forum

Effectiveness of smoke barriers pressurised stair enclosures

Elissa Fazio Post-graduate student VUT, Senior Consultant, Noel Arnold & Associates Ian Bennetts Centre for Environmental Safety and Risk Engineering, VUT Mariusz Paks School of Architectural, Civil and Mechanical Engineering, VUT

This paper reports on the progress of a post-graduate research project into the effectiveness of stairwell pressurisation systems and the factors that affect the performance of these systems. Because the work is still in progress final outcomes and conclusions are not available at this stage, however, they will be reported in EcoLibrium once available. The paper contains some general comments on the performance of stairwell pressurisation systems, readers wanting to share any relevant experiences with specific systems are encouraged to e-mail news@airah.org.au
Abstract There is an underlying belief by many in the heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) and fire engineering industries that stair pressurisation systems (SPS) do not operate as designed. This is often believed to be true for both new and older buildings; from when they are commissioned, to routine maintenance and actual performance. The research project described in this paper was chosen to investigate and generate an effectiveness model for these systems, which will assess the factors affecting the efficacy of SPS in the hope of reducing the time associated with commissioning, maintenance costs, etc, thereby improving the overall installation, maintenance and more importantly, improving the performance of SPS. A detailed study of two buildings within the Melbourne CBD is being conducted as part of this research. Both buildings chosen for this purpose have SPS one which is common in older buildings and the other, typical of current design practices incorporating a variable speed drive (VSD). The information obtained from these buildings (such as the commissioning history, maintenance records, etc) will be used to model and assess the effectiveness of the SPS in terms of the reliability (defined as, whether or not the system/components operate) and the efficacy (that is; if the system operates will the resulting performance be as required by the relevant Australian standards (AS1668.1 1979, 1998)). This research is not aimed at identifying whether or not the performance requirements defined in the Australian standards AS1668.1 (1979, 1998) are suitable, but whether these defined performance requirements are likely to be achieved.

Introduction
Stairwell pressurisation systems (SPS) are a form of smoke control used in buildings generally greater than 25 meters in effective height. Their purpose is to keep escape routes such as stairwells clear of smoke during a fire, thereby allowing a safe egress path for occupants to evacuate the building. This is achieved by bringing the stairwell to a higher pressure than the surrounding floors in the building, thereby generating a pressure differential. As the stairwell is at a higher pressure than its surroundings, smoke flow into the escape route is restricted. The aim of this research is to assess the effectiveness of a representative SPS. The term effectiveness may be defined as a combination of reliability and efficacy (Moore and Timms 1997), where reliability refers to whether the system operates, and efficacy for example; refers to whether or not the performance requirements set by the standard are achieved. Therefore, 100% effectiveness means that the SPS operates and gives the internal differential pressures within the stairwell, as required by the standards. Other definitions of efficacy

Above typical stairwell pressurisation fan

22

EcoLibrium March 2004

Figure 1 component diagram are possible (eg. the ability of a system to keep smoke out during a real fire), however, the aforementioned definition is adopted for the purpose of this research. From the research undertaken thus far, it would appear that the commissioning stage of SPS is one of the most critical aspects in obtaining an effective system. Commissioning of the SPS may take many years before it is made operational as designed, thereby resulting in the building possibly not being protected as designed prior to occupancy. This fact suggests there is a significant level of complexity and uncertainty associated with these systems. Furthermore, during the possibly lengthy stage of commissioning, the building may become occupied. The implications of this for occupant safety should be considered and can only be properly assessed using a detailed model for effectiveness. The development of such a model should also assist in reducing the commissioning time and the associated costs. The development of such a model is the objective of the project described in this paper.

Stair pressurisation systems

Early research findings Early research into these systems focused on validating the minimum pressure and airflow velocities required to obtain smoke-free stairwells. Examples of this approach included full-scale fire tests in multi-storey buildings, including a 14storey hotel building in Atlanta (Koplan 1973a, 1973b), a 22-storey office building in New York City (DeCicco 1973), where a theoretical model of shaft airflows was also developed and tested, and a seven-storey office building in Hamburg (Butcher et al 1976), where a fire using wood cribs was used to test the SPS. Other tests are reported to have been conducted in the UK, Canada, United States, France, Germany and Japan (Klote 1995a). All of these full-scale tests showed that pressure differentials can prevent smoke migration from the low-pressure side of a barrier to the high-pressure side and could provide smoke-free exits (Klote 1995b).

