental building code and
of the NCC/BCA.
regulatory change is needed in Australia:
• There is a clear difference between the
5. That the purpose of Practice Guides issued Building Confidence
by professional societies and others be
design process and the separate verification Improving the effectiveness of compliance
clarified and that it be ensured that these
process, and neither should interfere with remain outwardly compatible with existing
and enforcement systems for the building
the other. articles of reference. and construction industry across Australia
• The concept of equivalence to the DtS
Provisions does not work as a concept or in Peter Shergold and Bronwyn Weir
practice.
February 2018
• There is a need to quantify the Performance
Requirements of the NCC.

Governments and the Building Ministers Forum continue to struggle to find a way to respond to the
façade issues and the Shergold/Weir Building Confidence recommendations.

Page 40 The Warren Centre Fire Safety Engineering The Methods Report Page 41
 7. Glossary of Terms

DEFINITIONS AND NOTES OF EXPLANATION

Where definitions are included in the NCC Volume One Building Code of
Australia, they are in bold. Other definitions or notes of explanation have been
developed in this Warren Centre Project as a means to use consistent
TERM language throughout the Project reports.

ABCB The Australian Building Codes Board (ABCB) is a Council of Australian Government (COAG)
standards writing body that is responsible for the development of the NCC, comprised of the
BCA and PCA. The ABCB is a joint initiative of all three levels of government in Australia.
(ABCB)

Assessment Method Means a method that can be used for determining that a Performance Solution
or Deemed-to-Satisfy Solution complies with the Performance Requirements.
(NCC, vol 1, amdt 1)

The means by which a building proponent proves that a solution achieves the Performance
Requirements. These include:
• Evidence to support that the use of a material or product, form of construction or design
meets a Performance Requirement or a Deemed-to-Satisfy Provision as described in
A2.2
• Verification Methods
• Expert Judgement
• Comparison with the Deemed-to-Satisfy Provisions
(NCC, vol 1, amdt 1)

7. Glossary
Building Code of Forms part of the National Construction Code, which contains technical provisions for
Australia (BCA) the design and construction of buildings and other structures. The BCA addresses
structural adequacy, fire resistance, access and egress, services and equipment, energy
efficiency and sustainability, and provisions for the health and amenity of occupants.
(NCC, vol 1, amdt 1)

of Terms Building Solution A solution which complies with the Performance Requirements and is a:
• Performance Solution
• Deemed-to-Satisfy Solution
• Combination of both solutions
(NCC, vol 1, amdt 1)
This term has been replaced with the terms Deemed-to-Satisfy Solution and Performance
Solution. It has been retained as some jurisdictions still refer to this term.
(NCC, Guide, amdt 1)

Deemed-to-Satisfy Make up the bulk of the NCC. Means provisions deemed to satisfy the Performance
Provisions Requirements. (NCC, vol 1, amdt 1)

Deemed-to-Satisfy A method of satisfying the Deemed-to-Satisfy Provisions. (NCC, vol 1, amdt 1)

(DTS) Solution
Should be used if any designer, builder or the like, does not want to develop a new means
of compliance with the Performance Requirements. (NCC, Guide, amdt 1)

Equivalent Equivalent to the level of health, safety and amenity provided by the
Deemed-to-Satisfy Provisions. (NCC, vol 1, amdt 1)

Fire Safety Engineer An appropriately qualified and experienced practitioner who, through sound and robust
engineer practice, provides services that achieve reductions of risk for life for people in
buildings, reduction in property and environmental damage from building fires and the
implementation of cost-effective fire safety codes and regulations.

Fire Safety Engineering The Methods Report Page 43

 7. Glossary of Terms

TERM DEFINITIONS AND NOTES OF EXPLANATION

Fire Safety System One or any combination of the methods used in a building to:
• Warn people of an emergency
• Provide for safe evacuation
• Restrict the spread of fire
• Extinguish a fire
and includes both active and passive systems.
These systems may be active, passive or any combination of the two.
Active Systems
• Sound systems and intercom systems for emergency purposes
• Emergency lighting
• Exit signs
• Sprinkler systems
• Fire hydrant systems
• Fire hose reel systems
• Smoke and heat vents
• Mechanical smoke-exhaust systems
• Portable fire extinguishers
Passive Systems
• Fire-isolated stairways, ramps and passageways
• Fire walls
Other fire-resisting building elements (NCC, Guide, amdt 1)

