The Impact of Building Code Changes on Fire Service Safety

 By Richard Licht, Technical Director

Alliance for Fire and Smoke Containment and Control (AFSCC)

Tarrytown, New York

 Dramatic changes have been made in U.S. building codes over the past several years, but most of these changes have been made without significant input from those who face the dangerous challenges of fire suppression – the fire services. 

Changes to the building codes are driven largely by architects, engineers, building owners, construction material manufacturers and others focused on controlling or reducing construction costs.  There is surprisingly little testimony from the fire fighters, fire marshals, fire chiefs, fire inspectors and investigators. Among their own peer groups, the various fire services participate in the development of fire codes, but there has been historically little cross-over communication between construction interests and fire services when building codes are revised.

Unfortunately, fire services professionals are often not educated in building technology. Even veteran fire fighters can be at a loss to express themselves in “building code language” at technical committee meetings and, as a result, their contribution may be lost.  A lack of specialized education in building construction can cost lives if fire fighters are unprepared to identify specific construction deficiencies or hazards while fighting fires. At the same time, most engineers, architects and manufacturers may never have faced a structural collapse during a fire, and, therefore, lack experience in dealing with fire hazards up close.

In an article entitled “Are Architects, Engineers and Code-Writing Officials Friends of the Firefighter”, Vincent Dunn, a retired New York City Fire Department deputy chief, concluded that the code development community has embraced modern building construction methods without adequate consideration of the hazards they pose to fire fighters.  (http://www.ncma.org/online/Fire/vincedunn.pdf.)

Dunn identifies multiple areas of concern in the newest building code and standards. These include allowance of lightweight construction materials, including particle board I-beams, lightweight steel bar joist-truss for floor and roof construction, sheet metal C-beams for floor and roof assemblies, and insufficient spray-on insulation for steel structural members. Dunn also questions the elimination of fire-resistive construction to contain fires in favor of sprinkling.

Dunn's assessment isn't surprising. There is mounting evidence that recent code changes designed to reduce construction costs are detrimental to building occupants and fire fighters.

Building Code Background

Over the past 30 years, the former three national model building codes groups –

the Building Officials and Code Administrators International (BOCA), the Southern Building Code Congress International (SBCCI), and the International Conference of Building Officials(ICBO) have called for increased use of sprinklers, while steadily rolling back requirements for smoke control and fire-resistant components.  These include fire and smoke dampers, doors,  fireproofing, firestop systems, fire-rated glazing, and fire-rated walls, and fire-rated ceiling assemblies. Fire-rated components and materials help control the spread of fire, and limit the damage to a burning building and surrounding structures.  More important, materials that contain or control fires give building occupants sufficient time to escape, and allow firefighters to act before the structure collapses.

The new International Building Code (IBC) represents a consolidation of the three regional model codes. In order to make the adoption of the IBC attractive to as many jurisdictions as possible, the International Code Council incorporated the least restrictive provisions of each former model code. Consequently the new codes, which have been widely adopted throughout the United States, represent an overall reduction in fire and life safety. 

Examples of IBC Construction Trends

For example, BOCA allowed certain buildings with sprinklers to be constructed with no area restrictions or “fire ratings" as long as they were only one-story high. Under the IBC and the recently completed NFPA 5000 Building Code, such buildings can now be two-stories high and need not include fire-resistive construction.

The SBCCI Standard Building Code required structurally independent fire walls that separate building units to have a four-hour fire resistance rating. However, the new codes have reduced the ratings to as little as two or three hours, in most cases, depending on a building's occupancy and use.

The ICBO Uniform Building Code allowed sprinklers to be "traded off" for increases in the allowable height or area of buildings, while the IBC and NFPA 5000 Building Code allow increases in both height and area by as much as 200 to 300 percent without increasing fire-resistant construction. Tables 1 and 2 offer comparisons of allowable heights and areas of the former model codes with those of the new IBC.

Table 1 - Allowable Areas (table values) of IBC and Model Codes

UL = unlimited area

IBC=International Building Code

NBC=National Building Code

SBC=Standard Building Code

UBC=Uniform Building Code

Table 2 - Allowable Heights (table values) of IBC and Model Codes

 UL = unlimited

 Are Sprinklers Alone Enough?

Both construction and fire officials agree on the value of a properly designed, well maintained sprinkler system for commercial buildings.  However, when fire service professionals vigorously campaign for increased use of sprinklers, they are frequently unaware that the installation of sprinklers simultaneously triggers a myriad of code provisions that permit multiple reductions and the complete elimination of many other built-in fire and smoke protection features that would otherwise be required by the building codes. Under the new building codes, any and all such trade-offs could be applied in the same structure when sprinklers are installed.

The National Fire Sprinkler Association (NFSA) promotes sprinkler trade-offs on the basis of cost savings and the economic incentive to install active fire protection.  Examples of what it calls "trade-ups" are listed on the NFSA website and described as construction "cost savings benefits" for installing sprinkler systems.  According to the NFSA, sprinklers: