C 45

THE SAFETY Eo k E BUILDING r

C) 1976 Patton, Inc.

We are now well into the evolution in fire safety tech-
nology, which I have been promoting these very many years.
One thing is certain, the transition is in process and is
irreversible. The 21st Century building will be dramatically
different from the 20th Century building and it will be the
control of fire that will produce the greatest liberating effect.
In this report I suggest early revisions that are practical and
that should be useful during the transition in fire safety as we
phase out some of the old ways and substitute new and better
ways. We are slowly phasing out the total reliance on compart-
ments and the "get out of the building to be safe" methods.
Greater emphasis is being placed on the new concepts of
detecting and terminating fire in its incipient stage (so that
people remain safely where they are and not be forced to
flee).
The "Safety Core Building" as described below will be a
structure that is both more economical and more safe than
present high rises.
The normal high rise contains a considerable number of fire
rated shafts.
These include elevator, stairway and various mechanical and
electrical shafts. Each is separately enclosed and fire rated.
When the protected core is arranged so that it is pressurized
when fire occurs, then there are two positive results. One is
that the protected core on the fire floor is held smoke-free and
therefore a person is safe (for a period of time) as soon as he
enters the core. The second advantage is that by keeping
smoke out of the core, smoke is also kept out of the elevator
and stairway shafts'. The supply and escape routes are main-
tained clear and elevator and stair shafts do not carry the
smoke to the above floors.
Many codes are now beginning to require such safety cores
(or else require each floor to be subdivided into two fire zones
with a stairway in each zone, which is equally costly but not as
advantageous). These new requirements are resulting in fire
rated shafts being enclosed within a larger fire rated shaft
(central core). As an alternate to the above I propose the
"Safety Core" Building.
TVPIC AL FLOOR PLAN
(PRESENT IIESI6N)
\IIMONIMINNIM11111■111•1111\11■1■101■11r

