THE PATTON REPORT
1971 Patton Fire Protection Research, inc.
A Fire Protection Publication
Consulting
A THIRD FORCE IN FIRE SAFETY
The evolution of fire technology was, of course, a
follow-up to the more general industrial and technologi-
cal revolution.
During the era from the mid 1800's thru the early
1900's the basic concepts of fire technology as we
know them today emerged.
There were two main economic factors in the evolu-
tion of fire technology. One was the urban conflagra-
tion. The growth of large urban areas predominantly of
wood exterior construction produced massive fire areas.
The burning of virtually entire cities created demands
for fire protection improvements.
The second factor was the evolution of the large fac-
tory. As industrial plants increased in size and value,
and also in complexity and severity of the fire hazards,
both the probability of loss, and the size of the potential
loss increased.
The main impetus for technological change in fire safety
came from the insurance industry.
The insurance industry suffered an extremely severe
economic blow when an urban conflagration occurred.
The large factory fire represented a similar if somewhat
more modest, problem to the insurer.
It is important to fully appreciate why these fires, the
urban conflagration and the large industrial or commer-
cial loss were so devastating to the insurance industry.
It is necessary to understand the financial ramifications
of these losses on a business that is based on loss, in
order to understand the purposes of and the limitations
of our present fire technology.
Ideally, from an insurance viewpoint, fire losses should
be frequent enough to maintain a keen interest in in-
surance. A "brisk" burn rate not only maintains interest
in insurance, and a ready market for insurance, it also
results in high insurance rates and a large cash flow thru
the system. IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS LOSS IS THE
LIFE BLOOD OF INSURANCE.
But, although a substantial bum rate is of vital impor-
tance to the fire insurance industry, there is also a very
Surveys Resexch
No. 19
great need for consistency in the burn rate. The entire
insurance system is predicated on the predictability of
losses. When losses can be predicted with accuracy the
insurance rate and the proper cash flow can be deter-
mined. But when unplanned for losses of a catastrophic
nature occur the entire system can be overwhelmed.
Sudden losses of major proportions upset the actuarial
tables, drain the reserves, and often result in insurance
business failures. Thus, although consistent and predict-
able loss is the life blood of the industry, CONFLA-
GRATIONS AND MAJOR INDUSTRIAL LOSSES
WHICH CANNOT BE ACCURATELY PREDICTED
OR FUNDED FOR ARE ABHORRENT TO THE
INDUSTRY.
Under the impetus of economic need various insurance
companies banded together to form alliances to estab-
lish uniform rating schemes and commonly supported
solutions to the unacceptable catastrophic fire problems
of the day.
Out of these alliances and efforts emerged the sprinkler
system with insurance rate credits for standard design,
the fireproof building and stronger building codes, the
NFPA, the insurance testing laboratories, standard fire
tests and approvals of equipment, and a body of fire
regulations and fire standards. Fire technology, as we
know it today evolved.
These are the characteristics of our present fire tech-
nology.
1. It consists almost entirely of promulgated stand-
ards and codes that have been developed by committee
actions. By and large the committees that have develop-
ed our fire protection standards and regulations have
worked without benefit of intimate contact with or
knowledge of the problems of the industry concerned,
and without benefit of studies that would relate pro-
tection costs to anticipated savings.
2. There has been emphasis on property protection
with a general disregard to life safety considerations.
3. There has been extremely strong economic motiva-
tion to produce solutions that prevent CATASTRO-
PHIC loss, but there has been little motivation to pro-
duce technical solutions to fire to the extent that in-
surance rates would be dramatically reduced.
 4. Technology has been held to the level where it can
be defined in the pages of a rule book so as to be readily
understood by the insurance inspector and insurance
underwriter who may have little or no teclmical training.
THE FIRE SOLUTIONS THAT HAVE EVOLVED
TODAY ARE, OF COURSE, A REFLECTION OF
THE PAST AND PRESENT NEEDS OF THE INSUR-
ANCE INDUSTRY.
THE FIREPROOF BUILDING AND THE SPRINKLER
SYSTEM
The fireproof building developed as a solution to the
URBAN CONFLAGRATION PROBLEM. Fire resistive
exterior walls served as barriers to fire spread. Subdivi-
sion of the fireproof building with horizontal and verti-
cal fire cut offs served to limit the extent of any one loss.
