TESTING ATRIUM SMOKE CONTROL SYSTEMS

Smoke control systems often require unique testing strategies and involve a larger than
usual coordination effort between construction disciplines.
By Justin Garner, PE, TBE, Engineered Air Balance Co. Inc.
02/20/2012
On a recent hospital project, the test and balance agency was tasked with testing the functionality
and performance of two large atrium smoke control systems. Smoke control systems often require
unique testing strategies and involve a larger than usual coordination effort between construction
disciplines.
These particular systems required coordination with the architect, design mechanical and electrical
engineer, life safety consulting engineer, general contractor, mechanical contractor, electrical
contractor, controls contractor, and the fire alarm contractor. Further, each piece of the system from
each discipline required individual testing prior to the integrated test of the system. This article is a
brief description of the total process involved in proving to the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ)
that the atrium smoke control systems were operational for the purpose of occupying the building.
Construction and Design Phases
During the design phase of the project, the architect hired a life safety consultant to perform smoke
plume analysis and initial airflow calculations utilizing the methodology in NFPA 92B, Standard for

Smoke Management Systems in Malls, Atria, and Large Spaces.

The mechanical engineer then used the design airflows from the life safety consultants calculations to
design the fan systems for each atrium to provide the correct airflow.
The mechanical engineer also provided the required makeup air opening
sizes to the architect and scheduled the appropriate DDC control
sequences for the systems. The electrical engineer was tasked with
including the smoke control fan systems, DDC controls, and fire alarm
controls in the emergency power system, and incorporating the correct
components into the fire alarm system schematics and specifications.
The architect was tasked to design the smoke barrier enclosure to the
required fire and smoke ratings, as well as determining the doors,
window panels and hardware required for operation of the system. This
design of the smoke control system was included in the construction
project documents.
During the construction phase of the project, all components of the
system were installed as indicated on the construction drawings.
During the initial TAB inspection of the system, it was noted that a sheetrock furr down (also known
as a bulkhead) was installed, obscuring about one-third of the inlet duct for the larger smoke control
fan.
Further, no access doors were provided for inspecting the fan equipment or dampers. The general
contractor and mechanical contractor were consulted and they agreed to add access doors, but no
action was taken on the obstructed ductwork.

The makeup air for the systems was to be provided by sliding electric entry doors and motorized
panels at each exterior entrance to the main atrium smoke zone. The smaller atrium had motorized
panel windows only.
After inspection, it was noted that the controls contractor did not have any provisions to command
the doors and windows. The general contractor was consulted as well as the fire alarm contractor,
and both the fire alarm and controls contractors thought the other trade was to control the doors and
fans.
Therefore, no controls had been installed by any contractor on the systems.
A meeting was held with the design team, the owner, and the contractors involved to clarify the
system operation. The life safety consultant indicated the design intent as listed in the code and the
design basis of their model. The architect also commented on their part regarding the windows and
doors.
The mechanical engineer clarified that the DDC controls should operate the entire system, with an
input from the fire alarm system and a status back to the fire alarm system. This was confirmed
through the RFI process and the controls work proceeded.
Pre-TAB Review
A pre-TAB review of the systems was performed. During this review, the smoke control zones were
identified using the architectural drawings, and the door and window openings for the makeup air
paths were measured. The result of these calculations when compared to the design airflows for each
fan system indicated that there were not enough makeup air openings for the larger atrium system.
The code specifies that the air velocity at the point of contact with the smoke plume cannot exceed
200 feet per minute.
This issue was discussed with the design team and it was determined that one set of exterior doors
was considered in the original calculation, but not scheduled for automatic opening hardware. The
design team asked for a system performance test with the doors open and closed to determine if the
code criteria could be met.
Testing Phase
The initial test of the system was scheduled for late in the evening. Since the controls were not
installed, the entire system was manually commanded. The fans were operated at design speed and
Pitot tube traverses were used to determine system airflows. All operating data was recorded.
The test of the larger system showed that the fan could not achieve design airflow due to the
bulkhead obstruction.
The general contractor promptly removed as much of the obstruction as possible and the system was
retested. After the removal, the system could achieve design airflow.
During the second test, velocity profiles of each makeup air entrance were measured using rotating
vane anemometers on grids laid out with tape. This testing determined that all exterior doors were
required for makeup air to the larger atrium system. The design team and contractor determined and
ordered the required hardware and the components for automatic opening.
Unfortunately, the door controls were a long lead-time item and could not be procured within the
time required for issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy. Therefore, additional window

panels on the interior vestibule of the large atrium were temporarily removed to create more makeup
air openings. The smaller atrium system performed as scheduled with makeup velocities within the
code limits.
The DDC and fire alarm system components were installed and tested
individually. The DDC controls interface to the motorized doors and
windows was problematic and required a great deal of troubleshooting
from the general contractor and automatic access contractor. Once
these issues were resolved, a final acceptance test was scheduled with
the owner and design team to prove functionality a few days before the
required temporary occupancy milestone.
A system airflow performance report was submitted to the design
engineer for review prior to the acceptance test. It was also agreed that
final velocity readings would be taken to prove the temporary makeup
solution was acceptable.
To initiate the test with the building operating on normal power, the fire
alarm contractor tripped a pull station in each atrium and the smoke control systems were activated.
The automatic doors and window panels opened and the fan systems started and ramped to full
airflow. Air velocities were measured at the main entrance doors to the large atrium, but the readings
were affected by high winds and did not meet the code criteria. It was agreed to continue testing the
functionality of the systems.
Next, normal power was de-energized to the building with the smoke control systems operating, and
the emergency power system was activated. The smoke control system shutdown and restart on
emergency power was timed and determined to be within acceptable limits.
The smoke systems were then deactivated manually at the firemans smoke control override panel
and verified for proper operation. After reactivation at the firemans panel, the fire alarm system was
reset under emergency power.
The design team requested that the smoke
control systems be activated by a beam detector
in each atrium. Using a rope connected to the
atrium ceiling, each beam detector was tripped,
initiating the respective smoke control system.
Finally, the building power was returned to
normal. The shutdown and restarts of the
systems were verified to be within acceptable
limits. The only final hurdle for the system was
proving the makeup velocities were acceptable.
After studying the weather forecast, the morning of the day for temporary occupancy was determined
for a retest of the velocities. The wind was very calm, and the large atrium system was initiated and
tested. The door velocities with the temporary panels removed were found to be within the code
requirements.

The design engineer was able to write a letter to the AHJ certifying that the systems were operational
and the facility was granted a temporary certificate of occupancy on schedule. The final verification of
the system came weeks later when the door hardware for the final makeup door was installed and
tested satisfactorily.
Lessons Learned:

The design team members must coordinate and be very careful to include the appropriate
components and sequences in the design documents for a functional system.

The controls and fire alarm contractors must coordinate to provide integration between
systems to meet the appropriate control requirements.

The design team and general contractor must ensure that architectural components do not
interfere with proper operation of the system.

Finally, the TAB firm must be able to suggest and facilitate an appropriate test to verify
system performance and sequencing through all operating modes of the system.

This article originally appeared in the TAB Journal, published by the Associated Air Balance Council.

Related News:
Applying NFPA 13 in high-rise buildings - 18.10.2011 00:00
Integrating fire protection in building systems - 30.08.2011 00:00
Specifying fire sprinkler systems - 12.07.2011 06:00
NFPA 3: Commissioning fire protection systems - 06.05.2011 00:00
Rethinking the smokeproof enclosure - 02.02.2011 12:00

SMOKE MANAGEMENT IN LARGE ARENAS

Prior to the 2010 National Building Code of Canada (NBC), designing a code-conforming indoor
stadium or arena with more than about 2,000 seats was a challenge (some would say a nightmare).
Obtaining a building permit was an equal or even...
Prior to the 2010 National Building Code of Canada (NBC), designing a code-conforming indoor
stadium or arena with more than about 2,000 seats was a challenge (some would say a nightmare).
Obtaining a building permit was an equal or even greater challenge.
Subsequent to the 2010 NBC, life was a little easier if you had knowledge and expertise in applying
the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 101 Life Safety Code assuming your office even
had a copy of this code and the referenced NFPA 92B Standard for smoke management.
Essentially, the 2010 NBC (and the current 2007 Ontario Building Code) deals with public assembly
spaces as either indoor assembly occupancies or outdoor occupancies. The indoor requirements are
practical for facilities without fixed seats or a limited number of fixed seats. But the requirements
dont work well for stadium-style cinemas or for arenas with more than about 2,000 seats.
The problems in terms of the fire protection design are with respect to the seating layouts and the
required exit capacity. In the case of the stadium-style cinemas that were constructed in Canada
beginning in the 1990s, an equivalency was required typically based on the NFPA 101 Life Safety
Code. Similarly, arenas with more than about 2,000 fixed seats also relied on the NFPA Life Safety
Code.
The advantage of NFPA 101 is that it recognizes alternative seating layouts based on the actual
required width for the number of occupants who would use an aisle or other egress route. It also
acknowledges that large indoor arenas can provide protection to allow longer egress times, similar to
outdoor venues.
The Ontario Building Code (OBC) was revised to address stadium-style cinema seating, but it still
does not address large indoor arenas, which means alternative solutions are required. In the case of
the previous 2005 NBC, it was recognized that significant code changes would be required to address
alternative seating layouts and indoor arenas with fixed seats. Due to time and manpower
constraints, it was determined that the best solution for the current 2010 NBC was to reference NFPA
101 rather than delay providing requirements to address these types of buildings. Therefore the
current NBC permits the use of NFPA 101 for assembly seating without being considered an
equivalency but rather as a code-conforming design.
Allowing longer egress times
The first task for a designer of such facilities is to obtain a copy of NFPA 101. The second objective is
to obtain a copy of NFPA 92B Standard for Smoke Management Systems in Malls, Atria and Large
Spaces, which is referenced by NFPA 101.
NFPA 101 includes requirements applicable to smoke protected assembly seating. These
requirements allow facilities to have less exit capacity and reduced row and aisle widths based on
providing smoke protection that will allow longer times for people to exit the building, similar to what
is permitted for outdoor stadiums. The basic performance criteria for permitting longer egress times is
that systems are available that will maintain the layer of smoke originating from a fire more than 6
feet above the floor level, including 6 feet above the highest seats, during the time required for
evacuation.

Calculating the smoke layer

NFPA 92B provides the formulas for calculating the smoke layer from a fire. However, there are a
number of different formulas and it must be determined which is the correct one based on the size
and location of the fire and ceiling heights.
The most important public areas of an arena facility for fire protection purposes are the concourse
and seating bowl. A typical concourse provides the primary circulation to the seating bowl and has
the concessions and washrooms. The height of a concourse generally ranges from about 13 to 20
feet. A seating bowl on the other hand may range from 50 feet to more than twice that height.
In order to design the smoke management system it is first necessary to determine the size and type
of fire. Most engineers cannot envisage what a 1mW, 5mW or 10mW fire might look like, or a fast tSquared fire versus an ultrafast t-Squared fire. NFPA 92B does provide some guidance on the fuel
load associated with certain types and quantities of combustible material. In an arena, the concourse
would have a fuel load associated with concession stands, such as counters or stored boxes of
styrofoam cups.
The ice surface would have a very low combustible load during a hockey game but a much more
significant load when a combustible stage is constructed for a music concert, for example, or when
the arena is filled with fiberglass boats for a boat show.
As well, in the case of the concourse, the fire would be controlled by sprinklers and therefore the fire
size would be limited. But the effectiveness of sprinklers in the bowl performance space would be
questionable due to the ceiling height. Therefore it would be necessary to design the smoke exhaust
system based on a fire that involves the entire performance stage or other venue structure in the
space that has a high combustible fire load.
Containing smoke in the high space
Smoke management is required for the unenclosed egress route, which generally includes the seating
bowl and concourse. The seating bowls very high ceiling is both good and bad. The height provides a
very large volume to contain smoke, but on the other hand, as smoke rises it expands and its volume
becomes much larger, although less concentrated. In the concourse, based on its lower ceiling height
and having sprinklers operating, less smoke volume is produced. However, the reservoir to contain
smoke above the occupants heads is smaller.
Typically, the engineer will design the smoke management system as two zones: the bowl and the
concourse. In addition to determining the amount of smoke exhaust required it is necessary to
determine the quantity and location of the make-up air. Again there are two aspects to make-up air.
One is to make sure the required smoke exhaust rate will be achieved, and the other is to make sure
the smoke will not spread out of the respective zone.
Detection is tricky
The other challenge in arenas is providing a system for detecting a fire and activating the smoke
management system. Typically, in the case of the bowl automatic detection is not practical. For
example, the heat and smoke may not be sufficient to activate sprinklers or smoke detectors located
at the very high ceiling in the seating bowl. It is more likely that occupants will have left the bowl
before the detector is activated automatically and therefore it would be necessary to activate the
bowl smoke management system manually. However, it is possible to estimate the time for automatic
detection in this high space by further analyses of the heat and smoke produced by a fire.

Smoke detection is also problematic in arenas due to the different uses and temperatures of the
space. For example, normally smoke detectors are located on the underside of the roof, but some
tests in an arena have suggested that smoke may stratify well below the roof and never reach a
detector.
In the case of a concourse it is necessary to confirm that the smoke layer will not have descended too
low before it is detected and the smoke management system has been activated. Where there is a
high concourse ceiling there is an inherent large smoke reservoir volume above occupants heads so
there is more time available to activate the smoke management system. However, where the
concourse ceiling is lower, early detection and fast activation of the smoke management system is
necessary, which means these spaces often require a smoke detection system. The analysis of the
smoke layer must also take into account the time between the detection of a fire and the time that
the smoke exhaust fans reach full speed and maximum exhaust capacity.
In summary, there are many design advantages for the use of NFPA 101, especially for indoor
arenas where the designer can use its provisions for a smoke protected building. Naturally architects
will enjoy the benefits of the seating and egress routes in their designs, and it will be up to the
engineer to design a smoke management system that supports their designs.
At the same time, as with all designs there are cost implications. In the case of arenas these usually
end up as a comparison of the cost of the smoke management system versus more seats.cce
Jonathan Rubes, P.Eng. is principal of Rubes Codes Consultants in Toronto. He has over 30 years
experience on more than 5,000 projects and has served on National Building Code of Canada
committees for 25 years. E-mail jrubes@rubescodes.com

FIRE AND SMOKE CURTAINS: MEETING ATRIUM CODE REQUIREMENTS

Relatively new to the United States, fire and smoke curtains are less complex and less expensive than
comparable mechanical systems and support the use of daylighting design.
Sponsored by Smoke Guard, Inc.
Karin Tetlow
Continuing Education
Learning Objectives - After reading this article, you should be able to:
1. Discuss fire and smoke code requirements for atrium designs, interior stairs and escalators.
2. Describe the sustainable features of fire- and smoke-rated curtains.
3. Explain how fire and smoke curtains can be used to supplement or replace smoke evacuation
systems in ways that save energy and reduce mechanical system costs.
4. Summarize the ways fire and smoke curtains may be specified so they enhance daylighting
by supporting atrium design.
Originally an open central court in ancient Rome, the modern atrium dates back to Victorian times
when advances in manufacturing techniques enabled courtyards to be covered in glazing. Nowadays,
the atrium is a design feature that gives multiple building types architectural distinction.
By expanding the amount of natural light within a building, atrium designs also contribute significantly
to sustainable design. Daylighting strategies reduce operating costs and have been documented to
deliver energy savings through improved life cycle costs and reduced emissions. Moreover, daylight
vitalizes interior spaces and has been shown to increase user satisfaction and visual comfort leading
to improved performance.
Since the 1980 MGM Grand fire in Las Vegas, with its multiple deaths on upper floors due to smoke
inhalation, life safety fire and smoke code regulations have become increasingly stringent and are
now one of the most critical atrium design issues. Unlike other building configurations whose code
requirements focus on structural fire-resistant floors, walls and glazing, atrium building codes require
more complex systems that are activated in the event of fire. Automatic sprinklers, smoke exhaust
systems and even rolling steel doors have all been employed in keeping people in atrium designs safe
in the event of fire.
Yet architects and their clients, driven by the growing green demand for open office floors, and eager
for new structures with larger, soaring open spaces, have found that they are constrained in terms of
both design and cost by familiar and conventional solutions and have often been forced to reject
atrium designs. Similarly, architects planning to incorporate or add an atrium to an existing structure
have learned that such solutions can add a significant amount to construction budgets.

Shown here, vertical flexible smoke-rated curtain used to compartmentalize upper

floor of atrium space in a fire event. Deployment of curtain systems can eliminate
the need for costly mechanical smoke evacuation and increase usable building
space.
Photo courtesy of Smoke Guard, Inc.
To address these concerns, a new and simpler solution has come on the market: flexible smoke and
fire barrier curtains. They have the added benefit of not being an impediment to design aesthetics
since they are invisible when not deployed. These new systems can be selected as an alternative to
meeting atrium code requirements or as a supplement to conventional approaches. Well-tested and
used in Europe for a number of years, these systems are now available in the United States. They
offer an intriguing, energy saving and cost-savings option for addressing code requirements for
unenclosed openings such as an atrium, interior stair or escalator.

Shown here, typical fire- and smoke-rated flexible curtains partially closing in a
horizontal application. Fire-rated curtains rated up to 2 hours can be constructed of
stainless steel strengthened glass filament fabric.
Photo courtesy of Smoke Guard, Inc.
ATRIUM DESIGN
The International Building Code (IBC), the most widely adopted building code in the U.S., and
National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA) 101 "The Life Safety Code," NFPA's standard for regulating all
components of the building impacting occupant life safety in the event of fire, have extensive code
provisions for atrium designs with explanatory material spelled out in the IBC commentary and Life

Safety Code Handbook.

Smoke-rated flexible curtains before (left) and after (right) deployment. This unique

system has primary and back-up power sources.

Photos courtesy of Smoke Guard, Inc.
A significant change in the 2006 IBC code regarding atrium designs and open spaces is that IBC has
adopted NFPA 92B: Guide for Smoke Management Systems in Malls, Atria and Large Spaces , which
allows design flexibility, with a corresponding wider range of approaches that can impact costs. Codes
are interpreted differently by state and local building authorities, but the basic fire and smoke code
provisions for atrium designs and open spaces are as follows:

IBC defines an atrium as an opening connecting two or more stories other than enclosed
stairways, elevators or escalators, which is closed at the top and not defined as a mall.

The 2009 IBC code for an atrium permits multiple floors to be connected to one another by a
floor opening provided that the building is protected by an electrically supervised sprinkler
system and smoke management system. A two-story atrium is generally exempt from smoke
control requirements. A three-story (or higher) atrium generally does require a smoke control
system.

IBC 404.6 requires that the floor openings forming the atrium be separated from occupied
spaces by a 1-hr. fire-resistive construction or horizontal assembly. Exceptions to this
requirement include: Exception 1 permits glazing to be utilized as a substitute for the onehour separation where the nonrated glazing is protected by sprinklers located in close
proximity to the glazing. Another exception to the separation requirement permits a
maximum of three floors to be open to the floor openings forming the atrium if the volume
calculated for the design of the smoke control system includes the volume of the spaces not
separated from the atrium.

To be in compliance with code regulations for atrium designs, design professionals specify sprinkler
systems, smoke management systems and fire-rated barriers.
Automatic Sprinkler Systems
Sprinkler systems are de rigueur in response to the IBC code requiring an approved automatic
sprinkler system be installed throughout an entire buildingincluding atrium designs (one exception
is when that area adjacent to or above the atrium is separated by a 2-hr. fire-resistance fire-rated
barrier or horizontal assembly, or both).
Sprinkler systems are designed to control a fire, not to extinguish it. It is therefore likely that
significant quantities of smoke may be generated that can travel far from the initial fire source. Since
sprinkler systems are not sufficient to protect an atrium from potential smoke migrationcodes
require the addition of a smoke management system.
Case Study 1: Use of Horizontal Flexible Smoke Curtain in Open Plan Office
This case study demonstrates that multiple components of a mechanical smoke control system could
have been replaced by a single passive horizontal smoke control curtain at considerable cost savings.
A four-floor office building was renovated to include a series of floor openings. A skylight extended
above the center of the third floor in the area above the atrium opening. Height from the ground

floor to skylight was approximately 53 ft. The floor openings were offset and did not line up vertically
to provide a typical atrium configuration. This made it difficult to maintain smoke at least 6 ft above
the highest occupant. A tenability smoke exhaust control system was therefore proposed based on
performance-based requirements developed using a modeling approach.
The intent of the design was to exhaust smoke from the floor containing the fire and from the
skylight, also to exhaust smoke that might spill into the atrium. Supply/make-up air was delivered to
the two non-fire floors. For a fire directly beneath the atrium opening where smoke would rise
unimpeded up into the skylights, beam detectors in the skylights aligned the system to exhaust the
uppermost third floor in conjunction with the skylight exhaust.
The skylight exhaust and floor exhaust were accomplished using new, dedicated mechanical
equipment. The supply air was provided via a combination of new, dedicated equipment and existing
equipment that was also used to provide normal HVAC.
For this project it would have been possible to replace the entire smoke exhaust system by a single
horizontal 2-hr. flexible fire curtain at the second floor slab. This would separate the building into two
2-story connected spaces, neither of which would require active/mechanical smoke control. The size
of the opening was nominally 20 ft x 60 ft. Activation of the flexible fire barrier would be via the fire
alarm control panel upon smoke detection or sprinkler water flow.
Mechanical Smoke Control System Required:

Two 50,000 cfm fans

Two 30,000 cfm fans

Two three-story risers within a common shaft

Twelve large fire/smoke dampers (varying sizes)

U-shaped distribution ductwork on 3 floors

UUKL (specific panel function to ensure compatibility within the smoke control system) smoke
control panel/fire fan control panel

Associated interlocks/controls/monitoring devices

Increase in emergency generator size

Passive Smoke Control System:

One 20-ft x 60-ft horizontal smoke curtain having a 2-hr. fire-resistance rating

Top: Cross-sectional view of office showing offset configuration of floor openings; Bottom left: Smoke
exhaust control system design; Bottom right: Horizontal flexible smoke curtain at second floor
Smoke Management Systems
Smoke management is required within atrium spaces connecting more than two stories (per IBC
Section 404.4.) and requires all smoke control systems to be tested by a special inspector who shall
have expertise in fire protection engineering (Section 909.18.8.)
Given the large volume of open space in an atrium, smoke control is the most critical design issue.
Many sources report that as many as 76 percent of deaths and injuries that occur as a result of a fire
are caused by smoke.
Smoke management or smoke control systems can be active, passive, or a combination of both active
and passive measures. The fire protection engineer or professional system designer has the latitude
to use these options without relying on the building code to spell out how this can be done. One code
requirement is to address means of egress. This is typically accomplished by designing the smoke
control system so as to keep smoke away from egress or escape paths.
Active System: Smoke Exhaust or Evacuation. The conventional widely used solution to smoke control
is a smoke exhaust or evacuation system. This is considered an "active" system because it uses

mechanical equipment to control the spread of smoke. Exhaust inlets located near the ceiling remove
smoke at a rate that is greater than or equal to the rate at which it is generated, or at a rate which
will allow people to evacuate the building.
Designing a smoke exhaust system is a complex engineering exercise that includes calculations
regarding the size of exhaust and replacement air, number and size of exhaust fans and intake vents,
smoke plume equations and meeting the current requirement of maintaining a smoke layer height of
6 ft above the highest walking surface.
IBC also requires that a registered professional develop a design fire size of 5,000 Btus, as part of the
analysis (a design fire is an engineered description of a fire over time.) One potential problem is overdesigning the exhaust system, which may lead to "plugholing" (where a relatively shallow smoke
layer and too-high exhaust rate can lead to entrainment of cold air from the clear layer, thus blocking
smoke from being exhausted.)
Smoke exhaust systems may have a dedicated power source, or draw on the building's power source
and mechanical systems. In either case, a standby power source is required in the event of loss of
power. For these reasons, an active smoke exhaust system uses more energy than a passive system
such as flexible smoke curtains (see next section in online portion). See Case Studies 1 and 2 for
examples of smoke exhaust systems and their required fans, ducts, dampers, power and control
systems.

This example of a large-opening automatic flexible smoke-rated curtain has zero

percent residual opening when activated and employs a gravity fail-safe system.
Photo courtesy of Smoke Guard, Inc.
Passive System: Flexible Fire and Smoke Curtains. Referred to as "passive" because they require no
mechanical systems to support them, flexible fire and smoke curtains have been successfully used for
elevator fire and smoke protection for some time. But their application for atrium designs, interior
stairs and escalators is relatively new in the US. Unlike an active smoke management system that
only addresses smoke exhaust or evacuation, a passive system that incorporates fire-rated smoke
curtains contains and compartmentalizes fire and smoke before they reach the open area of an
atrium. In building applications where fire/smoke protection is of special concern the addition of such
a passive system would be clearly advantageous as enhanced protection.
All smoke management systems require commissioning and the services of a fire protection engineer
and mechanical engineer to certify proper operation after installation. Compared with a complex
active smoke exhaust system, passive curtains are a simpler system and therefore less expensive to
certify or commission.

Another appealing feature of the curtains is their invisibility. "We evaluated a number of alternative
methods utilizing accordion doors or doors held open on magnets," says project manager B.A.
Eastwood of PHA Architects. "Due to aesthetic impacts of doors, closets and tracks, we elected to
pursue a roll-down smoke curtain."
As can be seen from their many performance and design benefits listed below, fire and smoke
curtains present a productive and energy efficient option to replace or supplement traditional atrium
smoke management solutions.
Performance and Design Features of Curtains:

Controls smoke through passive containment and compartmentalization rather than by an

active mechanical system which controls the movement of smoke.

Curtains are lightweight and do not require structural re-enforcement for installation.

Employ space-saving curtain containment assemblies.

Containing the spread of smoke makes it easier for the fire department to locate the fire.

As a passive operating system, smoke curtains use less energy than a smoke exhaust system.

Available in a wide range of dimensions.

Vertical curtains can be equipped with a gravity fail-safe function that allows them to deploy
even if power is lost. Horizontal curtains may have either a spring-operated closing device for
smaller openings, or a supplemental power source for larger openings.

May be selected as the only smoke management system. One curtain can replace a whole
smoke exhaust system with its extensive system of vents, dampers and so forth (see Case
Study 1).

May be selected as a supplement to an exhaust system; they can increase the effectiveness
of smoke and heat evacuation.

Curtains can subdivide space served by a mechanical smoke exhaust system, thus potentially
reducing the initial cost and operating cost of the system (see Case Study 2).

Can be configured to channel smoke evacuation so as to provide safe escape routes

according to code requirements.

Vertical curtains can be rated for smoke leakage.

Invisible when not deployed.

Less expensive to commission or certify.

Curtain systems should work in conjunction with the other elements of the building's mechanical
smoke control systems through a properly designed sequence of operations. An improperly designed
sequence of operations can result in damage to some parts of the smoke control system. This is a key
feature that design professionals should be aware of.
Smoke Leakage
Not all smoke curtains are required to meet Underwriters Laboratories (UL) 1784 Air Leakage Tests of
Door Assemblies, only assemblies that are called on to comply with UL 1784. Smoke curtains used to
channel smoke toward a smoke evacuation system have no need of UL 1784 as the intent is to

channel smoke toward the evacuation system and to keep it out of other areas along the way. For
vertical separation of the atrium from adjoining spaces, like the three stories that are allowed to be
open to the atrium by code, there is no requirement at present for them to meet UL 1784.
UL 1784 currently only deals with vertical barriers so an equivalency may need to be developed for
horizontal barriers where the designer requires the barrier to be a UL 1784-compliant smoke barrier
as well as a fire barrier.
Flexible Fire-Resistance-Rated Fire Barriers
As mentioned above, a 2-hr. fire-resistance-rated fire barrier or horizontal assembly is required if
there is no sprinkler system adjacent to or above the atrium. IBC also requires that the floor openings
forming the atrium be separated from occupied spaces by a 1-hr. fire resistive construction or
horizontal assembly.

Time-temperature profiles for the two EU and U.S. test protocols

Figure supplied by Smoke Guard, Inc.
In the past, there have been few options for meeting these requirements apart from structural floor,
door or glazed assembliesall of which add to construction costs and take up valuable square
footage. Designers have searched for solutions, even specifying heavy rolling steel doors which
required building reinforcements. Flexible fire-rated curtains offer a welcome and efficient means of
complying with these requirements. Case Study 1 demonstrates the use of a 20- ft x 60-ft horizontal
fire-rated smoke curtain having a 2-hr. fire-resistance rating.

Premium fire protection curtains may be fire rated

up to 2 hr. This vertical system is available in large
dimensions and may use fire or smoke only rated
fabric depending on the application.
Photo courtesy of Smoke Guard, Inc.
While horizontal and vertical flexible fire curtain barriers with 1-hr. and 2-hr. ratings are an obvious
approach to meeting these code requirements, it should be noted that flexible fire curtains are tested
in accordance with UL 10C (45 minutes or greater). The UL 10C test for fire ratings of 45 minutes or
greater incorporates both the Standard Time Temperature Curve for heat exposure over time and
something called the hose stream test. Fire-rating reflects the amount of time the material is
anticipated to remain in place to help stop the spread of fire and smoke. The hose stream test shows
how the barrier will react to the thermal shock and pressure when hit by water from a fire hose.
While a 1- or 2-hr. fire-rated flexible curtain clearly meets fire-rating requirements, it cannot, being
flexible, meet the hose stream test. However, the intent of the required separation is to prevent
spread of fire floor-to-floor, hence the limitation that the barrier be a fire-rated barrier only. According
to NFPA 288, the fire-rating standard for horizontal assemblies, i.e., a fire-rated horizontal assembly
or flexible fire-rated curtaindoes not require a hose-stream test and could, with the development of
an alternate methods request, meet code requirements.
Vertical fire-rated curtains may be considered equivalent to that performance intended by IBC Section
404.6 Exception 1 (see p. 99). This is the exception that allows smoke rated glass with closely spaced
sprinklers to replace the fire barrier requirement for atrium separation.

