Fire Protection Engineering Archives - A Roundtable Discussion Regarding the International Practice of Fire Protection Engineering

Koffel: With the variety of services provided, what is the educational background of fire protection (safety) engineers in your area?
England: Most fire safety engineers in Australia have a degree in an engineering or science discipline supported by postgraduate qualifications in fire safety engineering.

Sacco: In Italy, the services are provided by individuals with an engineering degree in various disciplines.


article continues below UL/ULC listed DecoShield systems provide you with lightweight, attractive, affordable modular cover/support systems for sprinkler piping, hydronics, plumbing, cable, and conduit. DecoShield products are manufactured using an engineered resin of a Class I/A material meeting most model code requirements, and are clean, paintable, easy to install, tamper-resistant, durable, and economical. The DecoShield cover will not dent, crack, rust, or corrode. As an alternative to constructed soffits and suspended ceilings, the DecoShield systems can be installed without disturbing asbestos ceilings, and can be easily installed in occupied premises. We also offer assistance with design, installation, and anchoring problems. For more information, visit www.decoshield.com

Gillespie: Most hold a bachelor's degree in engineering and some will hold a master's degree in fire engineering.

Richardson: Most fire protection engineers in Canada have an engineering degree in a discipline other than fire protection.

Frable: Fire protection engineers usually have either a bachelor's degree or master's degree in fire protection engineering or are a Professional Engineer with specialized experience in fire protection engineering.

Ferguson: In the United Kingdom, there is a new generation of engineers that have first degrees in fire safety engineering. However, older practitioners are likely to have had a first degree in a related discipline of engineering, science, or architecture with a Ph.D. or MSc in a fire-safety field.

Bengston: Normally fire engineers from Lund's University of Technology but we also have civil engineers with different specialties.

Koffel: Do you have a licensing requirement for fire protection engineers? If not, how are individuals qualified to practice fire protection engineering?
Bengston: No, not for the moment, but something is planned. Sweden is so small that everybody knows almost everybody and their skills.

Sacco: In Italy, one needs to be a professional engineer only for the fire department authorization activity. Such individuals are included in a Ministry of Interiors (fire department organization) list.

Gillespie: Currently, the engineering registration system in New Zealand is being changed, and it is not clear what restrictions, if any, will be placed on unregistered individuals offering fire safety engineering services. Using regis-tered engineers in any discipline has always been voluntary in New Zealand, and it will most likely remain so after the current changes are implemented.

Uehara: There is no need for a license. The fire protection engineer's qualifications are judged according to the actual work product.

Frable: The General Services Administration does not mandate licensing for fire protection engineers. However, there is a professional engineer licensing requirement imposed by the various states and jurisdictions within the United States, and many offer a specialty exam in fire protection engineering.

Ferguson: We do not have a licensing requirement for fire safety engineers, and it is currently uncontrolled. However, the professional body of the Institution of Fire Engineers (IFE) has a rigorous process of examination, interview, dissertation, etc., to the requirements of the Engineering Council of the United Kingdom for screening candidates for Char-tered status.

England: Some states and territories have licensing requirements for fire safety engineers that recognize the Engineers Australia National Professional Engineers Register (NPER). Where there are no licensing requirements, NPER Fire Safety Engineers are generally recognized as having the appropriate competencies.

Chow: There is not yet a licensing requirement in Hong Kong. Projects are typically awarded to consulting companies that have a reputation for providing fire protection engineering studies or to individual engineers with experience and achievements within the fire engineering community such as publications.

Koffel: The SFPE Board has been approached in the past about developing a certification program for fire protection (safety) engineers. If one were developed, what is the likelihood that it would be used in your area?
Uehara: If the certification program of SFPE is accepted as a fire protection engineer's qualification in Japan, it would be greatly used.

Gillespie: It depends on how practical the program was in terms of non-U.S. legislation and codes.

Richardson: It depends on the long-term acceptance of performance-based codes and regulatory actions to respond to professional competency initiatives. A certification program could provide a basis for provinces to establish their requirements or could even be accepted as a "Deemed-To-Comply" means of demonstrating competence.

Frable: A certification program for fire protection engineers would have more minuses than plusses. Depending on how such a certification program would be developed and enforced would impact its usage. However, SFPE should consider the words that a wise elder fire protection engineer once told me – that is, "Being certified does not necessarily mean that you are qualified."

