Performance-Based Design Vs.

Prescriptive Codes
Fire science is not stagnant and constantly progresses with
improvements in technology, research, and, as attested by the
tragically unexpected collapse of the WTCs on 9/11, with experience
as well. The incident of 9/11 has illustrated clearly the urgent need
to review the codes used in design, so that these codes include a
more comprehensive means to protect structures from fire-induced
damage. This is because the fires that resulted from the attack
damaged the structural elements, namely by weakening steel
frames, eventually leading to the progressive collapse of the whole
structure. Recently, and due to the ongoing complexity of modern
architecture, it has become difficult to efficiently ensure safety
against fires by only following prescriptive codes, which became
more of a mould than guidance, thus requiring a new approach:
Performance Based Design (PBD).
Pros and Cons of Prescriptive Codes
It is undeniable that prescriptive codes offer a sense of guidance for
engineer, even non-structural engineers and architects, to design
adequately safe buildings without the need to delve into the
complexity of structural analysis. Historically, the adherence to
these codes has also been proven to be advantageous to most
structures.
However, prescriptive codes are overly simplistic. In order to provide
for safety, these codes have some overly safe clauses to mostly
cover the incompetence of the designer or to take into account the
limited understanding of the structural aspect of the design process.
The codes safety margins form a waste of resources which could
have otherwise been re-allocated to other structural areas. In other
words, prescriptive codes do not result in efficient design.
Additionally, prescriptive codes have prevented the formation of
innovative structures. Undoubtedly, a single code cannot apply to
most sophisticated buildings, and may not even be modifiable to fit
them. Moreover, when a rule stated by the code is inapplicable or
cannot fit with the structure, engineers require the help of a
consultant or the code committee. Given the shortcomings of
prescriptive codes, performance based design (PBD) is usually
considered a better alternative, but that too, poses many
challenges.
Performance Based Design (PBD): Challenges and
Advantages
Unlike designing in accordance with prescriptive codes, PBD allows
more space for creativity, and the ability to allocate resources where
best fit and most needed. However, despite the fact that PBD has
less restraints when it comes to designing complex structures, it has
some drawbacks. Most importantly, PBD demands the designer to
have knowledge of both analysis and design processes. This creates
a serious problem for regulators regulating by PBD. This is because
if any fire-related damage occurs to the structure, it becomes hard
to blame the designer for his incompetence in science or to blame
other factors that might have contributed to the fire. Given that PBD
is a relatively new method, it is hard to set and execute explicitly
fair regulations.
Additionally, while prescriptive codes can ensure safety for a limited
range of simple and ordinary buildings, the level of safety ensured
by prescriptive codes decreases significantly when the structural
system becomes more sophisticated. Therefore, performance based
analysis becomes essential in complex buildings where performance
becomes the dominant factor. But an important question to consider
is who/what determines the minimally accepted level of safety in
PBD? Given that PBD is not based on prescriptive codes which
provide designers specified rules to which they must abide, it is
often hard to specify the minimum level of safety required.
To answer that question, we have to take into consideration that
most codes are usually non-quantitative when it comes to fire
design and are simply couched in sufficient and adequate terms as
defined by Approved Document B or the IBC perform-track proposal.
For instance, IBC states that the available escape time shall be
greater than the time for untenable conditions to develop and that
wall, floor, and ceiling assemblies shall limit the spread of fire. The
IBC proposal does not quantitatively clarify the escape time, but
simply draws a comparison to the development of untenable
conditions. A lack of quantitative clarifications and a lack of a
comprehensive understanding of fire science compromises safety. In
light of non-quantitative codes that cant specifically be followed,
the level of safety in a building can range tremendously. Since there
is no particular code, this range of safety ultimately depends on
financial considerations proposed by project owners. That raises the
question of to what extent can we guarantee safety within the
shadow of unclear regulations and limited finances?
And there comes the risk factor which is ironically simply expressed
by an adequate design in the IBC performance track document. In
short, what is adequate for an engineer may not be convenient to
the building owners and is most-likely irrelevant to the tenants, and,
given how convoluted the case is, safety can be tremendously
jeopardised with all the parties being involved. Thus, in order to
regulate PBD, safety levels should not be compromised. To
demonstrate that safety levels are considered, engineers can have
to show the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) that the PBD of a
building at least is equivalent, which have historically maintained
safe designs. Considering that the AHJ may lack the experience to
judge or approve PBD, it seems appropriate to have them stick to
prescriptive codes when examining the safety of a building, despite
the limitations prescriptive codes may provide.
It is also worthy to note that while a PBD approach allowed using
alternative solutions that seemed to be valid in principle, these
solutions failed in practice. This is due to the fact that despite what
has been achieved in fire science so far, fire scientists and engineers
have not yet understood or contained the way fire behaves in
computational fluid dynamics programmes. This limited
understanding can be attributed not only to the numerous factors
that are involved in fire analysis that governs the fire behaviour, but
also given that the fire safety engineering is a recently-founded
profession. This, in turn, propagates the idea of the wide gap
existing in either the codes used in design or the lack of knowledge
reached so far, that needs to be bridged.
All things considered, PBD is an approach which has not completely
evolved and has yet to prove its credibility. With the aforementioned
factors being in play, it is difficult for designers to deal with probable
fires or to design buildings with a specifically adequate safety level
- which should be explicitly expressed in PBD codes, or even for
regulators to set clear and fair regulations. Most importantly, we
have to bear in mind that despite the fact that PBD perpetuates
creativity and innovation, safety should not be compromised by any
means, and consequently, a hybrid solution could probably be the
solution to satisfy all parties without compromising safety.

References:
1. Twenty years of performance-based fire protection design:
Challenges faced and a look ahead, Article by Brian J.
Meacham, John Russel Thomas and Others, in Journal of Fire
Protection Engineering, November 2013.
2. Performance-based Building Codes: What Will Happen to The
Level of Safety?, A PhD by Vytenis Babrauskas, Fire Science
and Technology Inc. 9000 300th Place SE, USA,
3. Fire Safety Regulation: Prescription, Performance, and
Professionalism, An article by Graham Spinardi, in Fire Safety
Journal, University of Edinburgh, Scotland.
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Cen
ter#cite_note-5