In June 2009, UL issued UL 10D to outline the requirements for performing equivalent fire tests for
fire-protective curtains. The standard does not require performance of a hose stream test. While not
currently an official test standard, it is the most appropriate UL fire test standard for testing fire rated
curtains.
Since flexible fire and smoke barriers manufactured in Europe are a new entry to the market, testing
according to the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and UL requirements is, at
present, incomplete for some products. However, given the relative agreement between European
Standard DIN EN 1363-1 and ASTME-119 exposure temperature requirements, fire-ratings should be
accepted on an equivalent basis.

Case Study 2: Use of Horizontal and Vertical Curtains in Laboratory

to Supplement a Smoke Exhaust System
A five-floor biological laboratory and classroom building had an atrium space approximately 90 ft high
that extended from the 1st to the 5th floor (Figure 2a.)
The baseline control system requirements for this building under the code of record at the time of the
design required maintaining the smoke layer 10 ft (now 6 ft) above the 5th floor of the atrium, for an
axisymetric 5,000 Btu/s fire located at the ground floor (base) of the atrium. Using the algebraic
calculations outlined in NFPA 92B and the IBC, this would have required an exhaust quantity of
350,000 cfm.
The preliminary design evaluation indicated that the required mechanical smoke control system
would have been cost prohibitive. An alternate design was pursued, which incorporated operable
flexible horizontal and vertical curtains.
Both horizontal and vertical curtains were needed to separate the 4th and 5th floors. A horizontal
curtain separated the 3rd and 4th floor. As shown in Figure 2d., 1-hr. fire barrier walls were in place
as a required occupancy separation between the atrium space and the adjacent spaces on the upper
levels (these fire barrier walls were not strictly part of the smoke exhaust system, so they were not
included in the list of smoke control components).
The computer model fire dynamics simulator was used to demonstrate a tenability approach that
allowed a reduction in the total exhaust quantity to 100,000 cfm for the atrium. As shown in Figure
2c., calculations showed that this would keep smoke above the 3rd floor slab for an indefinite period
of time. Occupants of the 3rd floor could exit the atrium space through newly added corridor doors.
Baseline Mechanical Smoke Control System

Assume seven 50,000 cfm up-blast fans (for 350 cfm exhaust)

Larger penthouse exhaust plenum, atrium exhaust grille

250,000 cfm additional dedicated make-up air

Assume two 5-ft x 6-ft supply risers extending from penthouse down to 1st floor

Assume branch ductwork to distribute make-up air into 1st and 2nd floor plenum spaces with
overhead grilles added to maintain inlet velocity down to 200 fpm

Four large fire/smoke dampers, two per shaft (1st/2nd floor)

Reduced Mechanical System Enabled Using Flexible Barriers

Seven 15,000 cfm up-blast fans (100,000 cfm exhaust)

Two vertical curtains measuring 60-ft wide x 15-ft tall

Two vertical curtains measuring 25-ft wide x 15-ft tall

One horizontal curtain measuring 20-ft x 40-ft

Figure 2a. Section through atrium

Figure 2b. Location of flexible horizontal and vertical smoke curtains.

Figure 2c. Calculated smoke layer interface for 100,000 cfm

Figure 2d. Mechanical smoke exhaust control system components

An example of a project having a complex atrium geometry, where use of flexible smoke curtains
helped reduce the cost of the mechanical systems required.Figure 2b. Location of flexible horizontal
and vertical smoke curtains.
INTERIOR STAIRS AND ESCALATORS
According to IBC Section 708.2, escalator openings or stairways that are not a portion of the means
of egress can be protected without requiring a smoke exhaust system as would be required for an
atrium.
There are exceptions however. Exception 1 states that for openings that do not exceed four stories
and where the opening size does not exceed twice the horizontal protected area of the
stair/escalator, a draft curtain and closely spaced sprinklers are required.

Typical example of a smoke- and draft-compliant curtain assembly is deployed upon

a signal from the local smoke detection system. Occupants can press two wall
switches mounted on opposing walls to enable egress, after which the curtain will
re-deploy if the system is still in alarm.
Photo courtesy of Smoke Guard, Inc.
Exception 2 states that for larger openings or stair/escalator openings exceeding four stories, the
opening may be protected by approved power-operated automatic shutters at every penetrated floor,
having a fire resistance rating of not less than 1.5 hours. It should be noted that this exception does
not specify whether the automatic shutters should be arranged vertically at the perimeter of the
opening or horizontally across the opening at the floor.
Roll down smoke and draft curtain for stairs and escalator openings meet code requirements for
openings less than four stories. One typical model for polygon and rectangular enclosures is available
in dimensions up to 52 ft 5-3/4-in. per side with a maximum perimeter length of 164 ft. Escalators are
often fitted with controls that permit them to continue one more cycle before the last curtain comes
down.
SUSTAINABILITY FACTORS
Flexible fire and smoke curtain assemblies support sustainable design in several ways. They provide
the means to deliver larger daylight-filled code-compliant structures and, by occupying less valuable
square footage, increase usable productive areas. They are constructed of sustainable materials,
reduce energy consumption and lessen the assumed need for code-required structural and
mechanical materials. Fire and smoke curtains make a great deal of sustainable sense.

Constructed of stainless steel strengthened glass

filament fabric with polyurethane and black
identification stripes, this curtain is approximately
0.02 in. thick and is fire-rated up to 2 hours.
Photo courtesy of Smoke Guard, Inc.
They are also healthier. "They are ideal for the healthcare environment," says project manager Terry
Russell, AIA, LEED AP, CSI, CDI, HDR Architects. "Since they are completely hidden until fully
deployed, there are no hidden areas to promote hidden growth of bacteria."
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)
Following are categories where flexible fire-rated and smoke curtains could contribute LEED points
under New Construction and Major Renovations:
MR Credit 4: Recycled Content 12 Points

Intent: to increase demand for building products that incorporate recycled content materials, thereby
reducing impacts resulting from extraction and processing of virgin materials.
One provider of smoke and fire curtains has calculated that the average curtain system is comprised
of as much as 30 percent of recycled materials based on the sum of post-consumer recycled content
plus half of the pre-consumer content. The post -consumer portion is approximately 20 percent. The
pre-consumer portion is approximately 10 percent. (Note: Some systems currently offered are
awaiting recycled content calculations.)
IEQ Credit 8.1: Daylight and ViewsDaylight 1 Point

Intent: To provide building occupants with a connection between indoor spaces and the outdoors
through the introduction of daylight and views into the regularly occupied areas of the building.
IEQ Credit 8.2: Daylight and ViewsViews 1 Point

Intent: To provide building occupants a connection to the outdoors through the introduction of
daylight and views into the regularly occupied areas of the building.
An atrium supports the use of daylighting strategies, which have been demonstrated to reduce
operating costs and deliver energy savings through improved life cycle costs and reduced emissions.

Many architects say they are frustrated by complex and expensive smoke control requirements when
they try to incorporate atrium designs into projects. Providing a simpler and less expensive smoke
control solution that supports atrium designs would allow them to consider this design option for
more projects.
Materials & Resources (MR) Credit 5: Regional Materials

Intent: To increase demand for building materials and products that are extracted and manufactured
within the region (500-mile radius.)
Design professionals should check with manufacturers to ascertain if particular smoke and fire
curtains qualify for this credit.
ID Credit 1 Innovation in Design 15 Points

Intent: To provide design teams and projects the opportunity to achieve exceptional performance
above the requirements set by the LEED Green Building Rating System.
Smoke and fire curtains support more innovative design by allowing simpler, more economical code
compliance solutions for atrium designs, large unenclosed spaces and all building areas.
Smoke and fire curtains allow elimination of enclosed occupant and service areas and equipmentdedicated space. Square footage can then be reallocated, thus increasing the economic value of the
project.
Specifying simpler smoke and fire curtains also can result in significant reduction in construction
materials and mechanical equipment.
CONCLUSION
Relatively new to the United States, but well-tested in Europe, fire- and smoke-rated curtains are
clearly an effective answer to meeting life safety requirements of atrium designs and the open spaces
surrounding interior stairs and escalators. They are less complex and less expensive than comparable
smoke exhaust mechanical systems, and are the simplest system to certify or commission. They also
require less energy to operate during mandatory testing and the curtain assemblies themselves are
constructed from recycled materials. For atrium designs with three floors or more, architects now
have the choice of having a cost-saving, simpler and more environmentally conscious smoke exhaust
system by supplementing it with fire and smoke curtains.
With their economic and performance benefits, curtain systems facilitate the inclusion of atrium
designs in more projectsparticularly for projects which would have rejected the inclusion of an
atrium because of high code compliance costs. They thus add to a building's sustainability goals by
contributing to the design of more daylighting optionswhich have long been proven to reduce
energy costs and enhance occupants' health, wellbeing and productivity. Fire and smoke curtains
clearly present cost-effective and sustainable solutions that should prove very valuable.

Flexible fire and smoke protection systems are the focus at Smoke Guard and
have been for more than a decade. We specialize in reclaiming usable space and
providing code-compliant fire and smoke curtain solutions to protect openings
throughout your entire building. In many situations, such as atriums, our flexible
curtain systems can replace the need for large smoke control systems and costly
additional construction. www.smokeguard.com

ISSUE 51: A BRIEFING ON NFPA 92 - STANDARD FOR SMOKE CONTROL SYSTEMS

By Randolph W. Tucker, P.E., FSFPE
In the NFPA Annual 2011 cycle, the Technical Committee on Smoke Management Systems merged
NFPA 92A1 and 92B2 into a new document, Standard for Smoke Control Systems.3 This article is a
brief history of NFPA 92A and NFPA 92B and an overview of the new standard.
In the Beginning
During the mid-1970s, atrium design became prevalent, and with this architectural design approach
became the need to address the management of smoke in these spaces. In 1985, the NFPA standards
council established two subcommittees of the Technical Committee on Air Conditioning to prepare
documents to address smoke movement in buildings.
NFPA 92A
The first edition of NFPA 92A was published in 1988 as the Recommended Practice for Smoke-Control

Systems. Its scope was "smoke management using smoke barriers, airflows, and pressure differences
to confine smoke movement to the area of origin." In 2006, it became the Standard for SmokeControl Systems Utilizing Barriers and Pressure Differences.
The purpose of 92A was to provide methods to:
1. Inhibit the movement of smoke into stairs, means of egress, elevator shafts, and similar
spaces;
2. Maintain a tenable environment in refuge areas and means of egress during the time required
for evacuation;
3. Inhibit the migration of smoke from a smoke zone;
4. Provide tenable conditions outside the smoke zone to allow emergency response operations;
and,
5. Contribute to protection of life and reduction in property loss.
The design objectives were presented as:
1. Contain smoke to the zone of origin;
2. Maintain a tenable environment in stairs;
3. Maintain tenable egress to reach a refuge area or exit from a building; and,
4. Other performance-based objectives to meet approval of the authority having jurisdiction
(AHJ).
The standard offered five basic design approaches to achieve the purpose and objectives:
1. Stairwell pressurization;
2. Zoned smoke control;
3. Elevator smoke control;
4. Vestibules; and,
5. Smoke refuge areas.

The standard provided requirements related to building equipment and controls, smoke control
system design documentation, and system testing. Annex materials offered examples of stairwell
pressurization system design, types of HVAC systems, fire fighters' smoke control station (FSCS)
considerations, advisory information on system acceptance testing, and information reference
material.
NFPA 92B
The first edition of NFPA 92B was published in 1991 as the Guide for Smoke Management Systems in

Malls, Atria, and Large Areas. Its scope was to "provide methodologies for estimating the location of
smoke within large-volume space or in an adjacent space." In 2005, it became the Standard for
Smoke Management Systems in Malls, Atria, and Large Areas.
The purpose of 92B was to either:

maintain a tenable environment in large volume spaces or

control and reduce the migration of smoke between the fire area and adjacent spaces

The design fundamentals presented addressed:

1. Objectives of the design (maintain a tenable environment or maintain a smoke layer
interface);
2. Design basis (fire to be used, dimensions of the volume to be protected, communicating
spaces; occupancy uses and location, barriers separating the space, egress routes, and
refuge areas);
3. Approaches (combinations of natural smoke filling and mechanical exhaust to predetermined
level for a specified time or indefinite period);
4. Considerations of the design;
5. Smoke management system operation; and,
6. Make-up air
The standard also addressed calculation procedures to be followed, algebraic equations, requirements
for equipment and controls, system acceptance testing, and design documentation to be provided.
The Annex of 92B provided explanatory material, methods for predicting the rate of heat release of
fires, explanation and use of t-squared fires, example problems demonstrating the use of the
equations in NFPA 92B, zone and CFD fire models, additional design objectives, considerations
regarding smoke stratification, comparison of the equations presented, and informational references.
Introducing the New NFPA 92
In the creation of the NFPA 92, the directive to the technical committee was to blend the NFPA 92A
and 92B without making technical changes to their intent. In many cases, this allowed existing
wording to be carried over into the new document intact and in its previous location. In others,
existing wording was retained, but located in a more appropriate location. While there were several
sections that were moved as well as modified, the committee was careful not to change the intent of
the requirements from the previous documents.

So, what is new with the merged NFPA 92? First will be the name. The new document's title is

Standard for Smoke Control Systems. Why the name change? Smoke control captures both the
concepts of "smoke management" and "smoke containment" systems.
The scope of NFPA 92 is: the design, installation, acceptance testing, operation, and ongoing periodic
testing of smoke control systems.
The new standard has five stated purposes to accomplish one or more of the following:
1. Inhibit smoke from entering stairwells, means of egress, smoke refuge areas, elevator shafts
or similar areas;
2. Maintain a tenable environment in smoke refuge areas and means of egress during the time
required for evacuation;
3. Inhibit the migration of smoke from the smoke zone;
4. Provide conditions outside the smoke zone that enable emergency response personnel to
conduct search and rescue operations and to locate and control the fire; and,
5. Contribute to the protection of life and to the reduction in property loss.
The standard offers two design objectives, either to contain the smoke to the zone of origin by
establishment and maintenance of pressure differences across smoke zone boundaries or to manage
the smoke within a large-volume space and any unseparated spaces that communicate with the large
volume space.
The basis of design of systems is covered in five approaches, one for smoke containment systems
and four for smoke management systems. The smoke containment approach may be followed for:
1. Stairwell pressurization;
2. Zoned pressurization;
3. Elevator pressurization;
4. Vestibule pressurization; and,
5. Smoke refuge area pressurization.
The other four approaches are for smoke management systems and include:
1. Natural smoke filling and mechanical exhaust to maintain a predetermined smoke layer
height;
2. Mechanical exhaust to remove smoke to maintain the smoke layer for sufficient time to allow
safe egress;
3. Gravity venting to maintain the smoke layer at a predetermined height indefinitely or for a set
time interval to allow safe egress; and,
4. Opposed airflow to prevent smoke movement between large volume and communicating
spaces.
Chapter 4, "design fundamentals," from the two predecessor documents have been merged into a
new Chapter 4 of NFPA 92. Chapter 5 of NFPA 92A, "smoke control systems and applicability," has
also been relocated to Chapter 4 of NFPA 92.