National The NCC provides the minimum necessary requirements for health, safety, amenity and
Construction Code sustainability in the design and construction of new buildings throughout Australia. It
(NCC) comprises of the BCA plus the PCA and is given legal effect by relevant legislation in each
State and Territory. (ABCB)

Performance Means a requirement which states the level of performance which a Performance
Requirement Solution or a Deemed-To-Satisfy Solution must meet. (NCC, vol 1, amdt 1)
Performance Requirements outline the levels of accomplishment different buildings
must attain. There are three options to comply with the Performance Requirements:
Deemed-to-Satisfy Solutions, Performance Solutions or a combination of both
(NCC, vol 1, amdt 1)

Performance Means a method of complying with the Performance Requirements other than by a
Solution (Alternative Deemed-To-Satisfy Solution. (NCC, vol 1, amdt 1)
Solution)
A Performance Solution is unique for each individual situation. These solutions are often
flexible in achieving the outcomes and encouraging innovative design and technology use.
It is a route which is not included in a DTS Solution. It complies with the NCC when the
Assessment Method demonstrates compliance with the Performance Requirements. If it
is demonstrated to be at least equivalent to a DTS Provision, the Performance Solution is
deemed to have achieved compliance with the relevant Performance Requirement.
(NCC, vol 1, amdt 1)

Central Park apartment, Sydney.

Page 44 The Warren Centre Fire Safety Engineering The Methods Report Page 45
 8. Appendix 1

It is intended to function as a methodology to be

applied to a performance solution that allows the user
to demonstrate that the proposed performance solution
meets the performance requirements of the BCA.

8.1. WHAT ARE THEY?

The Fire Safety Verification Methods (FSVM) sizes, travel speeds, and modelling rules,
are one component of the NCC/BCA. It was much like the Fire Safety Verification Methods
introduced in the 2019 edition of the standard in New Zealand, the NZ C/VM2. All scenarios
for adoption in 2020. It was developed by and inputs were part of the ‘mandatory’ part of
the ABCB with some input from various the document, i.e. part of the NCC itself and
collaborators. not the accompanying guide/handbook to the
use of the FSVM.
The NCC is split into mandatory documents
and non-mandatory guides/handbooks. The first revision of the FSVM made fully

8. Appendix 1 The mandatory guides include everything

in the NCC including the Performance
Requirements, DtS Provisions, Verification
Methods, and the option for Performance
available to the public was the Public Draft
Comment revision. This version contained the
same 12 qualitative scenarios and inputs with

THE ABCB FIRE SAFETY Solutions to other methods, such as a first

some minor changes, along with a general
restructuring of the document. The restructure
principles approach.
VERIFICATION METHODS The FSVM is intended to be used by fire
results in the 12 qualitative scenarios being
part of the ‘mandatory’ document and all of
safety engineers that are competent and the quantitative inputs being moved to a non-
have an appropriate level of experience mandatory guide which is referred to as the
that would allow them to be accredited by a FSVM Handbook or simply the Handbook.
suitable body. It is intended to function as a
The final revision made available for this
methodology to be applied to a performance
report, and the one upon which the comments
solution that allows the user to demonstrate
in this report are based on, is the version of the
that the proposed performance solution meets
FSVM and Handbook which was circulated in
the performance requirements of the BCA.
November 2018 to the Engineers Australia
The FSVM is intended to provide a process
Society of Fire Safety (SFS) for review and
for flexible Performance Solutions while still
comment. This is very close to the version
meeting the level of safety required by the
which was ultimately adopted in the NCC/BCA
BCA.
2019. This version of the FSVM contains only
The earliest version of the FSVM reviewed qualitative scenarios with acceptance criteria
by the authors of this report consisted of 12 determined by the nearest available DtS
qualitative scenarios and detailed quantitative solution specifications from the NCC/BCA.
inputs to be used including items such as fire The accompanying Handbook is qualitative,

Fire Safety Engineering The Methods Report Page 47

8. Appendix 1 8. Appendix 1

Sections 1 through 8 of the handbook cover or PBDR), and a Process to determine what
Application, scope, a summary of building scenarios are relevant.
regulations and NCC Compliance structure,
Process/summary of developing a Fire Safety Sections 9 to 12 detail the individual scenarios
Strategy, a brief summary of reporting e.g. against which a design should be verified, as
what goes within an FEB/ FER (referred to well as analysis methods with reference to
as a Performance Based Design Brief, PBDB ISO standards and risk assessment.

8.2. WHAT DO
THEY TRY TO ACHIEVE?
The FSVM attempts to provide an approach competencies expected of Fire Safety
to verification of performance-based design Engineers in the different states in Australia,
intended to be suitable to all buildings (as there is no guarantee of consistency in
opposed to the new limitations on NZ C/ implementation of the FSVM. Indeed, given
Site inspection from Fire Safety Engineers.
VM2). The overall approach to Verification that the FSVM nominate and describe a
is based on the comparison of a response minimum number of scenarios against
of a proposed performance solution with the which a design has to be tested, there is no
and the document details process and Safety Engineer. This places restrictions on
response of a DtS solution from the nearest guarantee that competency will lead to the
approaches but without detailed quantitative the users of the FSVM that are addressed and
available classification in the NCC. Verification correct identification of appropriate additional
inputs. Each draft has had a similar intent/ mandated on a state level by local regulations.
that the objectives of the codes are achieved scenarios. The intended implementation of
goal as well as approach to verification. This aspect has been discussed elsewhere in
is possible if the performance solution has the FSVM therefore relies on the competency
this Warren Centre Project.
The FSVM and Handbook are often referred a level of safety that is at least equivalent to of the engineer applying them, however a
to in this report as a single document item in The FSVM itself is a very brief document that the DtS solution against which it is compared. competent engineer will have no need for the
this report, however it is worth noting that the comprises very high level ‘how to use’ and However, the FSVM have not been thoroughly FSVM.
FSVM is incorporated in the NCC whereas ‘purpose’ sections with a small section on tested on performance-based designs, and it
the Handbook is a guide to implementation of process. The verification methods comprise is therefore not possible to draw significant
the methods. 12 qualitative design scenarios against which conclusions on whether this is achieved or
not. Indeed, earlier versions of the FSVM were
a proposed performance solution should
As a result of the approach to verification, the tested on DtS buildings and did not achieve
be tested, the result of which can be used
FSVM are only suitable when the fire safety this.
to demonstrate compliance by comparison
objectives being pursued as part of the design
with the results of the nearest available The FSVM Handbook identifies that Fire
process are in line with the BCA Performance
Requirements, fire hazards falling outside DtS solution being tested against the same Safety Engineering must consider the life
normally occurring events, i.e. storage of scenarios. Each of these design scenarios cycle of a building and be involved with all
dangerous goods, chemical processing, has a required outcome. appropriate stakeholders.
business continuity, property protection, etc.
The handbook on the other hand is a much As with some of the other documents
could not be addressed via the FSVM.
more detailed document that is over 100 pages reviewed in this report, the FSVM recognise
The FSVM is not intended as a replacement in length. It is a qualitative document, but it is that competence of the practitioner is a key
of existing knowledge in the discipline and intended to be accompanied by detailed Data requirement for their use. However, the FSVM
should therefore not be used by inexperienced Sheets which as of the time of writing were yet do not define what level of competency is
(incompetent) persons as a substitute to a Fire to be fully developed. expected. Given inconsistencies between

Page 48 The Warren Centre Fire Safety Engineering The Methods Report Page 49
 9. Appendix 2

9.1. WHAT ARE THEY?

The International Fire Safety Engineering reason, the guidelines are not presented as
Guidelines (IFEG) are a set of guidelines a path to compliance but instead as a set of
containing recommendations for the practice resources meant to aid the execution of fire
of fire safety engineering. These guidelines safety engineering by:
are applicable to any type of Fire Safety • Linking the regulatory system and Fire Safety
Engineering design process, including but not Engineering;
limited to new buildings, upgrades, etc.
• Guiding the process of Fire Safety
Back in 1996, the Australian Building Codes Engineering; and
Board (ABCB) released the first set of • Providing guidance on methodologies and
guidelines primarily intended for application in data available.
Australia. An updated version, but still focused
in Australia was published in 2001. The current The IFE guidelines are broken into four parts.
version of the guidelines was released in 2005, Part 0 provides background information
and it is the result of a joint effort between and guidance necessary to understand the

9. Appendix 2 agencies from Australia, Canada, New

Zealand and the United States of America.
International collaboration resulted in a set
of general guidelines suitable for the fire-safe
role of the IFE guidelines within a particular
country. As such, there are four different
versions of Part 0. The Australian version
introduces the Australian regulatory system

THE IFEG design of buildings, as well as the building

approvals process when appropriately used
and the role of the IFE guidelines in the
Fire Safety Engineering design and building
by properly qualified practitioners. approval process of alternative solutions for
the Building Code of Australia (BCA). This
The guidelines represent the current part also presents background information
knowledge of the discipline at the time of about Fire Safety Engineering, its role in the
publication. Nonetheless, the guidelines life cycle of a building and the uniqueness of
also recognise that proper qualification and solutions based on building types, occupants’
competency are key given the large amount characteristics, etc. Part 0 makes a special
of engineering judgement required in the emphasis on the qualifications of fire safety
practice of fire safety engineering. For this engineers and the need for accreditation.