Ferguson: There would obviously be a question of competence for the IFE. Chartered status is the goal of engineers in the United Kingdom, and having achieved that, they would expect certification (if required by statute) to be pretty much a formality.

England: Use of an SFPE certification program would probably be relatively low because of existing programs in Australia operated by Engineers Australia. However, if the SFPE certification scheme was accepted in the United States, the Engineers Australia Society of Fire Safety would be interested in pursuing mutual recognition arrangements. Engineers Australia currently has mutual recognition agreements with a number of countries.

Chow: The program would first require agreement from the government and engineering professional organizations. We have a registration board in the government authority where regis-tered fire safety engineers may be a potential new category under a government registration scheme.

Bengston: We have already tried this within the Swedish Branch of the SFPE. Interest has not been big since the authorities don't require certification.

Koffel: Who is the primary employer of fire protection engineers in your area?
Gillespie: Small independent consultancy practices would account for over half of the fire protection engineers in New Zealand.

Uehara: General contractors, major building design firms, fire protection consultant companies, and fire protection equipment companies.

Chow: Consultancy firms, contractors, and public utilities such as railways and airports.

England: Specialist fire safety consultants and multidisciplinary engineering consultants.

Koffel: Do you have a performance code? If so, for how long? Also, generally, what has been your experience (successes and failures) with performance codes?
Ferguson: In the United Kingdom, building regulations, with some regional differences, are based on functional rather than performance requirements. The statements of objectives are not expressed in quantitative terms but give a system with considerable flexibility and freedom for innovation. The English and Wales systems began 17 years ago. One of the big effects has been to raise the level of professional qualification in the approving bodies and bringing about a change of attitude in accepting that code-compliance is not the only way.

Bengston: Yes, for about 10 years. Generally, it has been a success although the fire protection goals are missing. For example, how many fire deaths are acceptable?

Frable: The General Services Administration (GSA) does not have a socalled "performance code." However, over the years, GSA has encouraged design teams to use innovative risk-based designs to solve complex fire safety problems in lieu of only relying on prescriptive code requirements due to the wide range of buildings (new construction and existing buildings as well as historic buildings) within our inventory.

Problems associated with the use of performance-based codes in our projects appear to be related to both schedule conflicts as well as increased design costs. For example, performance-based designs may take longer to prepare and to receive approval compared to a design strictly adhering to prescriptive code requirements. Normally, project managers have not anticipated the additional design time associated with a performance-based design nor have they incorporated this additional time into the project schedule timeline. All too often, the project continues without the performance design being completed or approved, and the project team must revert to the prescriptive code requirements to maintain the project schedule. In addition, due to the increased design time for performance-based designs, most project managers do not anticipate the additional design costs necessary to complete a performance-based design.

Koffel: It should be noted that the two model code development organizations in the United States, the International Code Council and the National Fire Protection Association, have produced performance-based codes as an alternative approach to their prescriptive codes. With the exception of the performance option in the 2000 Edition of the Life Safety Code^®, ²the performance-based building codes were introduced in the United States in 2002, so there has been minimal experience with those codes to date. Furthermore, in contrast to many of the countries represented in this roundtable discussion, codes are developed in the United States by private entities. They have no legal affect until a jurisdiction adopts the document by a legislative or regulatory process. Therefore, the fact that performance-based code recently became available does not infer that the code has been adopted as a regulation.

Chow: Hong Kong does not yet have a performance code, but the fire safety engineering approach has been accepted since 1998. Over 80 projects have been designed using this approach, but it is difficult to measure successes and failures. Awareness of the fire safety engineering approach is increasing.

England: Alternative approaches have been accepted for over 50 years in Australia, and since 1996, a formal performance code has existed. Overall, the introduction of a performance-based code has been successful. After six years of experience, a number of areas for improvement have been identified, such as quantification of performance requirements and the standardization of administrative procedures and design methods. These are being examined as part of the development of the next generation of a performance code by the Australian Building Codes Board together with the ongoing development of the Fire Safety Engineering Guidelines. The Engineers Australia Society of Fire Safety has also developed a Code of Practice to address a number of critical issues in relation to performance-based fire engineering design.

Uehara: Japan has had a performance code since June 2000. Prior to the performance code, Japan had a system of performance design approvals by the Minister of Construction. Approximately 1,000 or more projects were designed using this approach over a period of 15 years.