Above SPS variable speed drive controller

forum
Description Building completion Sprinkler protection No. of floors Floors served by single SPF No. of stairwells Design Standard Maintenance Standard No. of fans per stairwell No. of fans per block of floors No. of injection points per block located at floors Building 1 (System 1) ~ 1985 Yes 8 + plant/roof 8 2 AS1668.1:19792 AS1851.6:1983 1 1 Single (1) Stair 1 - at Floor 7 Building 2 (System 2) ~1990 Yes 54 + 3 plant/roof 11 (generally) 2 AS1668.1:19792 AS1851.6:1983 5 + OAF 1 Multiple (18) Stair 1 - at P2/P1, LG/GF, 4/5, 7/8, 10/11, 13/14, 16/17, 18/19, 22/23, 24/25, 28/29, 32/33, 35/36, 38/39, 41/42, 44/45, 48, 52 Stair 2 - at P2, LG/GF, 1, 5, 9, 12, 15, 19, 23, 25, 29, 33, 36, 39, 42, 45, 48, 52 Zone/Sandwich Staefa PKE:P1 - NA Celmec Belimo Motors FFE 9000 Axial, Woods fans 38J (2.5 kW); #1,2, 5-10 48J (3.4kW / 4.6kW) #3 /#4

Stair 2 - at Floor 7 Building smoke control method Pressure sensor Variable speed drive Pressure relief dampers Damper motors FIP SPF Air Purge/Smoke Spill Siemens QBM 61.202 Toshiba - NA - NA Ampac Fire Finder Axial, Woods fans 4.6 kW

Table 1 Table 1 - building/system description (NA = not applicable, SPF = stair pressurisation fan, OAF = outside air fan)

From these early tests, the level of pressurisation required was found to be dependent on whether or not the building was sprinkler protected. For example; DeCiccos (1973) full-scale fire experiments showed that smoke-free exits could be obtained for an unsprinklered large fire (Klote and Milke 2002a) where pressurisation was provided. Another finding was that the minimum design pressure differentials for a non-sprinkler protected building are almost double those required for a sprinkler protected building, ie; 12 Pa required for a sprinklered building and 20 Pa required for a non-sprinklered building (NFPA 1993). It is important to note that the above studies presumed that the pressurisation systems would operate if required to do so. In practice this may not be the case, due to the uncertainties associated with the many parts of the system. Key aspects of performance Based on a review of the literature, some of the key factors which influence the efficacy of SPS include (Klote andFothergill 1983): the buildings leakage characteristics (ie; cracks, lift wells, etc. which can affect pressure differentials), the external building conditions (such as wind and temperature, which are also related to the stack effect), the buoyancy of hot gases generated in a fire, and the operation of other mechanical ventilation systems (Butcher et al 1969). It is often assumed that all components in a complex system operate initially (Klote and Milke 2002b) and that failures occur

some time after system installation, however, this would only be true if the system was successfully commissioned at the time of occupancy. Test results (Moore and Timms 1997) indicate that the quality of commissioning has the greatest effect on the overall probability of failure, while maintenance and installation quality have similar effects to each other. As noted previously, the commissioning process for SPS is not usually straightforward and may take considerable time after the building is occupied. The effect of commissioning on system effectiveness is important and this effect is being investigated in this project. It is known that leakage within the stair shaft has a major influence on system efficacy (Klote and Milke 2002c). What is not appreciated is that leakage is often a function of the standard of workmanship, as opposed to the specific form of construction . Gaps to the outside of the building, and to other parts of the building, do not have to be large to reduce the pressure able to be developed within a stair shaft. Sufficient pressure must be obtained to prevent the ingress of smoke; however, the pressure must also be low enough to enable the stair doors to be opened (doors open inwards into the stairwell). In practice there is a narrow range of acceptable pressures. The implications are clear. Unless very carefully controlled, a fan specified to achieve adequate pressurisation in a likely leaky stair shaft could develop excessive pressure and would prevent doors opening in a tight shaft, however, until the building is constructed, the level of leakage associated with the shaft is not fully realised.