These shafts are supply lines for people, electricity, water,

air and supplies. They are vertical routes in a structure that is
fire compartmented on a floor-by-floor basis. Therefore, each
shaft must also be fire enclosed or else it would represent a
"hole" in the fire rated floor.
In recent years there has been a tendency to group all these
shafts in the "central core" and to enclose the central core
with partitions. Sometimes the enclosing partitions are not fire
rated but are considred "smoke stop partitions." Sometimes
the enclosing partitions are slab-to-slab fire partitions. Either
way the central core is cut off from the rest of the floor. The
occupant in the protected zone thus has a fire or smoke barrier
between him and the rest of the floor, and therefore has a
more reasonable time to escape. Even if the core wall is not
specifically fire rated, chances are the early fire will not be
directly exposing the wall. Thus, early fire penetration of the
core wall is unlikely to occur regardless of whether the wall is E. ELEvA-roR
specifically rated or not. ES. ELEcTRIcAL SHAF1
The Seattle Federal Building is an example of a central core M.S MscHANicAL SHAFT
building (See illustration No. 1). Note how the entire central M. ME' S. REsTe0o11
u)o mE) 3'S eEST,E00
core is enclosed. This core is essentially free of combustibles, T. TRASH- ROOM
hence a serious fire within the core itself is extremely improb-
able, especially when the core itself is also sprinklered). Illustration 1
 The basic idea of the proposed "Safety Core Building" is to
gain the advantage of the isolated core — but eliminate
redundancies so the total cost of construction is reduced.
FIRE SAFETY MUST BE
ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE
It is my belief that the cost of fire safety in the high rise is
already excessive and that the practice that has emerged in
recent years of simply writing more and more fire regulations
each year, year in and year out, is producing a situation where
new construction is being curtailed. Therefore, I propose that
as we develop more advanced concepts of fire safety, we try,
in a practical manner, to keep total fire safety costs at a
reasonable level. Also, as we crank in new fire safety methods
we must review the existing requirements to eliminate redun-
dancies. In this spirit we propose here a revised concept of a
protected core which I will call a "Safety Core" building.
THE SAFETY CORE BUILDING
The "Safety Core" building will begin with the basic idea of
the central core building That is, all the vertical transpor-
tation and equipment shafts will be concentrated in one area.
This core area will be enclosed by a slab-to-slab fire rated wall.
The core area will also be pressurized under fire conditions so
that there will be a fire and smoke-free zone surrounding the
shafts.
Also, the entire building will be protected with a Life
Safety Fire Sprinkler System. This new building will be
somewhere between 100 and 1000 times more safe from fire
as the older fire resistive buildings (see Patton Report 42 for
probability analysis). Since the old high rise has been a
remarkably fire safe building, the Safety Core Building will
have extremely close to a zero probability of a multiple loss of
life fire.
Now, having added in close to ultimate fire safety, the next
question is what can be done in order to:
1. Make the Safety Core Building more economical
to construct than the older high rise?
2. What can be done to give the Safety Core Building
a better "pay-out" on invested capital?
The Safety Core Building is intended to be a safer
building, a less costly building and a building that will provide,
on the average, a better capital return per building size.
FLOOR TO FLOOR FIRE RATINGS
Most existing high rise buildings have a two hour floor-to-
floor fire resistance rating. This is a direct "thru-the-floor"
rating. The thru-the-shaft fire ratings, however, have been
inconsistent.
Presently accepted fire safety theory holds that the shaft
rating need only be one-half the floor-to-floor rating. Why?
Because for fire to progress from the fifth floor to the sixth
floor via a shaft it must first defeat the shaft wall on the fifth,
then go up the shaft to the sixth and then defeat the sixth
floor shaft wall to spread out onto the sixth.
Based on this reasoning, stairway doors were often roughly
rated only 45 minutes (solid core) or actually rated one hour
(labeled), or sometimes one and one-half hours. The shaft wall
was rated two hours, which was a wall overdesign of at least
one and one-quarter hours if the door was solid core wood.
In the Safety Core Building we recommend the following:
Core wall shall be rated one-half hour. Shaft wall shall be rated
one-half hour. Entire building shall be sprinklered. Safety Core
shall be automatically pressurized in event of fire. Floor-to-
floor (direct) fire rating shall remain at two hours.
Note that the actual fire rating from the use area (tenant
area) to the shaft interior will exceed one hour as twr
separated one-half hour walls represents more than a one-how
rating. But, the construction costs of the shaft walls will be
very significantly reduced. The fire loading (amount of com-
bustibles) in a high rise office build usually is only one hour,
incidently.
The safety core wall itself is an increase in cost (but it is
already in some codes) but the reduction in fire rating of the
shaft walls is a very significant economy. Yet, the total
building is tremendously more safe.
The direct floor-to-floor rating will be two hours. The
floor-to-floor rating via the shafts will be at least two hours.
Instead of one forty-five minute door between the fire and the
stairs, there will be two barriers, with a smoke-free zone
between.
TOWARD A COMMON SENSE EXIT
Let's face it! The old high rise stairway concept is not an
ideal solution. Say, the building is fifty stories high. The
second floor might be completely open. A fire on the second
floor could immediately and directly expose the stairway
door. Fire pressures combined with the stack affect could
i mmediately push smoke into the stairway. If that's not
enough, the "walk-down" time could exceed the "burn thru"
ti me of the door. In much less time than it takes an old lady to
walk down forty floors, the stair shaft at the fire floor coulr'
become completely untenable.
The sad fact is that with or without a fire — a stairway is
not a viable exit in a very tall building. Even if it is not
blocked by fire or smoke, a stairway is a "coronary" exit.
There is only one practical exit for the high rise. It is the
elevator. But, the elevator has been emotionally labeled
"dangerous" and codes were written to take it out of use when
fire occurs.
In the Safety Core Building it will be possible to reverse
this. The elevators will be doubly protected and will be
pressurized (smoke free) as well.
So, instead of having two exposed stair shafts, the Safety
Core Building will have one well protected stairway and a
protected bank of elevators.
THE ATRIUM CORE (AN OPTION)
The Safety Core will be fire isolated from the rentable
areas. The fire potential (fire loading) will be concentrated in
the rentable areas. The Safety Core itself will have a very low
order of combustibles and will be sprinklered as well. Thus,
the Safety Core will have essentially a zero fire potential.
There must be some combustibles within utility shafts. But, it
so, the interior fire rating of the shaft shall be in excess of the
internal fire load. This will isolate the hazard from the Safety
Core. Thus, the Safety Core will be a fire free and a fire safe
zone.
Within the Safety Core some relaxation in floor penetrh—
tions will be allowable and aften desirable. A three floor open
zone within the core will not be objectionable. This would
allow a 30 ft. high atrium to serve three adjoining 10 ft. high
floors. The elevators could stop at the mid-floor with short
 open stairways to the levels above and below. Two central
wash rooms could serve three floors.
TYPIcAL FlooR KAM

l N
The Safety Core Atrium would allow dramatic architectural FETY Goe. E)
variations that could transfer our present drab and mono-
c
tonous high rise buildings into more exciting structures.
At both the roof and floor of a three story Safety Core
—
Atrium, there would be a two hour fire separation to the next C-7 • H.g'.
atrium, whether above or below. With this arrangement, the (17
E s.
stairway would be open within the three floor atrium, but
other shafts, including elevator and utility shafts, would
remain enclosed with at least a twenty-minute fire rating. The
core wall around the atrium would have to have a rating of at
least one hour.

INCREASING RENTABLE AREA

The amount of rentable area that is achieved in design is
critically important. If investors cannot make profits from
their investments, they do not invest, and buildings do not get
built.
Stairways are generally useless in a high rise. The myth that
stairways make good exitways in a high rise is slow to die, but
the facts are otherwise. Because elevators will be within the
Safety Core they will operate safely. It is essential that
elevators be recognized as the only practical and safe exit for a
high rise.
In illustration No. 2 we maintain one stairway within the
core and in this instance we show it at an enclosed stairway.
We eliminate one stairway and unnecessary corridors in order
to improve the rentable area.
Except for the safety core wall and shaft walls, all fire
ssistance ratings pertaining to "public corridors" and other
--dartitioning regulations should be removed from the codes.
This will allow an "open" plan without restriction in buildings
protected with Life Safety Sprinkler Systems. Also, very
restrictive "dead end corridor" restrictions can be further
liberalized in fully sprinklered buildings. This is another way
to eliminate "dead" (non-rentable) space in the high rise.
THE PAYOUT
The basic intent is to improve safety and also i mprove the
cost picture. Further, the intent is to reverse the tide of
"nuisance" or "garbage" type code provisions that are "nickel
and diming" the builder to death. These include hose and
standpipe as well as estinguishers, oversized sprinkler systems
and uneconomical sprinkler coverage, secondary water sup-
plies, too large pumps, smoke detectors ad infinitum, elevator
controls, bells, gongs, public address systems, emergency
power, elevator controls, materials controls, controls on fur-
nishings, controls on wiring, special electrical boxes for floor
penetrations, restrictions on cable runs, redundancies in fire-
proofing, and every other thing that a special interest group
can conceive of and work into the codes to sell its products.
Here we propose a simple but effective plan which includes
all of the following:
1. The safety core principle. The cost of the core
wall is offset by reductions in cost of the shaft
walls (including doors and in elevator doors).
2. A complete low cost sprinkler system thruout,
with frills and redundancies removed.
3. Eliminate one stairway with great savings, and an
i mproved rentable area. Recognize the elevator as
the primary exit.
5
M.
E. E LE VATop
ES. EL.ccTRIcAt- St4AFT
MS. MEGp-IANicAL SHAFT
M. MEH's RESTROol't
W. WOMEWs RESTt2o0H
T. TRASH Rootl
Illustration 2
4. Eliminate the new and dangerous elevator con-
trols. Eliminate the smoke detectors. Eliminate the
fire alarm system except for the sprinkler super-
visory system. Recognize the fact that people use
telephones — not alarm pull stations — to report
fire. Eliminate the extinguishers but include small
hose (5/8") off the sprinkler system.
5. Eliminate code requirements for "public cor-
ridors" and liberalize the "dead end" corridor
rules.
6. Include a very si mple and inexpensive (core only)
PA system.
7. Reverse the tide of nuisance type but costly fire
regulations.
8. Eliminate fire ratings in excess of two hours in the
high rise (much savings).
9. Greatly liberalize the height and area tables for
sprinkler protected combustible construction.
10. Declare null and void all fire codes and standards
that are produced by committees with more than
20% voting representation by those who have a
direct financial interest in the produced code.
(Some presently have well above 50% representa-
tion by the profit makers)
If we do the above, I anticipate at least a $2.00 to $5.00
per sq. ft. reduction in construction costs, and a high rise that
is more than one hundred times more safe than the already
extremely safe high rise. In the Seatle Federal Building the
Safety Core design would have reduced the core wall length by
16,000 ft., shaft wall construction would have been more
economical, 279 doors would have had a reduced fire rating,
and the gain in rentable area would have been 27,000 square
feet.