Richardson: Canada does not yet have a performance code, but an expert objective-based code should be completed by 2005. Therefore, our experience is limited to developing equivalencies to prescriptive codes and developing the performance expectations of prescriptive codes.

Gillespie: New Zealand has had a performance code since 1991. During that time period, performance-based fire engineering has demonstrated that the previous prescriptive codes were, in part, too conservative and, in part, not conservative enough. With respect to successes, performance codes have provided the ability to use lateral thinking and engineering to achieve acceptable levels of fire safety at a reasonable cost and in harmony with architectural concepts that would previously not have been possible. We have also realized that smoke control, not fire separation, is at the heart of fire safety design.

Regarding failures, the maintenance and inspection regime has often failed due to lack of commercial independence. This aspect is currently being reviewed by the New Zealand government and seems likely to be changed. There has also been a lack of consensus and validation of which fire engineering methodologies should be used, often resulting in the use of models well outside the scope of their validation.

Koffel: How have performance-based codes affected the practice of fire protection (safety) engineering in your area?
Gillespie: Performance codes have moved the profession from considering how best to work around the prescriptive fire protection requirements towards a better understanding and responsibility towards fire safety.

England: The performance-based Building Code of Australia has had a major impact on the practice of fire safety engineering by facilitating efficient acceptance of alternate building solutions. Fire protection engineering, those who primarily design fire protection systems, has not been significantly affected.

Uehara: Practical use of a performance design progressed, and more rational designs were attained in the design of refuge areas, design of smoke control systems, and fire-resistance design.

Ferguson: Performance codes have enabled a great expansion in the number of projects on which fire safety engineers are employed. Margaret Law was one of the earliest practitioners in the United Kingdom, and as a result of her work, there were some notable successes such as the Royal Exchange Theater in Manchester and the water-cooled structure of the Cannon St. Office in London. But it was only after the functional regulations appeared that our fire safety engineering group was established as a separate entity.

Bengston: Performance codes have resulted in far more calculations and more open buildings.

Koffel: Do you see the need for SFPE to develop standards addressing the practice of fire safety engineering?
Ferguson: No. We have the BS7974 that provides a framework for fire safety engineering. There are the ISO Technical Reports and the Australian Code Reform Centre's work. Despite chairing the BS activity for nearly 10 years, or perhaps because of it, I do not see a great practical value in these documents. That may change as fire safety engineering becomes more routine, but at present, they can only usefully talk about principles, and there is an odor of apple pie about them.

Richardson: Yes, whether or not performance codes materialize. Standards provide a benchmark against which professional competence and engineering performance can be measured.

England: There is a need for standards addressing the practice of fire safety and fire protection engineering to be developed. Ideally, these activities should be coordinated with other bodies to maximize the efficient use of resources. The Society of Fire Safety is willing to work with the SFPE and other organizations to develop guides and standards to facilitate the development of the discipline of fire safety engineering.

Gillespie: Yes, a huge raft of methodologies need to be developed to a point of consensus within our branch of engineering.

Koffel: We have discussed quite a bit regarding the practice of fire protection engineering or fire safety engineering throughout the world. What is the primary issue confronting fire protection (safety) engineers in your area?
Bengston: To know the goal in fire protection, how to model a fire in its early stage, and to find design values for the number of people per square meter.

Gillespie: Developing better and more uniform engineering methods and quality.

Sacco: Lack of a fire engineering culture and competition from low-level technicians.

Uehara: The lack of a qualification authorization system for fire protection engineers.

England: It is hard to focus on just one issue. Defining acceptable levels of safety for the community where these are not clearly defined in design codes is probably the most important. It can have a major impact on community safety and risk exposure of practitioners.

Richardson: The overabundance of unqualified individuals purporting to practice fire protection engineering coupled with a lack of recognition for what fire protection engineers can really do.

Chow: The cost is too high for fire safety provisions when there is no accident.

Frable: The primary issue confronting fire protection engineers in the United States, if not the world, is how the discipline of fire protection engineering can be integrated seamlessly into any design process to ensure a successful project. All too often, fire protection engineering is still being thought of as just a "cost over-ride" or "afterthought" and not a fundamental necessity or concept that needs to be incorporated into every project. Fire protection engineers are often not seen as a vital necessity resource in the majority of projects in the United States.