24

EcoLibrium March 2004

forum

Figure 2 (indicative) fault tree Further research In order to develop an effectiveness model for SPS it is necessary to have a more or less complete understanding of the design, construction and maintenance aspects of these systems. A previous attempt to do this (Zhao 1998) adopted a simplified approach using basic fault trees and published data to assess the reliability of a single fan system. Zhao did not consider the efficacy of the system. An attempt was made to look at the effects of commissioning and maintenance on system reliability, however, limited data was available at the time. This project takes a more realistic approach, and considers both the efficacy and reliability of typically more complex SPS as found in many high-rise office buildings. In addition, the project aims to develop an effectiveness model for SPS. It also aims to develop a complete picture of SPS, thereby exposing potential weakness in areas such as the design/commissioning requirements, etc. It is important to note, that both buildings had SPS installed at the time of construction, as opposed to being retrofitted at a latter stage.

Methodology
The stair pressurisation and alarm systems in each of these buildings have been studied in great detail in order to construct diagrams showing the interrelationship between the various components associated with activating and operating a SPS. The diagram for building 1 is shown in figure 1 and is essential if potential fault sources are to be identified. The corresponding (indicative) fault tree is illustrated in figure 2, however, the contribution of the commissioning stage has not been detailed on the figure as yet. The failure rate data for the various components relevant to the fault tree is currently being obtained through consultation with organisations associated with the testing of components and systems. Once this data has been established, the reliability of the SPS will be determined in terms of how the component black boxes are identified in the fault trees. Similar corresponding diagrams have been prepared for building 2. The assessment of weaknesses/faults is important in considering the likely reliability of these systems and the influence of this on the effectiveness of the systems. As noted previously, the efficacy of these systems is defined as their ability to meet the specific performance design criteria (door opening force, airflow velocity, differential pressure) specified in the relevant Australian standards. AS1668.1 (1979) is taken as the relevant standard for these buildings as it was

Project description
In order to assess the effectiveness of SPS, two buildings have been chosen within the Melbourne CBD. These buildings are referred to as building 1 (containing system 1) and building 2 (containing system 2). These buildings were chosen as access to their commissioning and maintenance/testing records are available and the pressurisation systems are representative of the newer (system 1) and older (system 2) systems installed in Australia. Details of these buildings and their components are listed in table 1.

EcoLibrium March 2004

25

forum

current at the time of construction. The standard details the pressure/velocity/force, etc requirements as applicable to the SPS installed, as well as the operational requirements. At the time of this design standard, there were no guidelines/ standards for testing or maintenance of the SPS. Such a standard only became available in 1983 with the publication of AS1851.6:1983 Maintenance of Fire Protection Equipment, Part 6 Management Procedures for Maintaining the Fire Precaution Features of Air Handling Systems. This standard specifies the management procedures for periodic maintenance inspections. While the standard was not intended to be applied to commissioning/recommissioning tests, it could be used as a guide for these tests. In analysing the commissioning and maintenance requirements for these systems, the requirements of AS1668.1 (1979, 1998) and AS1851.6 (1983), respectively, will be summarised, as applicable for the two buildings. Preliminary research shows that today, SPS are commissioned and even tested against the requirements of AS1668.1 (1998). It is understood that the requirements of this standard are used as a guide when commissioning/recommissioning SPS within buildings, independent of the time of construction. However, the details of what is tested and how eg; which doors were opened for which test, the external weather conditions, etc., is not usually provided.

forum
Anticipated deliverables

and/or personal exposure limits. The program has the ability to calculate building airflows, the distribution of ventilation air within a building, as well as to estimate the impact of envelope air tightening efforts on infiltration rates, ie; building leakage. Computer modelling can also be used to simulate several different building features for example, pressurised stairwells, chimneys, etc. and to calculate room-to-room airflow pressure differentials induced by mechanical and natural forces. By using computer modeling, the importance of these influencing factors can be assessed. In reality, reliability and efficacy cannot be completely uncoupled since the efficacy of the system may also be affected by the reliability of the various components (eg. failure of one fan or damper but not all). Efficacy is also influenced by factors such as leakage within the shaft and the building and outside weather conditions.

It is anticipated that, upon completion, this research project will deliver the following outcomes: a clear, detailed picture of SPS (components, interrelationships, etc); a detailed presentation of the design criteria for these systems (pressure, flows, etc); a description of commissioning and maintenance requirements; and, most importantly; an effectiveness model appropriate for multi-storey office buildings, taking into account component uncertainty and the uncertainties associated with construction, commissioning, maintenance and variations in external wind conditions. Significant progress has been made with respect to the first three outcomes. This is essential before significant progress can be made with the effectiveness model. The development of fault trees and identification of the range of parameters that must be considered in relation to the fourth outcome, the effectiveness model, has already commenced.

Variation of outside atmospheric conditions can lead to substantial variations in internal pressures such that, even in a commissioned building, the door opening forces may become unacceptably high after the commissioning is completed and results certified. The reality is that with SPS there are only a few system variables that can be adjusted (ie; fan speed or relief damper) but many more potential input variables may have an influence on the efficacy of the system, so it will always be difficult to find a solution that works at all times. The effect of some such factors, such as leakage and external wind conditions on pressures within stair shafts can be modelled using a program such as CONTAMW (NIST 2002), a multi-zone indoor air quality and ventilation analysis tool designed to determine the airflows, contaminant concentrations

Conclusion
Work on the development of an effectiveness model is continuing. The review of commissioning records for the two subject buildings and experience gained from organisations expert in the maintenance and commissioning of SPS, reveals the following important facts regarding these systems: systems without VSDs (fans) can be difficult to commission due to a number of factors, especially unexpected leakage within the stair shaft which may develop over time. Commissioning can take years and requires significant effort to reduce leakage levels; systems with VSDs can be more simply commissioned, however, even a VSD cannot overcome an undersized fan or excessively leaky shafts. During commissioning of these systems, there may also be extreme wind conditions that will result in unacceptably high pressures within the shaft; the reliability of VSD, if properly commissioned, would appear to be high which contrasts with earlier experiences with older technology; the achievement of satisfactory stair pressures, flows at doors and door opening forces at many levels under a variety of external wind conditions is a challenging exercise, Above testing SPS airflow velocity with an anemometer

26

EcoLibrium March 2004

 the maintenance standard AS1851.6 does not specifically address SPS with zone smoke control systems installed within the building, and as such the design standard AS1668.1 is referred to when testing these SPS.

Acknowledgements
The author would like to acknowledge the following organisations who have substantially contributed their time and personnel with assisting the author with the research project thus far: AG Coombs Servicing Pty Ltd Allstaff Air-conditioning VIC, NSW CB Richard Ellis Centre for Environmental Safety and Risk Engineering, VUT Corporate Fire Fire Fighting Enterprises Frigrite Air-Conditioning Jones Lang LaSalle Noel Arnold & Associates Professional Engineering Solutions Pty Ltd School of Architectural, Civil and Mechanical Engineering, VUT Siemens Vining Air Pty Ltd

Corrosion protection
Colorworks Mobile Painting, in conjunction with Dulux, has recently released the CoilGuard anti-corrosion treatment, designed to reduce corrosion problems in air-cooled heat exchangers.

References
Australian Standard AS1668.1:1979 SAA Mechanical Ventilation and Air Conditioning Code, Part 1 Fire Precautions in Buildings with Air-Handling systems, Standards Association of Australia, NSW. Australian Standard AS1668.1:1998 The use of ventilation and airconditioning in buildings Part 1 Fire and Smoke control in multi-compartment buildings, Standards Australia. Butcher, E.G. [et al] (1969) Prediction of the behaviour of smoke in a building using a computer, Symposium on the Movement of Smoke in Escape Routes in Buildings. Watford, Herts, UK: Watford College of Technology. Butcher, E.G. [et al] (1976) Smoke control by pressurisation, Fire Engineers Journal, vol.36, no.103, pp.16-19. DeCicco, P.R. 1973, Smoke and fire control in high-rise office buildings Part I: Full-scale tests for establishing standards, American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc, Symposium Bulletin, pp.9-15. Klote, J.H. 1995a, The SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, Society of Fire Safety, National Fire Protection Association, 2nd edn, Section 4.ch.12, pp.4-230. Klote, J.H. 1995b, An Overview of Smoke Control Research, American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc, Transactions, Symposia vol.101, no.1, p.982. Klote, J.H. and Fothergill, J.W. 1983, Design of Smoke Control Systems for Buildings, American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. Klote, J.H. and Milke, J.A. 2002a, Principles of Smoke Management, American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc, Society of Fire Safety Engineering, ch.1, p.4. Klote, J.H. and Milke, J.A. 2002b, Principles of Smoke Management, American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc, Society of Fire Safety Engineering, ch.6, p.87. Klote, J.H. and Milke, J.A. 2002c, Principles of Smoke Management, American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc, Society of Fire Safety Engineering, ch.1, p.9. Koplan, N.A. 1973a, Report of the Henry Grady fire tests, City of Atlanta Building Department, Atlanta. Koplan, N.A. 1973b, A partial report of the Henry Grady fire tests, ASHRAE Symposium Bulletin, Atlanta GA July, pp.3-8.