The calculation procedures of Chapter 5 of NFPA 92B are still in Chapter 5 of NFPA 92 and are
supplemented with the information previously in Chapter 6 of NFPA 92B.
Chapters 6, 7, and 8 have been recast as follows:

Chapter 6 consolidates all of the "building equipment and controls" considerations into a
single chapter;

Chapter 7 is now "smoke control documentation" and follows consistent design

documentation, design report, and operations and maintenance requirements; and,

Chapter 8 is now "testing" and provides detailed testing, retesting, and documentation
requirements for all systems covered by the new standard.

All of the previous annex material from both 92A and 92B has been retained and reorganized. As
such, the document now has ten annexes.

Randolph W. Tucker, P.E., FSFPE, is with CCRD Partners.

1. NFPA 92A, Standard for Smoke-Control Systems Utilizing Barriers and Pressure Differences,
National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA, 2009.
2. NFPA 92B, Standard for Smoke Management Systems in Malls, Atria, and Large Spaces,
National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA, 2009.
3. NFPA 92, Standard for Smoke Control Systems, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy,
MA, 2012.

For questions concerning delivery of this e-Newsletter, please contact our Customer Service
Department at (216) 931-9934 or magazine.sfpe.org.

SMOKE CONTROL SYSTEM DESIGN

Smoke control systems keep building occupants safe from smoke generated during unwanted fires.
Requirements for smoke control systems are given in Section 909 of the 2007 and 2010 International
Building Code (IBC), the primary model building code used in the United States. For atrium smoke
control, IBC 909 refers to NFPA 92B, "Standard for Smoke Management Systems in Malls, Atria, and
Large Spaces" for design of smoke control systems.
Smoke control system design in high-rise buildings is accomplished using the pressurization method
(IBC 909.6). Mechanical ventilation systems are used to create small pressure differences (minimum
of 0.05 inches of water column) across smoke barriers, a special type of fire-resistant construction
defined in IBC 709 and IBC 909.5. Maximum pressure differences are limited by door opening forces,
which must remain less than 30 lb. During a fire, small pressure differences created by smoke control
systems keep smoke confined to one smoke control zone. Smoke control systems based on the
pressurization method are designed to prevent smoke from spreading to adjacent smoke control
zones, but they are not intended to maintain a tenable environment in the smoke control zone where
the fire originates. Instead, that is the purpose of smoke control systems based on the exhaust
method -- widely used for atrium smoke control.
Atrium smoke control
Atrium smoke control, and smoke control in similar large volume spaces, is achieved using the
exhaust method (IBC 909.8). Exhaust inlets located near the ceiling remove smoke at a rate that is
greater than or equal to the rate at which it is generated, or at a rate that maintains a tenable
environment during evacuation. Due to the prescriptive requirements of IBC 909.8.1, smoke control
systems in an atrium are often designed to maintain the smoke layer 6 ft above the highest
occupiable walking surface by exhausting smoke at a rate that is greater than or equal to the smoke
production rate. For reasons discussed below, this can lead to unnecessary overdesign of atrium
smoke control systems.
The smoke production rate (and the required exhaust rate) for a fire in an atrium increases as the
heat release rate of the design fire increases. Therefore, establishment of the design fire is the most
critical step in design of atrium smoke control systems. IBC 909.9 requires the design fire to be
determined by a "registered design professional" (meaning a licensed Professional Engineer) based
on a "rational analysis". Once the design fire has been established by a licensed Fire Protection
Engineer, the required exhaust rate (cubic feet per minute, or cfm) must be calculated.
For smoke control system in "small" or "simple" atriums, the required exhaust rate can be calculated
by applying the algebraic plume entrainment equations presented in NFPA 92B. However, these
equations have a limited range of applicability and there are several common situations where NFPA
92B's algebraic equations are not appropriate for design of atrium smoke control systems, either
because they lead to unnecessarily high exhaust rates, or their inherent assumptions break down.
Examples include:
1. Tall spaces (> 5 stories). The algebraic equations in NFPA 92B assume that all air entrained
into a fire plume instantly becomes smoke, and the total amount of smoke produced
increases super-linearly with height above the fire. Application of NFPA 92B's algebraic
equations to determine exhaust rates in tall atria will lead to unnecessarily large exhaust
requirements. This will result in an over-designed atrium smoke control system, which adds
significant construction costs but does not improve occupant safety over an appropriatelysized system.

2. Very large-volume atriums. The algebraic equations in NFPA 92B do not account for any
effect of smoke dilution, which can be significant in large-volume spaces. The NFPA 92B
algebraic equations would require the same exhaust rate in an indoor sports arena and a a 10
ft by 10 ft building shaped like a church steeple, provided the design fire and height of the
highest occupiable level are the same! However, it is common sense that the sports arena
should require less exhaust because the smoke is spread out over the large volume of air
contained in the arena. However, this is not recognized by the NFPA 92B algebraic equations,
and application of these equations to very large-volume spaces will lead to unnecessary
overdesign of atrium smoke control systems.
3. Atriums and similar large-volume spaces that do not have a single central floor opening with
a large plan area. The algebraic axisymmetric and balcony spill plume equations in NFPA 92B
are not applicable to design of atrium smoke control systems unless the plume is not affected
by upper balconies or walls. Thus, their range of applicability is limited to spaces having a
well-defined central opening, and inappropriate use of these equations can lead to erroneous
design.
4. Spaces where the smoke layer depth cannot be maintained at a minimum of 20% of the
floor-to-ceiling height. When designing an atrium smoke control system where the highest
occupiable walking surface is close to the ceiling, it is sometimes not possible to
simultaneously meet NFPA 92B requirements for minimum smoke layer depth (20% of the
floor-to-ceiling height) and simultaneously maintain the smoke layer 6 ft above the highest
occupiable walking surface as required by the International Building Code. Specifically, NFPA
92B requires that the minimum design depth of the smoke layer shall be twenty percent of
the floor to ceiling height or "based on an engineering analysis". When these prescriptive
requirements cannot be met simultaneously, NFPA 92B's algebraic equations cannot be used
to size atrium smoke control systems, and an engineering analysis (often entailing computer
fire modeling) is required.
For cases where the NFPA 92B algebraic equations for smoke exhaust rate do not apply, or would
lead to unnecessarily large exhaust rates, computer fire modeling is usually applied to determine the
required exhaust rate. This is accomplished by performance-based design, or an ASET/REST analysis
(Available Safe Egress Time vs. Required Safe Egress Time) which is usually addressed through IBC
104.11 "Alternative materials, design and methods of construction and equipment" or California
Building Code Section 108.7 "Alternate materials, designs, tests and methods of construction".
Applying techniques such as computer fire modeling, ASET/RSET analyses, and performance-based
design to atrium smoke control systems can often lead to significant construction cost savings and
make innovative designs possible. Since makeup air (or supply air) is usually provided at 85% to 95%
of the exhaust rate, reduction of the exhaust rate can lead to major reductions in makeup air
requirements. From an aesthetic and cost standpoint, this is often more significant than reducing the
exhaust rate because exhaust fans and inlets can usually be incorporated in the ceiling construction,
but low-level makeup air inlets are often problematic in atria.
Reax Engineering, Inc. has considerable expertise in sizing and design of smoke control systems,
including application of NFPA 92B's algebraic equations, computer fire modeling, ASET/RSET
analyses, and performance-based design. For inquiries related to smoke control system design or
atrium smoke control, please contact David Rich.
Services | Performance based fire design

Q: What is performance based fire design?

A: Performance-based fire design, sometimes referred to simply as &performance based design&, is
the application of science and engineering to design fire protection and life safety systems in
buildings, taking into account the specific characteristics of the building under consideration, rather
than applying generic "checklist" requirements found in prescriptive building and fire codes that may
not be appropriate due to a building's unique characteristics.
Q: If US building codes are prescriptive, how is performance based fire design achieved in
the US?
A: Performance based design in the United States is generally achieved via "equivalencies" or
"alternates". In the US, most buildings are still designed under prescriptive building codes based on
the International Building Code (IBC). Although the International Codes (IBC, IFC, IMC, etc.) are
largely prescriptive in nature, IBC 104.11 "Alternative materials, design and methods of construction
and equipment" and California Building Code Section 108.7 "Alternate materials, designs, tests and
methods of construction" allow for performance based fire design as long it is approved by the
Authority Having Jurisdiction. Consequently, any performance based design in the US must first be
discussed with the appropriate AHJs.
Q: How does performance based design work?
A: In performance based fire design, different candidate designs are evaluated by applying
engineering calculations (such as computer fire modeling) to assess the impact of various fire
scenarios on the space under consideration and its occupants. Each candidate design might include
different variations of the means of egress layouts, sprinkler types (quick response vs. standard
response), fire detection system type (spot type smoke detectors, projected beam detectors, flame
detectors, etc.) and configuration, smoke control system exhaust rate, and so on. A candidate design
is deemed acceptable if fire engineering calculations show that the design meets quantitative
performance criteria established at the start of the design process. These performance criteria are
usually related to ensuring that the space remains tenable so that its occupants are not exposed to
untenable amounts of smoke or heat, and ensuring that structural collapse does not occur. In
performance based design, fire safety is achieved by applying calculations, science, and engineering
to determine how a building would respond to fire, rather than by showing that it meets a checklist of
prescriptive requirements.
Q: What are the advantages of performance based fire design?
A: Performance based design of fire and life safety systems gives the design team much greater
freedom than the conventional prescriptive methods by emphasizing science, engineering, calculation,
and modeling rather than arbitrary "checklists" of prescriptive requirements that may not consider a
building's unique characteristics. Performance based fire design can lead to significant reductions in
construction costs, and make designs possible that would not be possible with a straight prescriptive
design. Performance based design allows designers to answer "what if" questions and evaluate the
effectiveness of various fire suppression systems, determine safe separation distances between fuel
packages, and optimize the placement of fire and smoke detectors to minimize detection times. In
performance based fire design, unnecessarily conservative and expensive building designs, as
sometimes result under the prescriptive building codes, are prevented. By evaluating several
candidate designs, performance based design makes it possible to select a cost-effective design
without compromising fire safety.

For inquiries related to smoke control system design or atrium smoke control, please contact Chris
Lautenberger.
Services | Structural Fire Engineering
Structural Fire Engineering is the application of heat transfer and structural principles to analyze the
thermal and structural response of buildings in fire. The Cardington Fire Tests (as well as considerable
research conducted over the last 10+ years) demonstrated that failure of one structural element in a
fire does not necessarily lead to total structural collapse. Structures usually have some degree of
redundancy, meaning that when a structural member is compromised, its load is transferred to other
structural elements without catastrophic failure. However, most AHJs in the US are (rightfully)
reluctant to accept the idea that failure of a load-bearing beam or column in a building during a fire is
"OK" due to inherent structural redundancies. For this reason, most structural fire engineering in the
United States is accomplished by designing active and passive fire protection systems to prevent
structural members from reaching a critical failure temperature for a specified time interval. Very
rarely does structural fire engineering in the US actually involve any structural analysis other than
determining expected temperatures in structures exposed to fire. Essentially, structural fire
engineering in the US boils down to a heat transfer analysis to determine the maximum temperatures
that would result in structural members, usually steel, exposed to fires. If structural redundancies are
to be considered, as is sometimes done outside of the US, then the structural fire engineer must also
be knowledgeable in structural analysis.
Common applications of structural fire engineering include:
1. Omission of fire proofing from structural steel. Since prescriptive building codes do not
consider unique aspects of buildings, there are some situations where structural fire proofing
can be omitted with no reduction in safety. For example, if a structural fire engineer can
show that the temperature of an unprotected steel member exposed to fire will not exceed a
critical failure temperature, then fire proofing can be safely omitted. This not only reduces
cost, but can also have positive impacts on building aesthetics.
2. Structural fire engineers are sometimes asked to determine the required thickness of spray
applied fire resistant materials (SFRM) or intumescent coatings. Heat transfer principles can
be applied to determine the thickness of SFRM or intumescent coatings required to provide a
certain level of fire resistance. SFRM is usually a cementitious material that reduces to rate of
heat transfer to steel structures exposed to fire. It is usually only applied to structural
members in spaces where aesthetics are not a major concern. Intumescent coatings are
more expensive than SFRM, but are more aesthetically appealing. They are usually applied to
structural members as several layers of paint, some times with a final protective gel coat.
Intumescent coatings swell under heating, often by a factor of 20 to 50, to produce a lowdensity porous residue that insulates structural members from the heat of a fire. Determining
the appropriate type of fire protection and the required thickness is an important aspect of
structural fire engineering.
3. Determination of equivalent fire resistance ratings. In the US, fire resistance ratings are
determined by the ASTM E119 furnace test, often at a cost of $10,000 to $20,000 per
assembly. Under prescriptive codes, slight variations of the same basic assembly must be
separately tested in ASTM E119 to determine its fire resistance rating. For example, a
concrete assembly with two different sizes of rebar would be considered two different
assemblies under prescriptive codes; therefore, it would be necessary to test each assembly

separately in the ASTM E119 furnace. From a practical standpoint, this adds unnecessary cost
since a structural fire engineer can apply basic heat transfer principles to determine the
expected fire resistance rating of a variation of an assembly having a known fire resistance
rating. AHJs may accept this type of structural fire engineering analysis in lieu of ASTM E119
testing if the analysis is stamped by a licensed Fire Protection Engineer.
For information about structural fire engineering services offered by Reax Engineering Inc., please
contact Chris Lautenberger.
ASET/RSET Analysis
Comparison of Available Safe Egress Time (ASET)
For performance based design of smoke control systems, and atrium smoke control systems in
particular, an ASET/RSET analysis is usually conducted. The Available Safe Egress Time (ASET) is the
amount of time that elapses between fire ignition and the development of untenable conditions. The
Required Safe Egress Time (RSET) is the amount of time (also measured from fire ignition) that
required for occupants to evacuate a building or space and reach the building exterior or a protected
exit enclosure. A candidate design is acceptable if the ASET is greater than the RSET, after applying
an appropriate safety factor.
ASET is determined by applying empirical correlations or fire modeling. First, a design fire (heat
release rate history) is established by considering the types of combustibles present and their
associated product yields (primarily soot and carbon monoxide). Next, this design fire is provided as
input to a calculation tool such as a fire model to determine the time after ignition at which the space
through which occupants must pass becomes untenable due to the presence of smoke or heat. The
time at which conditions become untenable (ASET) is the time at which the amount of smoke or heat,
as calculated by a fire model or similar tool, first exceeds pre-established tenability criteria. Sample
tenability criteria for determining ASET might be:
1. Visibility must remain above 10 m.
2. Temperature must remain below 65 C.
3. Carbon monoxide concentration must remain below 1,400 ppm.
RSET is the sum of the alarm time, the evacuation delay time (sometimes called the pre-movement
time), and the movement time. Alarm time is the time at which occupants first become aware of a
fire through a building's automatic or manual fire alarm system (occupant notification). The
evacuation delay time, or pre-movement time, is the time that elapses between activation of the
occupant notification system and the time at which occupants make the decision to begin evacuating.
Pre-movement activities might include investigation to determine if the fire is &real&, gathering
belongings, searching for friends and family, etc. Depending on the type of occupancy, the premovement time may be a few seconds or a few minutes. Finally, the movement time is the time
required for occupants to reach a protected exit enclosure or the exterior of the building once the
decision to evacuate has been made and occupants begin moving toward exits. The movement time
is calculated by applying empirical relations for walking speed and occupant flow rates through egress
elements such as doors, stairs, and corridors, or by applying evacuation modeling such as FDS-EVAC.
Due to uncertainties associated with human behavior, a factor of safety is generally applied to the
movement time (and occasionally the alarm time, pre-movement time, and evacuation time) before
the RSET is calculated.

In the context of an ASET/RSET analysis, there are several tools at the designers' disposal that can be
used to develop customized fire protection and life safety systems for the building under
consideration. The ASET can be increased by limiting combustibles, providing adequate separation
distances between fuel packages, providing customized fire suppression systems to suppress incipient
fires or limit peak heat release rates, or provide active or passive smoke control systems. On the
RSET side, strategic placement of smoke detectors (spot-type, aspirated, or projected beam) or
UV/IR flame detectors can be used to reduce the detection time. Pre-movement time can be reduced
by specifying an occupant notification system equipped with voice occupant notification, particularly
one that can communicate live voice messages to building occupants. Movement time can be reduced
by strategically placing exit signage and arranging the means of egress in an intelligent way to
prevent pinch points, excessive queuing, etc.

NFPA 92 DEFINES DESIGN, TESTING OF SMOKE CONTROL SYSTEMS

NFPA 92: Standard for Smoke Control Systems provides fire protection engineers with
guidance for the design and testing of smoke control systems.
William E. Koffel, PE, FSFPE, and Nicholas Sealover, Koffel Associates Inc.,
03/21/2014
Over the past few decades, building, fire, and life safety codes have been forced to continuously
adapt to changing architectural trends. While smoke control systems are
required to be provided in certain situations, they are sometimes
provided as an alternative to having to comply with other requirements,
usually for aesthetic or financial reasons. As the prevalence of design
features such as large open spaces and open corridors without
vestibules continues to increase, so do the number of new smoke
control system installations and, consequently, the need for experienced
individuals who understand and know how to correctly apply the
applicable codes and standards.
NFPA 92: Standard for Smoke Control Systems is a standard published by the NFPA that provides
requirements, recommendations, and guidance regarding the design, installation, acceptance testing,
operation, and ongoing periodic testing of smoke control systems. An important distinction to recall is
that a code tells us when or where something is required, while a standard" tells us how it is
designed, installed, tested, maintained, and so on. In this case, NFPA 92 tells us how to design
smoke control systems such as stair pressurization, large volume exhaust, and elevator hoistway
pressurization systems that are required to be provided in buildings by codes such as the
International Building Code (IBC) or the NFPA 101: Life Safety Code.

Creation of NFPA 92
NFPA 92 was created during the NFPA Annual 2011 code cycle as a result of merging two
predecessors: NFPA 92A: Standard for Smoke-Control Systems Utilizing Barriers and Pressure

Differences and NFPA 92B: Standard for Smoke Management Systems in Malls, Atria, and Large
Spaces. These two were maintained as separate documents from 1991 until 2009. The NFPA
Technical Committee on Smoke Management Systems then decided to combine the two into a single
document, in part to remediate the use of confusing terminology and duplicate provisions.
Much confusion existed due to the fact that NFPA 92A referred to pressurization systems as smoke
control systems and NFPA 92B referred to systems used in large spaces such as malls and atria as
smoke management systems, while at the same time, building codes and other standards
recognized no distinction between these two terms. Building codes and standards simply referred to
both pressurization (or smoke control as designated by NFPA) systems and systems used to
maintain tenability in large spaces (or smoke management systems as designated by NFPA) as
smoke control systems.
Therefore, to create consistency between the building codes and NFPA 92, the convention of referring
to all systems used to address the impact of smoke from a fire as smoke control systems was
adopted. Pressurization systems now fall under the smoke control sub-classification of smoke
containment systems, while systems used in large spaces fall under the sub-classification of smoke
management systems.

Chapters 1 through 4
The 2012 edition of NFPA 92 consists of 8 chapters and 13 Annexes. Chapters one through three
cover the typical NFPA standardized introductory topics: Administration (scope, purpose, retroactivity,
and units), Referenced Publications, and Definitions, respectively. Chapter 4, Design Fundamentals,
contains exactly what the title implies, the fundamentals of smoke control design. The chapter walks
users through a logical design process, which first involves selecting the desired smoke control
method or methods to be used based on the selection of the specific design objectives.
As mentioned previously, the two smoke control methods (or sub-classifications) recognized by
NFPA 92 include smoke containment, which involves establishing and maintaining pressure
differences to contain smoke to the zone of origin, and smoke management, which involves removing
smoke or managing smoke spread in large volume spaces to maintain tenable conditions. The ideal
smoke control method for a particular application depends on the desired design objectives, four of
which are listed in Section 4.1.2 (see Figure 1).

Three additional objectives are listed in Annex A and include providing increased visibility for fire
department personnel, limiting the spread of toxic gases, and limiting the spread of combustion
products to protect building contents. These are sometimes referred to as secondary objectives
because, like anything contained in the Annex of an NFPA code or standard, they are not part of the
mandatory requirements unless adopted so by the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ). (An example of
this is where the AHJ indicates that the Annex is to be part of the mandatory requirements and the
word should is to be replaced with shall.) Nevertheless, most of these secondary objectives are
inherently met by systems designed to meet one or more of the primary required objectives. For
example, a system designed to maintain the smoke layer interface at a predetermined elevation will
usually meet all three of these objectives to some extent or for some specified period of time.
As you may have already guessed, the hierarchy of terminology used in this chapter is often
misunderstood and misrepresented. After the selection of design objectives and methods, comes the
selection of the design approaches. Smoke containment system approaches include stair, elevator,
zoned, vestibule, and smoke refuge area pressurization. These approaches, along with the smoke
management system approaches, are contained in Figure 1, which should help to clarify the major
design terminology used in NFPA 92.

Criteria for smoke control systems

Chapter 4 also contains several design requirements and criteria for smoke control systems. You may
wonder why the chapter is not simply divided into two sections, one containing criteria and
requirements regarding smoke containment systems and the other regarding smoke management
systems. This is due to the fact that a large number of the requirements and criteria apply to all
systems, regardless of which smoke control method is used. For example, Section 4.4.2.2 specifies
that the maximum pressure difference across doors shall not exceed the value stipulated in NFPA
101. This criterion applies to both smoke containment systems such as those that use the stair

pressurization approach, and smoke management systems such as those that utilize mechanical
exhaust within large-volume spaces.
Section 4.5 contains several requirements regarding system operations. This section requires that all
smoke control systems be activated automatically, which is typically accomplished through the use of
detection devices such as projected beam smoke detectors or spot-type smoke detectors and control
relays, which send a signal to a control panel, which then signals the activation and/or shutdown of a
number of devices that make up the complete smoke control system.
Power may be transferred to exhaust or pressurization fans, while at the same time, HVAC units may
be shut down and dampers or vents may be opened or closed. Regardless of the components that
are used as part of a particular system design, Section 4.5.3 requires that the entire smoke control
system, including all of the devices just mentioned, reach full operating conditions before the design
smoke conditions are reached (for example, when the design smoke layer depth is achieved).
The calculation of the system start-up time requires consideration of a number of factors in
accordance with Section 4.5.3.2, including the time necessary for detection devices to activate
(smoke must ascend to the device and reach a specific threshold before the device activates), the
time for signals to be transferred, received, and processed, and also the time for mechanical devices
to operate (HVAC equipment to shut down, exhaust or pressurization fans to ramp up to full capacity,
etc.).
One of the primary reasons this requirement is contained in the standard is to ensure that the
designer does not simply overlook these time delays as doing so could have a negative impact on the
ability of the system to operate effectively in meeting the design objectives. While these and other
requirements apply to all smoke control systems, NFPA 92 also contains some requirements and
criteria that apply exclusively to either one type of system or the other. Selected criteria are discussed
below.
Smoke containment systems
NFPA 92 Table 4.4.2.1.1 specifies a minimum pressure difference of 0.05 in. of water gage (in. w.g.)
for all smoke containment system designs in sprinklered buildings. For nonsprinklered buildings, the
minimum pressure difference depends on the ceiling height. Note that NPFA 92 also requires that
factors such as wind forces, stack effect, and buoyancy be considered, and where the designer
determines a higher minimum pressure difference is necessary, the higher minimum supersedes that
contained in Table 4.4.2.1.1.
A numerical maximum pressure difference is not specified in NFPA 92; rather, it is calculated based
on the maximum door opening force permitted by NFPA 101, as mentioned earlier. The 2012 edition
of NFPA 101 requires that this force not exceed 30 lbf to set the door in motion and 15 lbf to fully
open the door. Because the door is much easier to open once it is slightly opened and the pressure
difference drops, the criteria used is the 30 lbf. Annex A.4.4.2.2 contains the calculation procedure
used to determine the maximum design pressure difference.
Alternatively, the maximum pressure difference can be determined using Table A.4.4.2.2 for standard
sized doors. Note that these requirements are not intended to apply to sliding elevator doors. While
there is no maximum opening force specified in the standard for elevator doors, it is the intent that
the pressure differential should not be sufficient to cause jamming of the door. Research has shown
that this is not typically of concern because only a modest force is required to open elevator doors,
even when significant pressure differentials are present. Keep in mind other codes may specify design

criteria different from or in addition to that contained in NFPA 92, and whenever these codes are
applicable, the more restrictive requirements must be used. Table 1 illustrates some of these
differences.
Smoke management systems
Several criteria specified in Chapter 4 are written to apply exclusively to smoke management systems.
Example requirements include a minimum smoke layer depth (20% of floor to ceiling height or based
on engineering analysis) and a maximum make-up air velocity (200 ft/min near plume or based on
engineering analysis). Most smoke management system designs are required by Section 4.5 to be
based on tenability and egress analyses; however, these analyses are outside the scope of NFPA 92.
In the current revision cycle, consideration has been given to creating a new Annex to address
tenability.
Section 4.5.4.1 requires an egress analysis to be conducted when the smoke management system
design objectives include maintaining tenability for the time necessary for occupants to exit the
building or preventing occupants from being exposed to smoke. This requirement applies to the
majority of smoke management system designs, as three of the four possible design objectives
contained in Section 4.1.2 fit this description. Section 4.5.4.1 also requires that these systems remain
operational for the calculated duration of egress. This requirement coincides with that of section
4.2.3, which together require that equipment must be capable of operating under exposure to the
anticipated elevated temperatures for the calculated duration of egress.
Section 4.5.4.2 states that systems designed in accordance with objectives 2 or 3 from Section 4.1.2,
which involve maintaining tenability for the duration of egress, are permitted to use design approach
3 or 5 from Section 4.3.2, which involve controlling the rate of smoke layer descent. Section 4.5.4.2
permits flexibility in the design in that occupants are permitted to be exposed to smoke, so long as
conditions remain tenable for the duration of egress.
Chapters 5 through 8
Chapter 5 contains calculation procedures for smoke management system designs. Section 5.1
specifies three different methods that can be used for the design of a smoke management system:

Algebraic equations (see the remainder of Chapter 5)

Scale modeling (not very common)

Compartment fire models (includes zone fire models such as consolidated model of fire and
smoke transport (CFAST) and computational fluid dynamics (CFD) models such as fire
dynamics simulator (FDS)).

NFPA 92 does not contain calculation procedures for smoke containment systems. The SFPE
Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering and ASHRAE/ICC/NFPA/SFPE Handbook of Smoke Control
Engineering are two commonly used resources for calculation procedures regarding these systems.
These handbooks also contain additional information regarding smoke management system design.
Chapter 6 contains requirements regarding equipment and controls that are used as part of, or may
affect the operation of, the smoke control system, such as HVAC controllers, firefighters smoke
control stations, smoke detectors, or dampers. Chapter 7 contains requirements regarding the two
documents required to be generated during the design process, the Detailed Design Report and the
Operations and Maintenance Manual. Chapter 8 contains smoke control system testing requirements.

Annexes
As noted earlier, the annexes are included for informational purposes only, and are not part of the
requirements of NFPA 92.Information in the 13 annexes includes additional calculation procedures
and examples, assistance with choosing a design fire and associated heat release rate, and additional
information regarding CFD and zone modeling, HVAC air-handling and stairwell pressurization system
types (compensation types), and testing.
Upcoming NFPA 92 changes
NFPA 92 currently is being revised as part of the fall 2014 NFPA code cycle. NFPA is still accepting
public comments on the first draft report (visit www.nfpa.org/92 for information about the next
edition or to submit a notice of intent to make a motion); therefore, nothing has been set in stone.
Nevertheless, it is certain that the 2015 edition will feature several editorial revisions and minor
revisions to comply with the NFPA Manual of Style and clarify the intent of the standard.
For example, Section 6.4.8.6 is slated to be reworded to clarify that smoke control system operational
capability does not have to be verified by weekly tests; rather, it can be verified by other means such
as electrical monitoring (supervision) of the control equipment. The committee also has proposed to
incorporate references to the 2015 edition of NFPA 4: Standard for Integrated Fire Protection and Life
Safety System Testing. In the 2015 edition of NFPA 92, tenability threshold guidance may potentially
be brought over from NFPA 130: Standard for Fixed Guideway Transit and Passenger Rail Systems for
incorporation into Annex D.
One of the only major changes that has been proposed and is currently under consideration is a
substantial revision of the balcony spill equations contained in Chapter 5 (Section 5.5.2). New
correlations have been proposed as a result of significant research in the area by Roger Harrison at
the University of Canterbury, New Zealand. These new correlations have the potential to yield more
accurate calculations and cover a wider range of scenarios than the existing correlations.