Fire protection engineering impacts in some way or another all aspects of any project design, be it the ventilation system design or security. The view of fire protection engineering though the eyes of many designers has been shortsighted for many years and must be expanded. Another issue that needs to be looked into is the fire protection engineer's inability to assure that the quality design is maintained throughout the useful life of a building.

Koffel: I want to thank all of you for participating in this international roundtable discussion. While there are some differences affecting the global practice of fire protection or fire safety engineering, your responses have indicated that there are more similarities than differences. For those of you who have more experience with performance codes than others, there is a lot that we can learn from your experiences. Dave Frable's response to the last question provides an excellent summary of the issues and concerns facing fire protection (safety) engineers, and many of the items he raised appear throughout your responses in this discussion.

Roundtable Participants

William E. Koffel, P.E., FSFPE – Mr. Koffel is President of Koffel Associates, Inc., a fire protection engineering and code consulting firm. Mr. Koffel is also the current president of the Society of Fire Protection Engineers and facilitated the roundtable discussion. Mr. Koffel can be contacted at wkoffel@koffel.com.

Staffan Bengston, MSc, Structural Engineering (Sweden) – Mr. Bengston is one of the main owners of Brandskyddslaget AB. He has done extensive fire safety engineering for a variety of structures and more recently has been interested in designs for disabled individuals. He is a Past President of the SFPE Swedish Chapter. Mr. Bengston can be contacted at staffan.bengston@brandskyddslaget.se.

Professor W. K. Chow (Hong Kong) – Professor Chow is the Chair Professor of Architectural Science and Fire Engineering at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Professor Chow is the Founding President of the SFPE Hong Kong Chapter. Professor Chow can be contacted at bewkchow@polyu.edu.hk.

Paul England, CPEng, MIEAust. (Austalia) – Mr. England is the Managing Director of Warrington Fire Research Aust. Pty. Ltd. He is currently the National President of the Engineers Australia Society of Fire Safety and Chairman of the Standards Australia Committee responsible for fire safety engineering and fire testing. Mr. England can be contacted at paul.england@wfra.com.au.

David Frable, (United States) – Mr. Frable is the Senior Fire Protection Engineer, Fire Protection Engineering & Life Safety Program, U.S. General Service Administration (GSA). He is responsible for GSA's national fire protection engineering and life safety program and represents the GSA on various technical committees responsible for developing codes and standards in the United States. Mr. Fable can be contacted at dave.fable@gsa.gov.

Anthony Ferguson (United Kingdom) – Mr. Ferguson is a fire safety engineer and architect with Arup Fire. He is a registered architect with an Honours degree from the University of Edinburgh and an MSc in Fire Safety Engineering also from Edinburgh. He also chairs the BSI Committee on Fire Safety Engineering. Mr. Ferguson can be contacted at Anthony.Ferguson@arup.com.

Richard Gillespie, Reg. Eng. (New Zealand) – Mr. Gillespie is a Director at Fire Engineering Solutions Limited. Mr. Gillespie can be contacted at rpgillespie@skm.co.nz.

J. Kenneth Richardson, P.Eng., FSPFE (Canada) – Mr. Richardson is President of Ken Richardson Fire Technologies, Inc., a fire safety engineering consulting company. Previously, he was the Director of Fire Risk Management Program at the Institute for Research in Construction of the National Research Council of Canada. He was the Founding President of the SFPE National Capital Region Chapter and a Past President of the SFPE. Mr. Richardson can be contacted at Ken.Richardson@krfiretech.com.

Simone Sacco, P. E. (Italy) – Mr. Sacco is President of Marsh Risk Consulting Services S.r.l. He has also been a Lecturer at the Insurance Engineer Master program at the Polytechnic of Milan. He was a founder of the SFPE Italy Chapter and is the current Chairman of the Chapter. Mr. Sacco can be contacted at simonetto.sacco@marsh.com.

Shigeo Uehara (Japan) – Mr. Uehara is the Chief Researcher at the R & D Institute, Takenaka Corporation. Mr. Uehara's specialty is in building fire protection planning and safety design, and he won the Prize of the Japan Association for Fire Science and Engineering in 2001. He is a Director of the SFPE Japan Chapter. Mr. Uehara can be contacted at uehara.shigeo@takenaka.co.jp.

William E. Koffel, P.E., FSFPE, is President, Society of Fire Protection Engineers.