Note that subdivision thru fire resistive construction in
no way prevents fire loss, it merely limits the size of the
loss.
Fireproof construction also was applied as a solution to
the factory fire problem. But it was a less satisfactory
solution. The machinery and contents within the fire-
proof structure could still suffer major fire damage. Ex-
pensive business interruption could result. With factories
it was soon realized that the building value could be
small in comparison to the total dollar loss that could
result from an internal burn out. AN INTERNAL
BURN OUT IN A FIREPROOF INDUSTRIAL FACIL-
ITY COULD BE A CATASTROPHIC LOSS. The sprink-
ler system, designed to detect the fire when small and
extinguish it, became the prime fire solution for the fac-
tory.
So, we have seen two major weapons against fire evolve.
One, the fireproof building, became the standard for the
multistoried urban structure. The sprinkler system be-
came the primary means of protecting large industrial
plants. Both of these developments grew within the
framework of a fire protection community that was and
is insurance oriented; where a bum rate of considerable
magnitude is not only acceptable, but desirable.
THE PRESENT EMPHASIS IS ON PREVENTING
BIG PROPERTY LOSSES
Although a CONFLAGRATION is a completely un-
acceptable condition to the insurance industry, the
fireproof building is a completely satisfactory solution
to this problem (from the insurance viewpoint). The
fireproof building is a barrier to urban fire spread and it
is a means of limiting fire loss to a known and relatively
modest amount. Now, note that the fireproof structure
is NOT a completely satisfactory solution to the fire
problem of a small businessman. The burn out of one
fire compartment within the subdiirided structure can
represent a 100% loss to the small business contained--
within that fire compartment. Also, the fireproof struc-
ture is not a satisfactory solution to those who are with-
in the structure. The occupants of the fireproof struc-
ture stand to lose their lives because of exposure to the
internal fire and fire gases. But small business losses and
a random loss of lives by fire are really not serious in-
surance problems. Therefore, they have not received
adequate study from the insurance oriented fraternity of
fire safety.
A similar condition exists within industrial properties.
The standard sprinkler system has been geared toward
protecting the very large industrial property, the loss of
which is disruptive to the actuarial tables. A substantial
but predictable burn rate of small properties is desirable,
however, because the total cash flow and retention are
greater when the burn rates are relatively high. As a con-
sequence, the sprinkler rules as presently written tend to
deter the application of the automatic fire suppression
concept to small properties.
For example, the present rules of sprinkler design as de-
fined by NFPA Standard 13 and the water supply re-
quirements as defined by virtually all of the fire in-
surance rating organizations, rule out ECONOMICAL
sprinkler protection for small properties such as restau-
rants, nursing homes, etc.
FIRST PLATEAU PROTECTION
So, under the impetus of an insurance industry drive
for improved fire protection we have achieved a fire
technology level which I refer to as FIRST PLATEAU
PROTECTION. FIRST PLATEAU PROTECTION is
primarily aimed at preventing major conflagrations and
major industrial and commercial property losses. FIRST
PLATEAU PROTECTION is based on standardized fire
solutions applied to broad classes of properties with fire
rating adjustments compensating for any lack of pre-
cision in the writing of the applicable codes.
But now let us look at our fire problems of today. How
have they changed? Are the old solutions now satisfac-
tory?
In cities, where the fireproof building solution is pre-
dominately applied, the conflagration problem has long
since ceased to be the main concern. We are now in a
position to look past the exterior citywide fire and con-
cern ourselves with the interior content fire and its re-
lation to the human occupants. When human life within
the structure is considered, the fireproof building can
never be more than an excellent furnace.
On the industrial side, the standard sprinkler system and
the standard sprinkler head have fallen behind our needs
in two ways. First, we can no longer permit the sprinkler
system to be maintained as a tool only for large industrial
properties. We can no longer permit the small business-
man to be thrown to the insurance dragon. It is claimed
that about 50% of all small businesses that sustain a
major fire loss go out of business. We need a valid fire
protection concept for these businessmen, not just a re-
cycling of money.
Secondly, because of standarditis, sprinkler system
design has not kept pace with needs of the large indus-
trial plant. The old sprinkler system is no longer capable
of controlling the modern large industrial plant fire. As
a consequence, the large loss fire is increasing in fre-
quency. The artificial regulation of fire suppression
system design has not only denied satisfactory protec-
tion to the small businessman, the large industrial com-
plex is now also being denied satisfactory protection, be-
cause the industrial plant has evolved into forms that are
well beyond the non changing standardized form of
sprinkler protection.