William E. Koffel is president of Koffel Associates and is a member of the NFPA Technical Committee
on Smoke Management Systems. Nicholas Sealover is a fire protection engineer with Koffel
Associates.

Related News:
William Koffel joins editorial advisory board - 01.07.2014 14:18
Smoke control system testing - 27.06.2014 01:42
Supplying power for electric fire pumps - 24.03.2014 01:17
University updates fire pump - 24.03.2014 01:17

Consulting-Specifying Engineer 2014 Fire & Life Safety Study: Seven trends that matter to
engineers - 13.03.2014 16:50
Designing fire systems for flammable, combustible liquids - 21.02.2014 01:15
Smoke control systems - 22.12.2013 10:47

MINIMUM SMOKE-LAYER DEPTH IN ATRIUM SMOKE CONTROL

Without a sufficient minimum smoke-layer depth, building occupants can be exposed to
dangerous smoke during a fire

Mar 1, 2009 By JOHN H. KLOTE, DSC, PE, Consultant, Leesburg, Va.

Many smoke-control designers do not know there is a minimum smoke-layer depth for atrium smokecontrol systems. Section 4.4.1.1 of NFPA 92B, Standard for Smoke Management Systems in Malls,

Atria, and Large Spaces, requires that the minimum design depth of a smoke layer be 20 percent of
the floor-to-ceiling height, unless an engineering analysis is performed. This 20-percent requirement
significantly limits what architects and owners can do with an atrium. In this article, the term atrium
is used in a generic sense to mean any large-volume space, including stadiums, arenas, and airplane
hangars.
It should surprise no one that the 20-percent requirement is not popular with architects and owners.
A few years ago, I met a senior engineer who erroneously thought an atrium smoke-control system
could be designed for any smoke-layer depth he wanted, even as little as 1 in. Was he ever wrong!
The smoke layer that forms under a ceiling has a minimum depth for reasons discussed later in this
article. Designs that do not allow the 20 percent mentioned previously may result in exposing building
occupants to smoke in a fire situation.
The minimum smoke-layer-depth requirements of NFPA 92B apply to almost all places in the United
States because the standard has been adopted by the International Building Code (IBC). A book
published by the International Code Council (ICC)1 presents discussions of IBC smoke-control
requirements and extensive engineering information to meet those requirements. Regardless of the
codes, if the smoke layer is not of sufficient depth, occupants can be exposed to smoke during fire
situations.
The December 2008 issue of HPAC Engineering included an article (State-of-the-Art Atrium Smoke

Control) that provided an overview of smoke-control technology, including basic concepts, smoke
stratification, makeup air, plugholing, and minimum smoke-layer depth.2 Minimum smoke-layer depth,
including the reason for the 20-percent requirement, engineering analyses, and design approaches, is
explained in greater detail in this article.
WHY 20 PERCENT?
A smoke plume rises above a fire. When the plume reaches the ceiling, smoke flows away from the
point of impact in a radial direction, forming a ceiling jet. When the ceiling jet reaches a wall, the
smoke flow goes around and under the ceiling jet (Figure 1). The ceiling jet has a depth of about 10
percent of the floor-to-ceiling height, as does the smoke flow under the ceiling jet. This means the
smoke-layer depth is about 20 percent of the floor-to-ceiling height. The smoke may descend lower
than this minimum smoke-layer depth. Designs need to have sufficient room for the smoke layer to
form.

FIGURE 1: Formation of the minimum smoke layer.

During the 1970s, fundamental research about ceiling jets was conducted by Ron Alpert of Factory
Mutual.3,4 Based on his research, Alpert developed correlations for the thickness, temperature, and
velocity of ceiling jets. These variables are functions of the height of the ceiling above a fire and the
radial distance from the axis of the smoke plume. In most situations, the 10- and 20-percent values
mentioned previously are conservatively large. For a detailed treatment of ceiling jets, including
Alpert's research, see Chapter 2 of Section 2 of the SFPE Handbook.5 While an engineering analysis
could rely on these correlations, there are advantages to using computational fluid dynamics (CFD).
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS
An engineering analysis of minimum smoke-layer depth can be performed with data from full-scale
fire tests, scale modeling, or CFD analysis. Full-scale and scale-model tests are relatively expensive,
which explains why they are not used often for this kind of analysis. Because zone fire models, such
as Consolidated Model of Fire Growth and Smoke Transport (CFAST), 6 are well-known and easy to
use, some engineers may be tempted to try to use one to analyze minimum smoke-layer depth, but
zone models are inappropriate for this application.

FIGURE 2: Atrium smoke flow.

In a room or an atrium with a fire, smoke rises and forms a smoke layer as previously described, and
there is a gradual transition between the smoke layer and the air below (Figure 2[a]). Zone fire
models consider the smoke layer to have uniform properties throughout. In zone fire modeling, the
bottom of the smoke layer is considered to be a horizontal plane, so that at 0.01 in. above this plane,
the concentration of contaminants is the same as everywhere else in the smoke layer (Figure 2[b]).
While zone fire models are useful for many applications, they routinely predict smoke layers of
unrealistically small depth in the early stages of fire development. For this reason, zone fire models
must not be used to analyze minimum smoke-layer depth.
Page 2 of 2
The idea of CFD modeling is to divide the space of interest into a large number of cells and use a
computer program to solve the governing equations for each cell. If that CFD modeling is done
properly, it can simulate atrium smoke flow in realistic detail, including smoke-layer formation. Ideal

for analysis of a minimum smoke layer, CFD modeling also can simulate a transition zone, which is
important for tenability designs, which are discussed later. CFD modeling requires a level of
specialized knowledge for proper use, and a CFD simulation can take many hours, even days, as
discussed in past articles in HPAC Engineering.2,7
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has developed a CFD model specifically
for fire applications: Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS). 8Traditionally, CFD models are expensive, but the
FDS model, including documentation, can be downloaded free of charge from www.fire.nist.gov/fds.
DESIGN APPROACHES
The IBC requires that the bottom of a smoke layer be at least 6 ft above the highest walking surface
that forms a portion of the required means of egress in an atrium. This means that above the highest
required means of egress in an atrium, 6 ft plus space for at least the minimum smoke layer should
be available. If this much space is not available, other approaches can be used: separation of the top
floor(s), the design of a dummy top floor, minimization of foldback, and/or designing for tenability.
Engineers are cautioned that alternate approaches need to be based on appropriate engineering
analyses.
Separation of top floor(s)
The top floor(s) of an atrium can be separated from the rest of the building to meet the minimumsmoke-layer-depth requirement. This separation can be done with glass so the occupants can see into
the atrium, but the required means of egress on the top level(s) are not inside the large open space
of the atrium. While this approach may be unpopular with architects, it may be the only practical way
to provide the essential space for the formation of a smoke layer.
Design of a dummy top floor
Some atria are designed with a dummy top floor that occupants cannot access. The only people who
have access to the dummy top floor are maintenance people. Because these few people are very
familiar with the building, they can leave the dummy floor quickly in the event of a fire. Therefore,
the code can be interpreted to mean that the walkways on these floors are not part of the required
means of egress. As such, the smoke layer can include the dummy floor. If this approach is desired,
local code officials should be contacted early in the project to see if they concur with this code
interpretation.
Minimization of foldback

FIGURE 3: For a long, narrow atrium, foldback can be minimized by exhausting from both
ends.

As stated previously, when a ceiling jet reaches a wall, it folds under itself, forming the minimum
smoke layer. For long, narrow atria, this foldback can be minimized by exhausting smoke from smoke
reservoirs located at the ends (Figure 3). There generally are no accepted algebraic equations for
analysis of this approach, and it is suggested that CFD modeling be used. Minimum smoke-layer
depth in this case is about 10 percent of the floor-to-ceiling height, but a properly done CFD analysis
can provide more accurate information. Also, the smoke-control system can become a tenability
design.
Designing for tenability
All of the approaches mentioned are based on the idea that occupants need to be kept away from
smoke, but another approach is to design systems that provide a tenable environment for occupants
during evacuation, even though there may be some contact with diluted smoke. NFPA 92B recognizes
such tenability designs. Section 909.1 of the IBC states that smoke-control systems are intended to
provide a tenable environment for occupant evacuation or relocation. Tenability designs are an
alternative approach to prescriptive code requirements, and local code officials should be notified
early in a project that an alternative approach may be used.
A tenability design needs to be based on smoke-transport and tenability analyses. CFD modeling has
the potential to realistically simulate smoke transport and is recommended for smoke-transport
analysis. The smoke layer has relatively high concentrations of contaminants near the ceiling and
lower concentrations in the transition zone. Many tenability designs take advantage of the lower
concentrations near the bottom of the smoke layer. A properly conducted CFD analysis can simulate
the formation of a smoke layer, including the transition zone between the smoke layer and the air
below.
In addition to CFD simulations of smoke transport, a tenability design needs to include a tenability
analysis that evaluates the effect of exposure to heat, toxic gases, and reduced visibility. Tenability
analysis is too large a topic to deal with in this article, but is treated in Principles of Smoke
Management.9
A realistic analysis of design fires is essential, and information about design-fire analysis is provided in
various sources.1,5,9,10 A design fire provides results in the heat-release rate of fires and the
material(s) burned. If an atrium is designed to have almost no materials that can burn, a design fire
still needs to account for transient fuels, which are items that may be in the atrium for a short period
of time. Examples of transient fuels include trash waiting to be removed, painting solvents,
construction materials during a renovation, and new items awaiting movement.
SUMMARY
Many atrium smoke-control designers do not know there is a minimum smoke-layer depth for atrium
smoke-control systems. In most places in the United States, the codes require that smoke-layer depth
be at least 20 percent of the floor-to-ceiling height, unless there is an engineering analysis. While this
requirement is not popular with architects and owners, it is based on accepted research results. If a
smoke layer is not of sufficient depth, occupants can be exposed to smoke during fire situations.
Engineering analysis of this minimum layer can be done by comparison with data from full-scale fire
tests or by scale modeling, but the common method is by CFD modeling. A properly conducted CFD
analysis can simulate the formation of a smoke layer in realistic detail. Such an analysis requires a
level of expertise. For designs for which 20-percent space is not available at the top of an atrium, a
number of approaches can be used.

REFERENCES
1. Klote, J.H., & Evans, D.H. (2007). A guide to smoke control in the 2006 IBC. Country Club
Hills, IL: International Code Council.
2. Klote, J.H. (2008, December). State-of-the-art of atrium smoke control. HPAC Engineering,
pp. 36-40.
3. Alpert, R.L. (1972). Calculation of response time of ceiling-mounted fire detectors. Fire

Technology, 8, 181-195.
4. Alpert, R.L. (1975). Turbulent ceiling-jet induced by large-scale fires. Combustion Science and

Technology, 11, 197-213.

5. SFPE. (2002). The SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering (3rd ed.). Bethesda, MD:
Society of Fire Protection Engineers.
6. Peacock, R.D., et al. (2005). CFAST Consolidated Model of Fire Growth and Smoke

Transport (version 6) user's guide. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and
Technology.
7. Klote, J.H. (2006 June). CFD: A new way to design atrium smoke control. HPAC Engineering,
pp. 19-27.
8. McGrattan, K., et al. (2008). Fire Dynamics Simulator (version 5) User's guide.
Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology.
9. Klote, J.H., & Milke, J.A. (2002). Principles of smoke management. Atlanta: American Society
of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers.
10. Klote, J.H. (2002, September). Design fires: What you need to know. HPAC Engineering, pp.
43-51.

A smoke-control consultant and member of HPAC Engineering's Editorial Advisory Board, John H.
Klote, DSc, PE, developed and conducts a series of smoke-control seminars for the Society of Fire
Protection Engineers. For 19 years, he conducted fire research for the National Institute of Standards
and Technology. He is a co-author of the books A Guide to Smoke Control in the 2006 IBC and
Principles of Smoke Management.

Atrium Features and Firefighting Tactics

03/01/2012
BY RONALD R. SPADAFORA
An atrium (plural, atria) is a large open space, at least three stories high and with a glazed roof.
Often, it is positioned just beyond the main entrance doors within a larger multistory building. Atria
are a popular architectural design feature because they enhance the perception of light and space
within structures. Basically, an atrium is defined by building codes (such as the International Building
Code) as an opening connecting two or more stories other than enclosed stairways, elevators,
hoistways, escalators, plumbing, electrical, air-conditioning, or other equipment, which is closed at
the top and not defined as a mall.
Buildings with atria, however, can be dangerous for occupants in a fire. A large, unenclosed shaft that
extends upward through multiple floors is contrary to fire safety, which asserts that
compartmentation is required to limit the spread of fire and smoke from the point of origin. The base
of the atrium is especially vulnerable. Potentially, a fire at this location can fill the shaft with smoke
and allow fire to spread rapidly from floor to floor. Occupants using escape routes within the atrium
space during fires may not reach an exit. Fire protection systems and firefighting concerns are two
important aspects of atria design, because a fire in a noncompartmented structure has the potential
to rapidly grow and spread, transporting heat, smoke, and toxic gases throughout the area (Figure
1).

ATRIA TYPES
Atria can be categorized based on the amount of "openness" between the floors and the atrium.
Fully open. All floor levels are open to the atrium space. This is not code complianta maximum of
three levels are permitted to be completely open to the atrium. This type of atrium is extremely
dangerous for firefighters. The greater the interconnection between the atrium and adjacent spaces,
the greater the likelihood that fire and smoke originating at the atrium base level (or any level, for

that matter) will spread through the shaft to other parts of the building. The atrium base level may
have a functional use (e.g. dining area, lounge, reading, retail stores, kiosks).

(1) The New Academic Building at the Cooper Union in New York City has an innovative central
atrium to provide a "vertical campus." Its expansive main inner staircase will pose fundamental
access problems for firefighters during emergency evacuation when hundreds of students and
instructors use it. Rising to the full nine-story height of the building, this fully open atrium is spanned
at various floors by sky bridges. (Photos by author.)
Partially open. Some of the floor levels above the atrium base are open to the shaft, while the
remaining areas above are closed off by fire-rated or code-recognized special barriers such as
tempered glass with closely spaced sprinklers on both sides of the glass. The barriers are designed to
stop smoke spread, not fire. The bottom level of the atrium may have a functional use.
DESIGN FEATURES
Atria present the fire service with some unique design concerns. An open flue-like area within the
building that interconnects a large number of floors compromises the principle of
compartmentalization. Current building codes attempt to deal with this problem by specifically
requiring a complete sprinkler system, mechanical smoke system using fans, emergency power, and
specific fire barrier criteria, which will be described in greater detail below. Many buildings across the
United States predate these codes or were built without any code. Therefore, the atria you will
encounter may attempt to mitigate these dangers by installing a combination of active and passive
(built-in) smoke control systems, automatic and manual roof vents, automatic sprinkler systems,
standpipe systems in enclosed stairs with hose for fire department use, smoke/heat detectors and
audible/visual alarms, automatically controlled fire doors (passive system), fire partitions/separations
(passive), draft curtains (passive) sufficient means of egress, illuminated exit signs, low-level exit
signs, an abundance of portable fire extinguishers, and a specially designed ceiling to create a smoke
reservoir (passive).