International collaboration resulted in

a set of general guidelines suitable for the
fire-safe design of buildings.

Fire Safety Engineering The Methods Report Page 51

9. Appendix 2 9. Appendix 2

Part 1 sets out recommendations for assisting supporting data that may also be used as part The IFE guidelines identify six subsystems identification of non-compliance issues. Step
Fire Safety Engineers and other professionals of the Fire Safety Engineering process. as follows: 3 is determination of the specific objectives/
in the Fire Safety Engineering process. Part • Subsystem A: performance requirements. Step 4 is selection
2 describes a selection of methodologies that It is important to highlight that the IFEG are not of the approach and analysis method. Step
Fire initiation, development, and control
may be used during the Fire Safety Engineering a replacement for properly qualified fire safety 5 is the actual analysis including sensitivity
engineers. Experience and competence • Subsystem B:
process. Part 3 provides data that may be used Smoke development, spread, and control and uncertainty analyses. Step 6 consists
in support of the methodologies presented are must haves in order to ensure proper of collating and evaluating results. Step 7
application of the information contained in • Subsystem C:
in Part 2, or other suitable methodologies. evaluates the conclusions of the analysis
the IFEG. It is assumed that persons involved Fire spread, impact, and control
Parts 1 through 3 are provided as general and determines whether the outcomes are
recommendations and are not intended to be in the Fire Safety Engineering process are • Subsystem D: acceptable or whether further iterations are
all-inclusive. The guidelines clearly recognise properly trained and qualified. Fire detection, warning, and suppression required. Step 8 is the final step concluding in
that there are additional methodologies and • Subsystem E: the formulation of a Fire Safety Engineering
Occupant evacuation and control Report (FER). A recommended format for the
• Subsystem F:
9.2. WHAT INFORMATION Fire service intervention
FER alongside with details for each section is
presented as part of the guidelines.

IS IN THEM? The subsystems to be evaluated will depend

on the nature of the non-compliance issues,
9.2.2. PART 2: METHODOLOGIES
This section provides detailed guidelines,
9.2.1. specific and/or performance objectives, methodologies for the different portions of the
PART 1: THE FIRE SAFETY ENGINEERING interactions between subsystems and the Fire Safety Engineering process identified in
PREPARE F E B PROCESS nature of the approaches and methods used. Part 1. These recommendations are
1.2 The centrepiece of the IFEG is the definition In order to facilitate evaluation of a particular
of the Fire Safety Engineering process as subsystem, the guidelines introduce a meant to capture accepted methodologies,
shown in the figure 2 (left). A key aspect of sequence of chronological events consisting and the use of alternative ones is also
the Fire Safety Engineering process is the of: deemed acceptable. This Part contains
CARRY OUT ANALYSIS formulation of the Fire Safety Engineering • Scope: What aspects of the subsystem are equations, methodologies, etc. that are meant
1.3 - 1.9 Brief (FEB). Part 1 identifies 13 unique steps to be analysed to aid engineers in performing the necessary
for the formulation of the FEB. These steps • Procedure: How will the subsystem be used analysis. The approaches are similar to those
are meant to capture the clear definition of contained in the SFPE Handbook, NFPA
• Output: What output information is expected
the project among relevant stakeholders, standards, technical document, and research
out of the analysis
COLLATE & EVALUATE RESULTS definition of the building and occupant publications.
1.10 characteristics, objectives of the Fire • Input: What information is required and
Safety Strategy, hazard identification and where it can be found 9.2.3. PART 3: DATA
measures available, trial design assessment, • Analysis: How will the analysis be performed This section contains data that can be used in
identification of non-compliance issues, • Construction, commissioning, management the development of Part 2. Careful application
DRAW CONCLUSIONS definition of approaches, analysis methods, and use: Important issues relating to such of the data is recommended given differences
1.11 fire scenarios, and acceptance criteria. categories are important to consider in regulations, construction practices, rapid
Examples are provided for each category. • Bibliography: List of any references used in evolution of the built environment, etc. The
the analysis data is provided in order to match the different
Later sections of Part 1 detail the subsystems identified in Part 1.
considerations for conducting the analysis of According to the guidelines, the analysis
PREPARE REPORT
1.12
the trial design. At this point, the Fire Safety process consists of eight unique steps that may
Strategy is broken into sub-systems that allow involve an iterative process. Step 1 is analysis
evaluating the fire safety systems of a building. of the trial design based on the FEB. Step 2 is
Figure 2: Typical fire engineering process