FANTASTIC INEFFICIENCY
I will give you an example. The present high rack stor-
age and high pallet storage warehouse configurations are
totally different today in fire protection needs than the
old factory building. But the basic sprinkler concept and
layout has changed little over the years except for in-
creased water supply requirements and a closer spacing
of sprinkler heads. Water is still applied so as to fall verti-
cally from ceiling to floor. This, of course, gives the con-
ventional sprinkler layout close to a zero capability of
wetting storage racks that are naturally obstructed from
above, or the vertical sides of a high storage pile.
If we were to measure the efficiency of a sprinkler
system by dividing the amount of water that is made
available in the distribution system in the yard (where
the fire is not located) into the amount of water that
will actually reach the fire surface; then I think that the
following efficiency calculation would be in order. A
high piled stock warehouse usually will have at least
5000 gallons per minute available in the yard under-
ground system. Let us assume that we have a fire in a
high piled stock warehouse that has involved the side of
one storage pile and let us further assume that the fire
flame front is 5' wide and 20' high on the face of this
carton storage pile. Most of the water that is discharged
above will, of course, travel from roof to floor in a line
parallel to the burning face of the carton pile. Some wa-
ter will wet the burning face, but very little. The amount
of water that is actually contacting the burning surface
may be only .05 GPM.
Now if we take the amount of water which is available
where the fire is not located, which is 5000 GPM, and we
divide this into the amount of water that is available at
the fire, which is five one hundredths of a gallon per
minute, and multiply the product by 100 to produce
percentage efficiency, we will find that the system de-
veloped an efficiency of 0.001%. Conversely, the system
has an INEFFICIENCY RATE OF 99.999%.
DWELLING FIRE SAFETY IGNORED
Another fire need which we have today and which is not
being answered by FIRST PLATEAU PROTECTION is
the need for fire safety in the home. More than 50% of
all fire deaths today occur in home fires. But the home
has been virtually ignored by the fire protection frater-
nity. Why? Because it is a small and homogeneous unit
that fits well within the insuring system as is. Homes
burn on a random basis and the home fire insurance
business is almost as solid and steady as life insurance.
About the only feature about the home that receives
much attention is the roof because there is a wood
shingle roof conflagration potential in parts of Califor-
nia. Note that home burnings receive great attention
only when they burn in bunches, rather than singly, be-
cause conflagrations disrupt the actuarial predictions.
A SHIFT TOWARD FEDERAL FIRE REGULATIONS
So, we have a FIRST PLATEAU FIRE TECHNO-
LOGY today. This is a fire technology that solves the
problems of one industry, the insurance industry, but
fails to come to grips with the real needs of business,
and more important it fails to find a good solution to
the human life problem.
Now where do we go from here? Well, there are two
possibilities. First, there is the Federal Government. I
do not believe I have to tell you that there has been
some shifting of responsibility and power in fire pro-
tection matters from the insurance industry and from
NFPA to the Federal Government. There is one good
aspect to this shift. The Federal Government and its
agencies generally have shown far greater interest in the
human life problems as opposed to pure property pro-
tection.
But having conceded this, I now hasten to add that over
all I am very concerned about government regulation in
the name of fire safety.
One thing that bothers me is that although the govern-
ment has been largely concerned with life safety, where-
as the insurance industry has been concerned with pro-
perty protection, the Federal Government has been
following in the foot steps of the insurance industry.
When the insurance industry invented a technology that
concerned itself with property protection and ignored
life safety, they may have been wrong, but at least they
knew what they were doing. When A PROPERTY
ORIENTED TECHNOLOGY is adopted as a basis for
HUMAN LIFE SAFETY, two results will be inevitable.
First, the needs of human safety WILL NOT BE MET.
Secondly, GOVERNMENT REGULATION IN THE
NAME OF SAFETY WILL INCREASE. The second will
inevitably follow dip first. Why? Because if the solu-
tion is improper for the purpose intended it will fail, and
if it fails more lives will be lost, and if more lives are lost
more regulations will be promulgated. Failure can be
self-sustaining in the fire regulation field.