(2) The New York Marriott Marquis Hotel atrium clearly has an open, vertical flue design. Room and
elevator occupants are all potentially vulnerable should a fire originate in this area or spread into this
uniquely expansive hotel atrium.
For some atria, one fire control approach is to install sprinklers under canopies on the atrium floor;
another is to install fixed water spray nozzles on the lower floors for extinguishing fires at the base
floor of the atrium.

(3) Roof vents are just one of the many fire protection features of an atrium.
High ceilings dramatically complicate and potentially delay early smoke and heat detection. Although
smoke and heat detectors should be placed at the highest ceiling level, devices that can identify
smoke near occupied floor levels and potential fire sources are the best. Smoke detectors should be
in ceiling spaces surrounding the atrium as well as within the atrium enclosure itself. These areas
include low-level spaces within balconies, alcoves, corridors, and lobbies. Projected beam smoke
detectors are often used to monitor for smoke in the atrium and to activate a smoke-management
system.

(4) A key smoke management goal during a fire incident is to keep the smoke layer an adequate
distance above the highest atrium balcony.
Atria design breaks with conventional building configuration, but key fire and life safety elements
(e.g., escape routes, smoke control, and firefighting provisions) must still be addressed. Emergency
egress is incorporated into the building's fire protection/safety plan. Smoke control strategies should
also be a part of initial ventilation concepts. Firefighters stationed in-house (trained employees) as
well as external (your friendly neighborhood fire department) must be provided with the technical
expertise to manage and control a potential large-scale fire situation.

(5) Supply fans are hidden behind this bamboo enclosure, located at the lowest level of the Conrad
New York hotel atrium.
Successful egress planning recognizes the importance of unaided and aided occupant movement from
a fire to a protected exit. The routes taken must remain tenable throughout the evacuation process.
Unfortunately, in an emergency, people in unfamiliar surroundings tend to use the way they entered
as their sole exit route. Unlike the occupants of office buildings, who can be trained to use alternate
exits through fire drills, visitors will generally use only the way they came into the building as a clear
egress path. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 101, The Life Safety Code, requires an
engineering analysis to demonstrate that smoke will be managed for the time needed to evacuate the
building. The study must prove that the smoke layer will be maintained above the highest
unprotected opening to the adjacent atrium space for a reasonable amount of time necessary to
safely evacuate the building's occupancy load. For a hospital or nursing home occupancy, which
would employ shelter-in-place provisions, smoke control performance must be maintained to protect
life indefinitely.

(6) Tandem exhaust fans are spaced approximately 20 feet apart along the atrium ceiling.
GENERAL FIRE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS
Model building code fire protection requirements for atria have been established to protect occupants
and minimize the risk of fire spread. Throughout the United States, the authority having jurisdiction
(AHJ) at the state and local levels has incorporated many if not all of the following important life
safety features:

Fire barriers (one-hour fire rating) separating the atrium from the rest of the building.

Nonfire-rated barriers if sprinkler heads are on both sides of barriers.

Sprinkler system required for the entire building.

Restricted use of combustible materials at the atrium base floor.

An active or passive (built-in) smoke control system designed to keep ceiling smoke layer at
least six feet above the highest level means of egress walking surface for at least 20 minutes.

Mechanical exhaust equipment that the fire service will be able to operate.

Maximum travel distance of 200 feet from within the atrium to the exit.

Active smoke control systems (sprinkler head/water spray nozzles and supply/exhaust fans)
activated by smoke/heat detection or sprinkler water flow.

Active smoke control systems must also allow manual operation.

Standby power must be provided for active smoke control systems.

Walls and ceilings within the atrium must have a Class A or Class B interior finish rating.

FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEER GOALS

A fire generating smoke within an atrium will accumulate at the ceiling level and create what is known
as a smoke layer. The size of this smoke layer is important when fire protection engineers design
smoke management systems. Their goal is to keep the smoke layer at the uppermost level of the
ceiling, well above the highest balcony or walking surface. This will limit the amount of smoke
occupants will encounter while exiting their floors.
To effectively prevent the products of combustion from moving downward, design plans generally
need to incorporate exhaust fans large enough to remove the smoke at a rate at least equal to the
rate of smoke production. The fans' sizes and required exhaust rates may, however, be significantly
less than the rate at which the fire is producing the smoke. In this situation, the smoke layer below
the ceiling could descend well below the highest floor/balcony level, endangering occupants with the
accumulation of heat and toxic gases, thereby hindering their movement toward available means of
egress.
The height of a smoke layer can be controlled naturally or mechanically. Natural venting at the top of
the atrium space relies on the buoyancy force caused by the elevated temperatures of the layer of
hot gases. Mechanical venting is more positive with regard to the venting rate and less affected by
wind than natural venting. Fans along the ceiling are the primary means used to exhaust smoke and
other products of combustion from atria spaces. The smoke control system also provides supply fans
at the lower levels.
Mechanically exhausting the atrium can lower the pressure inside compared to outside the building.
The flow of outdoor air will then enter through openings in the exterior walls. This air flow travels
through floor spaces and openings in fire separations into the atrium, thereby isolating smoke the
atrium fire is generating. The negative pressure created in the atrium can also prevent smoke from
entering vertical arteries, such as stairs and elevator shafts. This action should have positive effects
on firefighting operations.
SEPARATING ADJACENT SPACES
Fire separations and stair vestibules are often required to prevent smoke from encroaching on public
escape routes. Protected floor spaces require fire separations with a fire resistance rating equal to
that of the floor assembly, and openings in such separations require vestibules to prevent smoke
entry. If floor spaces have sprinkler heads, unrated fire separations may be permitted in public
corridors. Even unrated fire separations, however, must remain intact until sprinklers are activated to
prevent the spread of fire and smoke. To maintain the integrity of these types of fire separations,
sprinkler heads are sometimes installed (Figure 2).

SMOKE MANAGEMENT
Historically, model building codes have a specifically required rate of smoke exhaust in terms of air
changes per hour. Today, however, a prescriptive number of air changes may not be appropriate for
modern smoke management designs. Many model codes are therefore converting to a performancebased design approach to smoke management systems. As stated previously, effective smoke
management depends on the rapid control of the fire and limiting the quantities of smoke and toxic
gases. Fundamental to this objective is the installation of early detection devices and rapid
suppression systems. Detectors are best positioned where they can activate quickly. Ideal placement
includes balconies, corridors, lobbies, and other spaces with normal ceiling heights.
Fire protection engineers often design their smoke management systems based on an evaluation of
actual anticipated fuel loads and heat release rate within the atrium. To determine the appropriate
size of supply and exhaust fans, they use the equations in NFPA 92B, Standard for Smoke

Management Systems in Malls, Atria, and Large Spaces, 2009 edition. Their main objective is to
remove smoke to attain a high level of life safety and minimize property loss. Other goals are to
provide a safe and tenable means of egress for building occupants in the event of a fire and an
adequate level of visibility for firefighters. A special concern is smoke movement from the atrium to
floor spaces, stairs, and elevators where occupants are likely to be exposed. The specific objectives
must provide a viable means of egress for occupants with adequate visibility for firefighting and
occupant rescue. Smoke temperature and toxicity are studied to ascertain if there is sufficient time
for safe egress of occupants.
FIREFIGHTING STRATEGY AND TACTICS
Atria design error is more common when smoke control systems are installed based on only a single
fire scenario. In reality, multiple fire situations should be anticipated. For example, if an atrium is
used temporarily as an exhibit and showroom venue, this adds a substantial fuel load that was not
calculated into the design. Chief officers must be vigilant in their recommendations and guidance to
building owners, managers, and agents regarding such ancillary shows. Additional fuel loading should
be kept to a minimum to ensure atrium smoke management and other fire protection systems will not
be overwhelmed and defeated.

Preplanning is important to enhance building and occupancy situational awareness. What fire
protection systems are inside the building, and who is maintaining the equipment? Is there an inbuilding communications system? Chief officers should ascertain how many street entrances lead into
the base of the atrium. Can fire apparatus access these streets? How many hose lengths are required
to stretch from the engine to reach areas in lieu of using standpipe outlets?
Additionally, predetermine the maximum floor levels that apparatus ladders can reach on all four
sides of the building. Exterior ladder rescue/vent/entry/search (RVES) as well as possible ladder pipe
deployment will be essential to successfully complete firefighting operations in a structure containing
an atrium.
Small departments should have mutual-aid agreements in place for fires in a building containing an
atrium. The potential for fire and the products of combustion to endanger numerous building
occupants on multiple floors dictate an adequate response of staffing, apparatus, tools, and
equipment. Anticipate the need for multiple rehabilitation and care (RAC) units. Contact outside
agencies (American Red Cross, for example) to inquire about their ability to respond to a multiplealarm fire in an atrium building to provide necessary occupant relocation and creature comforts.

(7) The Winter Garden in the World Financial Center in New York City is a three-story glass atrium
with resident palm trees. Fire protection engineers and the fire service must consider their fuel load
and burning characteristics when evaluating the structure's fire protection requirements.
During fire operations, the incident commander (IC) should request the building engineer to respond
to the incident command post (CP). The engineer's expertise regarding the atrium's smoke
management equipment will be extremely helpful. Properly activating fans, vents, hatches, exhausts,
and smoke-stop doors will allow the fire service to complete vital rescue and search objectives
successfully and safely. The IC should also request floor plans and focus on locating the living

quarters and their relationship to means of egress. Note if staircases, elevators (passenger and
freight), vestibules, and protected floor areas are not interconnected to the atrium. Formulate
strategy and tactics based on the location of the fire and where the fire/smoke is most likely to travel
in the occupied areas of the building. Public announcements over building loudspeakers, if feasible,
can also be valuable. Conveying to occupants what they should and should not do will not only help
protect them but also facilitate firefighting operations.
Chief officers must develop a firefighting strategy to prevent units from operating conflicting
hoselines. This dangerous situation can easily occur since atria often are designed with several
entrances. Engine company officers operating at a working fire must communicate with each other
regarding apparatus placement, point of entry, hoseline stretches, and hose stream direction to
enhance safety. Coordinate extinguishment and search/rescue tactics so that firefighters engaged in
these tasks do not put themselves in front of operating hose streams or in precarious locations above
the fire. Determine the number of staircases that service the atrium and ensure that they are
assigned proper designations (Attack/Evacuation) during the fire. In size-up communications, use
accurate terminology to describe specifically the correct fire area and where in the building the fire is
located. Distinguish between fire in the lobby of the atrium and on a floor balcony above.
Team up first-arriving engine companies. Long hand stretches dictate this policy. Of course, the initial
hoseline's size should be commensurate with the fire's magnitude. In general, however, use a 2inch hose for a fire of unknown size or one that is beyond the capability of a portable fire
extinguisher. I strongly recommend a smooth bore nozzle with a minimum 118-inch tip to attain
approximately 250 gallons at 50 psi nozzle pressure. This nozzle will also provide a compact, longer
stream and better penetrating power to reach the seat of the fire than would a combination or fog
nozzle.

(8) Preplans must be formulated to address long and interconnected public walkways. The danger of
conflicting hoselines at fires in atria is very real.
Ladder companies should also team up members to accomplish their goals. Just a few of the duties
that will have to be accomplished include outside surveys, exterior RVES, interior firefighting, and
expansive searches. Thermal imaging cameras and search ropes are two primary tools firefighters
must carry inside the building to aid in finding possible victims, the fire, and fellow firefighters who
may become incapacitated during the operation. Ladder company personnel must be thoroughly
trained on this equipment. The unskilled use of these two tools can instill false confidence in
members and lead to dangerous results. You may need multiple rapid intervention teams (RITs)
based on the atrium's type and dimensions. When warranted by fire conditions, consider positioning a
RIT inside the building in an uncontaminated area, to support firefighters working in an immediately
dangerous to life or health environment on the upper floors.
Be proactive; call for special units (e.g., rescue, squad, mask service, rebreather, ventilation) to
respond for significant fires in buildings with atria. The IC should use rescue and squad companies for
specific tasks that complement the engine and ladder companies' work, such as roof ventilation,
wind-control blanket/curtain deployment, and upper floor/stair/elevator searches.
Large-scale fires will demand long-time, labor-intensive operations to bring them under control.
Bringing additional self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) to the scene will facilitate firefighters in
reaching their objectives. Rebreather units use an SCBA that resupplies exhaled air to the user,
providing up to four hours of operating time. Firefighters using rebreathers can supplement search
operations once the fire has been placed under control and can be especially useful in surveying
structure sublevels for high amounts of lingering carbon monoxide.
Positive pressure ventilation (PPV) is yet another important tactic to consider when battling fires in
atria. Brought to the scene by ventilation control units, PPV fans can be strategically positioned to
control and channel smoke and the products of combustion. Coordinating the use of PPV with the
movement (sheltering) or evacuation of occupants will enhance life safety operations. Box fans
(smoke ejectors) can also help to improve interior conditions by removing smoke and toxic gases
from the building.
At fires in building atria, the number of occupants requiring reassurance and assistance may
overwhelm the IC. Numerous phone calls to 911 and the communications office and messages
relayed to the fire scene will place a heavy burden on members at the CP trying to record and
manage the required searches. The IC must ensure dedicated personnel are monitoring this
information; a communications unit is ideal for this task. Units listed on a command board and
operating inside the building can be coordinated to check on all distress calls received. Additional
radio frequencies (channels) may also prove useful in organizing company activity. Consider placing
chief officers not directly responsible for tactical operations on a command channel. This will enhance
strategic decision making and help reduce some of the radio traffic on the primary tactical channel.
Also, it may be beneficial for companies performing specialized tasks to have their own channel
(secondary tactical) to transmit and receive vital information without being "stepped on" by personnel
carrying out conventional duties.
The ranking EMS officer should also be at the CP to aid the IC in determining the number and
severity of all occupant injuries as well as the medical status of firefighters. Victim tracking is another
critical assignment for this EMS officer. If possible, the IC should acquire all incident death/injury

statistics while he is still on scene. This information is important when required by superiors and the
media. Knowing to which hospitals victims have been transported is also extremely helpful to fire
marshals who may want to interview people who have knowledge of the cause and origin of the fire.