Page 52 The Warren Centre Fire Safety Engineering The Methods Report Page 53
9. Appendix 2 9. Appendix 2

9.3. WHAT DO THEY ACHIEVE? The guidelines may not necessarily

The main contribution of the IFEG is the Engineering should be while setting a guiding
capture the state of the art of the discipline nor
collection of best practices within fire safety framework for the practice of Fire Safety address issues raised since 2005.
engineering at the time of its publication. Even Engineering across multiple jurisdictions and
though the guidelines are dated, and Fire ranges of occupancies.
Safety Engineering has evolved noticeably
since 2005, portions of the approaches and Part 2 of the guidelines provide a common The guidelines do not contain any information publication of the IFEG, the SFPE Handbook
methods presented in the guidelines remain ground for the assessment of the different that a properly qualified Fire Safety of Fire Protection Engineering has been
applicable. For example, FERs, FEBs are subsystems identified in Part 1. The risk with Engineer may have not encountered before. updated twice, in 2008 and 2016, and at the
routinely used by Fire Safety Engineers in Furthermore, it is likely that said engineers may time of writing is undergoing a further update.
the methodologies presented in Part 2 is the
both design and approvals roles. However, have had to use alternative methodologies In the same period, Australia’s National
incorrect application of said methodologies
the degree to which all of the guidelines are with a higher complexity than the ones Construction Code has been updated four
by incompetent Fire Safety Engineers. This
presented in the guidelines. In that sense, the times: 2011, 2015, 2016 and 2019.
followed cannot be accurately assessed. risk is clearly identified in the scope of the analysis methodologies presented in Parts 2
guidelines, but realistically there is no way In summary, the guidelines achieve some
Part 1 of the IFEG highlights the role of Fire and 3 are no different from information that
Safety Engineers throughout the design and of enforcing that only properly qualified can be found in resources such as the SFPE centralisation of information and provide
engineers have access to the guidelines. It Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering or a clear picture of the role of fire safety
approval process. This section highlights the
could be argued that despite the benefits scientific publications. However contrary to engineering in the built environment.
value added from properly engaging Fire
they present, the IFEG give individuals with a the references mentioned above, the IFEG The technical information contained in
Safety Engineers and developing a consensus
does not elaborate on the assumptions, them can lead to oversimplification of the
among the multiple stakeholders. To that end, limited background in Fire Safety Engineering
discipline by neglecting proper discussions
the guidelines reflect an aspiration on the part a path to mistakenly overcome their lack of discussions and limitations of the approaches
presented. of the assumptions and/or limitations of the
of the authors of the IFEG of what Fire Safety knowledge or experience.
methodologies and data presented. The lack
Given that the last update occurred in 2005, of a recent update means that the guidelines
and given the substantial evolution of the in their current form may not represent state
discipline, the guidelines may not necessarily of the art of Fire Safety Engineering and may
capture the state of the art of the discipline nor be inadequately suited to address current and
address issues raised since 2005. Since the future challenges in Fire Safety Engineering.

9.4. INCORPORATING
THE IFE GUIDELINES
INTO REGULATIONS
Like any other examples of best practice with safeguarding the profession and ensuring
documents, adherence to the IFEG cannot that certain minimum standards of quality and
be policed or enforced. Ultimately, Fire competency are maintained.
Safety Engineers are the ones responsible
for practicing the discipline properly, and they Even with updates, the technical content of
may choose to do so with or without following the guidelines may not be enough to conduct
the guidelines. They are also the ones trusted a proper Fire Safety Engineering analysis.
A plot from FDS. It shows an analysis of flows in and out of a compartment with two burners on the floor. It is plotted using
FDS v6.6.0. Image courtesy of University of Queensland Fire Safety Engineering Research Group.