The aluminium-impregnated polyurethane treatment can be applied either on site by a mobile crew or in our factory in Chipping Norton, New South Wales, and is suited to both new and existing coils.

CoilGuard will stop corrosion in its tracks.

For more information, contact Colorworks Mobile Painting Pty Ltd on 1800 004 964 or visit our website www.colorworksmp.com.au E-mail admin@colorworksmp.com.au

forum
Ferreira, M.J. 1998, Analysis of Smoke Control System Designs Using a Computer Based Airflow Analysis, Pacific Rim Conference and 2nd International Conference on Performance-Based Codes and Fire Safety Design Methods, Maui, Hawaii. Hobson, P.J. and Stewart, L.J. 1972, Pressurisation of escape routes in buildings, PRS Fire Research, Note 958, UK. Klote, J.H. 1994, Fire and Smoke Control: An Historical Perspective, [reprinted from American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and AirConditioning Engineers, Inc, Journal], vol. 36, no. 7, pp.46-50. Klote, J.H., and Milke, J.A. 1992a. Design of Smoke Management Systems, American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc, Atlanta, ch.1. Klote, J.H. and Milke, J.A. 1992b, Design of Smoke Management Systems, American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc, Atlanta.

Above testing door opening force with SPS in operation

Moore, I. and Timms, G. 1997, Fire Code Reform Centre Project 6: Fire Safety Systems for Sprinklered Low Rise Shopping Centres Reliability of Smoke Control Systems, Scientific Services Laboratory Report. NFPA. 1993, NFPA 92, A Recommended practice for smoke control systems, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA: NIST. 2002, CONTAMW 2.0 User Manual. Multizone Airflow and Contaminant Transport Analysis Software, Building and Fire Research Laboratory, NISTIR 6921. Zhao, L. 1998, Technical Report FCRC-TR 98-05. Project 4. Part A Cure Model and Residential Buildings. Reliability of Stair Pressurisation and Zone Smoke Control Systems, Centre for Environmental Safety and Risk Engineering, Victoria University of Technology.

Klote, J.H. and Milke, J.A. 1992c, Design of Smoke Management Systems, American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc, Atlanta, ch.7. Klote, J.H. and Milke, J.A. 2002d, Principles of Smoke Management, American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and AirConditioning Engineers, Inc, Society of Fire Safety Engineering, ch.8, p.119. Lincolne Scott. 1988, Research Project: Efficacy of Pressurisation Systems, Prepared for Australian Uniform Building Regulation Coordinating Council, Stage 1: Report. Lincolne Scott. 1991, Research Project: Efficacy of Pressurisation Systems, Prepared for Australian Uniform Building Regulation Coordinating Council, Stage 2: Report. NBFU. 1939, Smoke Hazards of Air-Conditioning Systems, National Fire Protection Association, Quarterly vol.33, no.2, pp.113-122.

Bibliography AS 16681.1:1974, Fire Precautions in Buildings with Air Handling Systems, Standards Association of Australia, NSW. AS 1668.1 1991, The use of mechanical ventilation and air-conditioning in buildings, Part 1: Fire and Smoke Control, Standards Australia. Building Code of Australia 1996. Australian Building Codes Board. Butcher, G. and Moss, C. 1991, Pressurisation Systems as a Fire Safety Measure Difficulties Associated with Their Design and Installation, Fire Surveyor, June, positive pressure.28-33. Cresci, R.J. 1973, Smoke and fire control in high-rise office buildings Part II: Analysis of stair pressurisation systems, American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc, Symposium Bulletin Pressurisation, pp.16-23. Fang, J.B. and Persily, A.K. 1995, Airflow and Radon Transport Modelling in Four Large Buildings, American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc, Transactions, vol.101, no.1.

About the author (principal)

Elissa Fazio has been a senior consultant with Noel Arnold & Associates (NAA) for over two and a half years. Prior to becoming a consultant specialising in fire safety, she worked for three years with Vision Fire and Security (VFS) in the product development and marketing divisions. Her post graduate studies include a Graduate Diploma in Fire Safety and Risk Engineering at Victoria University of Technology (VUT). Currently she is completing her Masters of Engineering on a part-time basis (also through VUT) in order to further advance her skills in the area of fire safety systems.

This paper was originally presented at the AIRAH active and passive fire and smoke control conference in Sydney during November 2003.

28

EcoLibrium March 2004