An atrium allows the builder to take advantage of available sunlight and provide enhanced ventilation
throughout the occupied area. However, it also provides a horizontal and vertical pathway for fire and
the products of combustion to spread rapidly, endangering occupants who may be trapped in
hallways, corridors, passageways, vestibules, stairs, and elevators. Chief officers should review their
AHJ regulations and standards pertaining to fire protection systems required within this green
construction (daylighting) feature. Preplanning designed to emphasize and understand potential life
safety and fire extinguishment obstacles will enhance operational effectiveness. Conduct
familiarization drills and supplemental training in firefighting tactics for members to ensure your
responding firefighters are prepared to perform professionally and safely.
REFERENCES
Bastings, D. Building Research Association of New Zealand. BRANZ Study Report Fire Safety in
Atrium Buildings, No.15 (1988). Date Retrieved: July 24, 2011.
www.branz.co.nz/cms_show_download.php?id=82a763017043e836229d23f5aae1ee2920b585c4.
Chew, M.Y.L. and P.H Liew. "Smoke Movement in Atrium Buildings," International Journal on
Engineering Performance-Based Fire Codes. Volume 2, Number 2, 2000. 68-76.
Gritch, Todd AIA, ACHA and Brian Eason, AIA. National Institute of Building Sciences. Building
Envelope Design Guide - Atria Systems. Last updated: June 7, 2010. Date Retrieved: July 18, 2011.
www.wbdg.org/design/env_atria.php.
Klote, J.H. and J.A. Milke, Principles of Smoke Management, Atlanta: American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), 2002.
Klote, Dr. John H., P.E. and Douglas H. Evans, P.E. A Guide to Smoke Control in the 2006 IBC,
Illinois: International Code Council (ICC), Inc., 2007.
Lougheed, G.D. National Research Council Canada, Basic Principles of Smoke Management for
Atriums, Construction Technology Update No. 47, December 2000. Date Retrieved: July 14, 2011.
www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/eng/ibp/irc/ctus/ctus-n47.html.
National Fire Protection Association. NFPA 92B, Standard For Smoke Management Systems in Malls,
Atria, and Large Spaces (2009 ed.). NFPA: Quincy, MA. 2009.
National Fire Protection Association. NFPA 101, The Life Safety Code (2009 ed.) NFPA: Quincy, MA.
2009.
Sharry, J.A., "An Atrium Fire," Fire Journal. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA): Quincy, MA,
1973, 39-41.
Siemens Building Technologies, Inc. Smoke Control System Application Guide, 125-1816 Rev. 8/00
USA: Siemens Building Technologies, Inc. August 2000.
Spadafora, Ronald R. "An Introduction to Green Building Construction," WNYF, Third Issue, 2008, 2024.

Spadafora, Ronald R. "Green Building Construction and Daylighting: A Chief Officer's Perspective,"
Fire Engineering, October 2010, 75-90.
Spadafora, Ronald R. "The Fire Service and Green Building Construction: An Overview," Fire
Engineering, January 2009, 63-78.
Tamura, G.T. National Research Council Canada, Smoke Management in Atria, NRC-IRC publications.
Date modified: May 5, 2009. Date Retrieved: July 25, 2011. www.nrccnrc.gc.ca/eng/ibp/irc/cp/fir2.html.
United States Fire Administration (USFA). National Fire Academy (NFA). Building Construction: Atrium
Fire Protection Requirements. No. FP-2009-23. June 9, 2009. Date Retrieved: July 30, 2011.
www.usfa.dhs.gov/downloads/pdf/coffee-break/cb_fp_2009_23.pdf.
RONALD R. SPADAFORA is a 33-year veteran of the Fire Department of New York and is an
assistant chief. He teaches at both the graduate (emergency management) and undergraduate (fire
science) level as an adjunct professor at Metropolitan College of New York and John Jay College
respectively. He is the senior instructor for Fire Technology Inc., as well as an editor and frequent
contributor to FDNY's WNYF magazine.

STATE-OF-THE-ART ATRIUM SMOKE CONTROL

How engineering analysis ensures smoke-control systems can handle significant designfire challenges

Dec 1, 2008 By JOHN H. KLOTE, DSc, PE, John H. Klote Inc., Leesburg, Va.
Unlike other building systems, it is virtually impossible to test an atrium smoke-control system to
design conditions. This primarily is because design conditions involve large design fires that can
damage an atrium. Design conditions also can include wind, for which systems are nearly impossible
to test. It is essential that an atrium smoke-control system be designed properly and tested to verify
it operates as intended and that system components be inspected to ensure they function as
specified.
This article discusses atria smoke-control methods for a variety of large open spaces, such as
enclosed shopping malls, arcades, sports arenas, exhibition halls, and airplane hangers.
Smoke-control technology has made significant advances in recent years. Design analysis of these
systems commonly is accomplished via one or more techniques, such as algebraic equations and
zone-fire and computational-fluid-dynamics (CFD) modeling.1 A detailed mathematical treatment of
these techniques is beyond the scope of this article; however, state-of-the-art atrium smoke-control
technology is addressed.
BASIC CONCEPTS
When a fire occurs, smoke rises in a plume. As the plume rises, it pulls air from the surrounding
space, which causes the plume's mass flow to increase and its temperature to decrease. When the
plume reaches the ceiling, it spreads out, forming a layer. An atrium smoke-control system exhausts
smoke from that layer, providing a relatively smoke-free environment (figures 1 and 2).
Plume dynamics have been studied extensively, and algebraic equations have been developed to
calculate the mass flow and temperature of a plume based on plume height and fire size. For steadystate conditions, exhausted smoke equals the mass flowing from a plume into a smoke layer. Thus,
equations can be used to calculate the temperature and flow rate of smoke exhaust.
A book recently published by the International Code Council (ICC) 2 focuses on the requirements of
the 2006 International Building Code (IBC),3 including the equations needed for system analysis.
Intended for smoke-control designers and code officials, the book addresses all aspects of smoke
control, including pressurization systems; atrium, stairwell, and elevator smoke control; design fires;
smoke-control equipment; and inspection and commissioning. The book also details the 2006 IBC's
adoption of National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 92B: Standard for Smoke Management

Systems in Malls, Atria, and Large Areas.4 A book on smoke control published by the American
Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)5 includes derivations of
many of the equations used in smoke-control design.
The algebraic-equation approach is based on an idealization in which a smoke layer's temperature is
the same throughout and the bottom of the smoke layer is a horizontal plane, called the smoke-layer
interface. In this idealization, smoke-free air is present 0.001 in. below the interface. During a real
fire, a transition zone actually exists between the smoke layer and the air below. However, the
algebraic-equation approach is useful for smoke-control design.
Smoke filling, an alternative approach to smoke exhaust, requires that occupants evacuate from or
through the atrium as smoke fills the space. Smoke filling applies only to atria that have very large

volumes above their highest walking surfaces, which create filling times that are sufficient for
evacuation, including the amount of time occupants need to become aware of a fire and prepare for
movement to an exit. Smoke-control equipment is not required for smoke filling.
Smoke-filling time can be calculated via algebraic equations and CFD and zone-fire models. Fillingtime algebraic equations can be found in the previously mentioned book published by the ICC. 2 Over
the last three decades, many zone-fire models have been developed, the most sophisticated of which
is Consolidated Model of Fire and Smoke Transport (CFAST), developed by the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST).6 CFAST is available for free at http://fast.nist.gov. CFD modeling is
addressed later in this article.
Because few atria are large enough to rely on smoke filling, the remainder of this article deals only
with atrium smoke-exhaust systems.
MINIMUM DESIGN SMOKE-LAYER DEPTH
It is important that sufficient space be available for a smoke layer to form. When a smoke plume
reaches the ceiling, smoke flows away from the point of impact in a radial direction, forming a ceiling
jet. When the ceiling jet reaches a wall, smoke flows around and under the ceiling jet. The ceiling jet
and the smoke flow under the ceiling jet each have a depth of about 10 percent of the floor-to-ceiling
height, meaning that the normal minimum smoke-layer depth is about 20 percent of the floor-toceiling height. The smoke layer needs to be at least this deep, unless an engineering analysis shows
otherwise (figures 1 and 2). Such an analysis can be based on full-scale or scale-model fire tests or
CFD modeling.
SMOKE PLUMES
There are many kinds of smoke plumes, but axisymmetric plumes and balcony spill plumes are most
commonly considered during smoke-control design.

FIGURE 1. Atrium fire with an axisymmetric plume.

An axisymmetric plume is expected to accompany a fire that originates on the floor of an atrium away
from walls (Figure 1). In this case, air is entrained into the plume from all sides and along the entire
height of the plume. The mass rate of an axisymmetric plume depends on the size of the fire and the
distance from the base of the fuel to the smoke-layer interface.
A balcony spill plume flows under and around a balcony before rising. Air is entrained into the plume
as the plume flows under and around the balcony and smoke rises above the balcony (Figure 2). The

mass rate of a balcony spill plume depends on the size of the fire, the dimensions of the balcony, and
the distance from the balcony edge to the smoke-layer interface.

FIGURE 2. Atrium fire with a balcony spill plume.

A window plume comes from a room that has a fully developed fire. Because a fully developed fire is
not expected with a properly functioning sprinkler system, window plumes are considered only for
very unusual applications.
MAKEUP AIR
Makeup air can be provided by fans or openings to the outside. Makeup air must be provided for
exhaust fans to operate at design flow rates. Makeup-air supply points should be below the smokelayer interface. When makeup air is provided via openings to the outside, the effect of wind on the
makeup-air openings should be analyzed.
Large openings and small paths are used to provide makeup air via openings to the outside. Large
openings include open doors, windows, vents, etc. Small paths include construction cracks and gaps
around closed doors and windows.
Makeup air for fan-powered/mechanical smoke-exhaust systems should be less than the mass flow
rate approximately 85 to 95 percent of exhaust. The remaining 5 to 15 percent of the air will
enter the large-volume space via small paths. Supplying less than 100-percent makeup air avoids
positively pressurizing a large-volume space.

FIGURE 3. System failure caused by makeup-air velocity greater than 200 fpm.
Unless a higher velocity is supported by engineering analysis, makeup air should not exceed 200 fpm
in areas in which it could come into contact with a smoke plume. This limit prevents significant
deflection of the plume and disruption of the smoke layer (Figure 3). This type of engineering analysis
could be based on comparisons developed with full-scale, scale, or CFD modeling.
SMOKE STRATIFICATION
The result of rooftop solar radiation, a hot layer of air often forms under an atrium's ceiling. The
temperature of this layer often exceeds 120F. As previously mentioned, plume temperature
decreases as plume height increases. For a 1,800-Btu-per-second fire in an atrium with a floor-toceiling height of 60 ft, the ceiling-smoke temperature would be only about 95F.
When a plume's average temperature is less than a hot-air layer's, smoke will stratify under the hotair layer, preventing smoke from reaching ceiling-mounted smoke detectors. Projected-beam smoke
detectors should be used for applications in which smoke stratification is possible. Three commonly
accepted arrangements of projected-beam smoke detectors can be used for atrium smoke control:
upward beams that detect the smoke layer, horizontal beams that detect the smoke layer at various
levels, and horizontal beams that detect the smoke plume. For these arrangements, the spacing of
detectors is critical. Spacing recommendations can be found in the previously mentioned book
published by the ICC.
DESIGN FIRES
Design fires, which can be deemed steady or unsteady, have a major impact on an atrium smokecontrol system. Design-fire size is expressed in terms of heat-release rate. Typically ranging from
1,800 to 8,000 Btu per second, design fires should be evaluated as part of a smoke-control system's
engineering analysis. For a discussion of the concepts behind design fires, see the HPAC Engineering
article Design Fires: What You Need to Know7 and the conference paper Determining Design Fires
for Design-Level and Extreme Events.8 A detailed treatment of design fires can be found in the
previously mentioned book published by the ICC.2
Designers should not make the blunder of thinking that an atrium with almost no materials should
have a very small design fire. This kind of thinking does not account for changes in space use or
transient fuels. Transient fuels are materials that reside in a space temporarily, such as holiday

decorations, paint and solvents used for redecorating, cardboard boxes awaiting removal, and
upholstered furniture. Transient fuels must not be overlooked when analyzing design-fire size.
PLUGHOLING

FIGURE 4. Plugholing can result in system failure.

Plugholing occurs when air below is pulled through a smoke layer and into smoke exhaust (Figure 4).
Plugholing lowers the smoke-layer interface and can expose people to smoke. Lowering the interface
can result in system failure; however, plugholing can be prevented by keeping flow relatively low at
each smoke-exhaust inlet. To avoid plugholing, the maximum flow rate at smoke-exhaust inlets must
be calculated correctly and the number of inlets chosen carefully.
CFD MODELING
CFD modeling divides a space into a large number of cells and solves the governing equations for
each. (Governing equations are nonlinear, partial differential equations for conservation of mass,
momentum, and energy.) Atrium applications can have 100,000 to 1 million cells. Obstructions, such
as walls, balconies, and stairs, should be considered. Boundary conditions, including smoke exhaust
and makeup air, should be defined.
Atrium smoke-control designs based on the conventional algebraic-equation approach tend to be
conservative and have exhaust flow rates that are somewhat high. Conversely, CFD modeling can be
the basis for exceptions for the requirements to smoke-layer depth, the 200-fpm limitation on
makeup air, and plugholing.
CFD modeling provides a high degree of confidence that a tenable environment will be preserved.
CFD modeling's strength is that it can simulate fire-induced smoke flows, which algebraic equations
cannot.
There are some good general-purpose CFD models, but the NIST's Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS) 9 is
for fire applications. While the annual fee to use a commercial CFD model can be tens of thousands of
dollars, the FDS and its associated documents can be downloaded for free at
www.fire.nist.gov/fds/downloads.html. For a non-mathematical discussion of CFD modeling, see the
previously mentioned HPAC Engineering article. The previously mentioned book published by the ICC
includes a detailed introduction to CFD modeling.3
REFERENCES

1. Klote, J.H. (2006, June). CFD: A new way to design atrium smoke control. HPAC Engineering,
pp. 19-27.
2. Klote, J.H., & Evans, D.H. (2007). A guide to smoke control in the 2006 IBC. Country Club
Hills, IL: International Code Council.
3. International Code Council. (2006). 2006 International Building Code. Country Club Hills, IL:
International Code Council.
4. NFPA. (2005). NFPA 92B: Standard for smoke management systems in malls, atria, and large

areas. Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection Association.

5. Klote, J.H., & Milke, J.A. (2002). Principles of smoke management. Atlanta: American Society
of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers.
6. Peacock, R.D., Jones, W.W., Reneke, P.A., & Forney, G.P. (2005). NIST special publication

1041: CFAST Consolidated model of fire growth and smoke transport (version 6): User's
guide. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology.
7. Klote, J.H. (2002, September). Design fires: What you need to know. HPAC Engineering, pp.
43-51.
8. Bukowski, R.W. (2006, June). Determining design fires for design-level and extreme events.
Paper presented at the 6th International Conference on Performance-Based Codes and Fire
Safety Design Methods, Tokyo, Japan.
9. McGrattan, K. (2004). NIST special publication 1018: Fire dynamics simulator (version 4):

Technical reference guide. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology.

Known worldwide as a smoke-control expert, John H. Klote, DSc, PE, is a consulting engineer based
in Leesburg, Va. Formerly, he conducted fire research for the National Institute of Standards and
Technology.