Page 54 The Warren Centre Fire Safety Engineering The Methods Report Page 55
9. Appendix 2 9. Appendix 2

In this case, requiring strict adherence to One additional challenge with implementing the
the guidelines may be counterproductive, entirety of the IFEG into building regulations is
which would result in the creation of paths for the long update cycle or lack of updates when
exemptions that would defeat the purpose of compared to the regulatory environments
the original regulation. in which it is used. The built environment
evolves quickly, and even building codes
Incorporation of the current form of the struggle to keep pace with the ever-changing
IFEG into national or state policies would be construction industry. The international nature
difficult, if not impossible. However, there are of the IFEG means that any sort of revision
portions of it that may be more amenable for requires a significant investment of resources
implementation into regulations. Examples and time. To this date, only one version of the
include the clear definition of acceptance IFEG is suited for international application,
criteria, the role of third-party reviews and and it is the one that has not been updated.
standards for the preparation of the FER and When the guidelines were primarily developed
FEB and a clear definition of who is a Fire for Australia, two versions were issued within
Safety Engineer, the skills he or she must have, five years. There have been no updates to the
certification requirements, etc. Regulation international version since its initial release.
of the above listed items will help remove
ambiguity in the discipline and provide a clear
and traceable approach. Issues such as what
constitutes an acceptance criterion would be
avoided altogether and instead replaced with
a quantifiable level of performance. Provisions
for the requirement of third-party revisions
may be used to ensure that a given solution
is properly analysed or that projects with a
high degree of complexity are evaluated by
someone else besides designers and the
approval officers.

Newcastle Rail Interchange. Transport for New South Wales (TNSW) define verification as the
“process performed to ensure that the output of a design stage or stages meets the design stage input requirements”.

Page 56 The Warren Centre Fire Safety Engineering The Methods Report Page 57
 10. Appendix 3

Within the scope of this section, a set of fundamentals: fire dynamics, hazard
available Practice Guides and Practice Notes calculations, human behaviour, fire risk
used in Australia (Australian or international) analysis, structural behaviour in fire, etc.
are described. An attempt is made herein to This allows for a single source of reference
analyse and describe: to almost all areas related to fire safety
• the stated objective of Practice Guide; engineering and science.
• how is its relevance assured; The SFPE Handbook does not indicate any
• what does it achieve; and type of Performance Requirement; hence,
• how best to incorporate the Practice Guide enforcement of it is not relevant. Given the
within the current design and regulatory large amount of information in this handbook,
framework. its correct use is influenced by the competency
of the engineer in implementing design tools

10.1. SFPE and making use of data presented in the

Handbook, within the context of his or her

HANDBOOK regulatory environment.

FOR FIRE 10.2. SFS

10. Appendix 3 PROTECTION PRACTICE
PRACTICE GUIDES ENGINEERING GUIDES
This international handbook provides The objective of the SFS Practice Guides is
a thorough description of the current to describe acceptable fire safety engineering
fundamental knowledge in fire safety processes and procedures. The SFS Practice
engineering and science. It is of more than Guides are documents that summarise
3,500 pages. The fifth version of the SFPE equations, correlations and models that
Handbook received input from 130 practicing may be used for performing a certain type
Fire Safety Engineers and researchers, of engineering analysis. These documents
representing universities and professional may also describe and show data required,
organisations around the world. refer to data sources, and explain inherent
assumptions and limitations.
The relevance of the SFPE Handbook is
assured by periodic updates in regular cycles The task group of SFS members develop a
of five to seven years. It therefore provides draft Practice Guide utilising related available
current and relevant information. This research publications and solicit input from
handbook is reviewed by the corresponding organisations and individuals that possess
editors of the document. the required expertise. Once a draft of the
Practice Guide has received approval of
The SFPE Handbook gathers an incredibly
the task group, an email public notice to
diverse range of fire safety related
SFS members will invite comment from the

Fire Safety Engineering The Methods Report Page 59

10. Appendix 3

membership. The SFS Executive committee guidance within the Australian context. In this
will review the Practice Guide for consistency environment, Practice Guides are developed
in meeting SFS goals and adherence to in response to an identified need and are
policies and bylaws. If appropriate, the task rapidly adopted by practicing engineers. Thus
group will review and revise the guide on a time-frames between draft and adoption of an
regular basis and reissue it with a new date. SFS Practice Guide can be very short.
The process for this is not clearly stated in the
Development Procedures document for SFS The best way to incorporate the use of SFS
Practice Guides. Practice Guides is assuring that its content
is constrained to engineering tools and data,
The SFS Practice Guides are documents that with no statement made on Performance
react to a specific area identified by the SFS Requirements, and only reference provided
membership as having a lack of engineering to the corresponding code.

10.3. LOCAL GOVERNMENTS’

GUIDES AND PRACTICE NOTES
A suite of Practice Guides and Notes which by local practicing engineers. Hence, they fulfil
outline the standards for development in gaps perceived by the practicing community
priority development areas (PDAs) have been only. The quality of these documents is only
prepared by the Queensland government. The reflected by the competence of practicing
Victorian government practice notes provides engineers in identifying engineering gaps
guidance to engineering practitioners on and producing such documents. As with SFS
certain topics related fire safety. For example, Practice Guides, local governments’ Practice
the Victorian government recently released Guides and Notes may sometimes include
amendments to the requirements for automatic statements of Performance Requirements,
fire suppression systems and other fire safety thus falling under the definition of a code.
measures in existing residential care and
shared accommodation buildings as a result The best way to incorporate the use of local
of the introduction of Building Regulations governments’ Practice Guides and Notes is
2018 (VIC). to assure that their content is constrained to
engineering tools and data.
Proposals for new Practice Guides (or
proposed amendment to existing practice
guides) can be submitted by any practitioner
in any type of organisation. This allows for
a continuous relevance check on behalf of
Australian practicing engineers. The process
of approval and review of these documents is
not clearly explained in available information.

These Practice Guides and Notes provide

tools which are reactive to gaps only identified
Interior View of Drafting Room in ERB, courtesy of NASA Commons.

Page 60 The Warren Centre Fire Safety Engineering The Methods Report Page 61
 11. Appendix 4

This appendix contains some examples of performance requirements as worded in different

jurisdictions. These are taken from the ABCB NCC 201939; the Building regulations in both
Scotland40 and England41; as well as the Building Code in New Zealand.42 Regulations in
England are the subject of increased scrutiny as a result of, e.g. The Hackitt report,43 and
in Scotland a review of the Scottish Building Standards Agency’s Technical Handbooks was
recently undertaken.44 New Zealand has an FSVM similar in function to the ABCB’s FSVM.

Examples are presented for the requirements related to “structural stability” for each of these
jurisdictions. Note that all jurisdictions have a vagueness or ambiguity about the performance
requirement which precludes verification against the requirement alone.

11.1. 11.2. THE

AUSTRALIA UNITED
CP1 of Volume 1 of the NCC 2019 states that: KINGDOM
11. Appendix 4
A building must have elements which will,
11.2.1.ENGLAND
to the degree necessary, maintain structural
Requirement B3 of Part B to Schedule 1 of the
stability during a fire appropriate to—
Building regulations states that:
a) the function or use of the building; and
(1) the building shall be designed and
EXAMPLES OF PERFORMANCE b) the fire load; and
c) thepotentialfireintensity;and
constructed so that, in the event of
fire, its stability will be maintained for a
REQUIREMENTS FROM OTHER d) the fire hazard; and reasonable period.

JURISDICTIONS e) the height of thebuilding; and

f) its proximity to other property; and
(2) A wall common to two or more buildings
shall be designed and constructed so
g) any active fire safety systems installed that it adequately resists the spread of
in the building; and fire between those buildings. For the
purposes of this sub-paragraph a house
h) the size of any fire compartment; and
in a terrace and a semi-detached house
i) fire brigade intervention; and are to be treated as a separate building.
j) other elements they support; and (3) Where reasonably necessary to inhibit
k) theevacuationtime. the spread of fire within the building,
measures shall be taken, to an extent
appropriate to the size and intended
use of the building, comprising either
or both of the following:

39
ABCB (2019) National Construction Code
40
The Building (Scotland) Regulations 2004
41
The Building Regulations 2000
42
Ministry of business, innovation and employment (2014) New Zealand Building Code Handbook
43
Hackitt, J (2018) Building a Safer Future Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety: Final Report
44
Stollard, Paul (2018) Report of the Review Panel on Building Standards (Fire Safety) in Scotland

Fire Safety Engineering The Methods Report Page 63

11. Appendix 4
DISCLAIMER
This report contains assessments and general information only. The publisher, authors, or other contributors
(a) sub-division of the building with a) a low probability of injury or illness to are not, by means of this publication, rendering professional technical advice or services. The publisher,
authors and other contributors expressly disclaim any and all liability or responsibility to any person, whether
fire-resistance construction; occupants,
a purchaser or reader of this publication or not, in respect of anything, and of the consequences of anything,
(b) installation of suitable automatic b) a low probability of injury or illness to fire done or omitted to be done by any person in reliance, whether wholly or partially, upon the whole or any part
fire suppression systems. service personnel during rescue and of the contents of this publication. Without limiting the generality of the above, no author or contributor shall
have any responsibility for any act or omission of any other author or other contributor.
(4) The building shall be designed and firefighting operations, and
This report represents the technical judgment of the authors but not necessarily the project sponsors.
constructed so that the unseen spread c) a low probability of direct or consequential
of fire and smoke within concealed damage to adjacent household units or
All rights reserved. No part of this work covered by copyright may be reproduced or copied in any form or by
any means (electronic, photocopying or information retrieval systems) without the written permission of the
spaces in its structure and fabric is other property. publisher.
inhibited.
PERFORMANCE IMAGES LICENSING
The corresponding DtS solution for this C6.2 Structural systems in buildings that are All images in this report have been purchased from stock websites (Shutterstock), obtained without royalty
requirement is described in Approved necessary for structural stability in fire must be requirements (flickr.com and Wikimedia Commons) or donated to The Warren Centre by industry organisations,
partners and/or sponsors (courtesy of Fire & Rescue NSW, ARUP, SKIP Consulting & University of Queensland).
Document B. designed and constructed so that they remain
stable during fire and after fire when required The cover image was sourced free for commercial use, Creative Commons CC0. Images on pages 4, 9, 15, 16,
11.2.2. SCOTLAND 18, 25, 27 and 44 were purchased with full royalty rights from Shutterstock. Images on pages (unpaginated) 3,
to protect other property taking into account: 7, 11, 41 and 48 from Arup. Image on page 37 from SKIP Consulting. Images on page 10 and 54 were donated
Requirement 2.3 of Section 5 of the The a) the fire severity, courtesy of University of Queensland Fire Safety Engineering Research Group. The images on pages 21 and
Building (Scotland) Regulations 2004 states 61 were sourced from flickr, NASA on the commons group and have no known copyright restrictions. The
b) any automatic fire sprinkler systems image on page 30 was donated courtesy Fire & Rescue NSW. The images from pages 23 and 56 were sourced
that: from Wikimedia Commons and confirmed licensed under the terms of the cc-by-sa-2.0. The image inside the
within the buildings,
front cover (unpaginated) and (unpaginated) page 4 are Warren Centre photos.
Every building must be designed and c) any other active fire safety systems that
constructed in such a way that in the event of affect the fire severity and its impact on
Comparison of International Fire Safety Engineering Guidelines,
an outbreak of fire within the building, the load- structural stability, and Fire Safety Verification Methods and Practice Guides
bearing capacity of the building will continue d) the likelihood and consequence of ISBN 978-0-6485029-1-3 • wc4831-1
The Warren Centre for Advanced Engineering, University of Sydney. Sydney, Australia. July 2019.
to function until all occupants have escaped, failure of any fire safety systems that
or been assisted to escape, from the building affect the fire severity and its impact on
and any fire containment measures have structural stability.
been initiated.
C6.3 Structural systems in buildings that are
The corresponding DtS solution for this necessary to provide firefighters with safe
requirement is described in the SBSA access to floors for the purpose of conducting
Technical Handbooks. firefighting and rescue operations must be
designed and constructed so that they remain LATEST UPDATES
This report is one in the Warren Centre’s current series of research
stable during and after fire.
11.3. NEW C6.4 Collapse of building elements that have
reports of the state of Fire Safety Engineering in Australia. For the
latest project information, additional reports and public events on this

ZEALAND lesser fire resistance must not cause the

consequential collapse of elements that are
critical topic, visit https://thewarrencentre.org.au/publications/

The New Zealand code includes both required to have a higher fire resistance.
Functional Requirements and statements of
Performance, for Structural Stability these
comprise:

FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENT
C6.1 Structural systems in buildings must be TO DOWNLOAD ADDITIONAL REPORTS IN THIS SERIES AND TO GET THE LATEST
constructed to maintain structural stability PROJECT UPDATES FROM THE WARREN CENTRE ON FIRE SAFETY ENGINEERING
during fire so that there is: VISIT HTTPS://INFO.THEWARRENCENTRE.ORG.AU/FIRESAFETY/

Page 64 The Warren Centre