Indeed, there is a very grave danger today that the Fed-
eral Government will take over FIRST PLATEAU PRO-
TECTION, a form of protection that is narrowly orient-
ed and largely obsolete, and make it official protection
policy for the entire nation. If so, this may prevent the
advances in fire technology which are so sorely needed
today.
FEDERAL CONTROLS CAN PRODUCE REGULA-
TIONS IN LIEU OF TECHNOLOGICAL SOLUTIONS
Now, let us go back again for the moment to the prob-
lem of the single family dwelling. So far it has been
largely ignored by the fire protection fraternity. But,
nearly half of the lives lost to fire are lost in dwellings,
and of those who die in fires in the home, more than
half are children.
This is an obvious and a natural area of concern for the
Federal Government. But what, do you suppose, is
going to be the consequence of righteous government
concern for the dwelling fire problem, if a technology
that is not only non pertinent, but obsolete, is applied to
the problem?
Since the very beginnings the fire insurance industry has
attempted to solve the fire problem of an occupancy by
regulating the construction of the enclosure.
It is apparent that the Federal Government is following
in the insurance footprints. Fire safety for the interior
is considered a function of the regulation of basic con-
struction in most if not all federal agencies. THIS BASIC
CONCEPT, WHICH IS FAULTY, OPENS THE DOOR
TO REGULATION OF ALL CONSTRUCTION ME-
THODS AND ALL BUILDING MATERIALS IN THE
NAME OF SAFETY. But this is a dead end fire solution
because it does not come to grips with the true fire prob-
lem, the combustible interior contents or, in the case of
the industrial plant, the hazards of the operations.
A CHOICE
Note that each time there is a failure to prevent fire
thru structural regulations additional structural regula-
tions invariably follow. If the Federal Government con-
tinues to follow this path in its search for human fire
safety there will be NO END TO STRUCTURAL RE-
GULATION. As soon as the present preoccupation with
carpeting wears itself out the authorities will be right
back in force to combat the use of wood and wood pro-
ducts and other combustibles in construction.
Now there is only one possible way to prevent a com-
plete take over of fire safety by the Federal Govern-
ment. The only way to do this is for industry - Ameri-
O
can Industry - to come up with REAL SOLUTIONS -
not phony solutions but VALID solutions - to the fire
problem. Nature abhors a vacuum. Where a vacuum
exists someone will move in to fill the void. This is what
is happening today.
There is a void in our fire technology. The insurance in-
dustry and the National Fire Protection Association pre-
sently are too deeply locked in to existing fire protec-
tion philosophy to see and fully understand this void.
The void will not be filled dm sudden reversal of posi-
tion of the present fire protection fraternity. The impe-
tus for change must come from a NEW source. The void
that presently exists in fire protection can only be filled
by either the Federal Government, or by a new force in
the field of fire safety, a powerful new force which is not
wedded to the mistakes of the past.
So we have a choice. We can pool the talents of Ameri-
can Industry and develop valid solutions to fire, or we
can stand back and permit the Federal Government to
claim ownership of a non valid fire technology and im-
pose it on us all.
If American Industry wants to move into the present
void, and fill it with substance rather than with regula-
tions, it will first be necessary to create something new,
something valid, something that makes sense.
American Industry will never head off the take over of
fire regulations by the Federal Government by embrac-
ing the rules and regulations drawn up by the insurance
committees.
But if American Industry creates a VALID lire techno-
logy, then government regulation can be avoided. There
are two reasons why I say this. First, when valid solu-
tions are created, they will be recognized. No matter
how strongly one believed, at the turn of the century,
that air flight was an impossibility, skepticism died when
the Whirring machine passed over head. The doubting
Thomases of space travel were silenced when man set
foot on the moon. When something is created THAT
WORKS and it is set on the table for all to see, it be-
comes very difficult for the non believers to deny its
existence. The second reason why a new technology can
head off Federal regulations is that technology works
and laws don't. You can't put out fires with laws. You
can't legislate safety. In the final analysis fire safety is a
technological problem that must be solved by science,
not law makers.
Now I do not propose that we will ever see the com-
plete elimination of laws, regulations and codes dealing
with fire safety. Even after valid fire protection solu-
tions are created, there are many who would ignore them
in selfish pursuit of profits. What I do say, though, is
that if we start with valid and economically feasible fire
protection solutions we can minimize arbitrary and man-
datory fire regulations. We must have a sound techno-
logy behind the regulations. WE NEED MORE LOGIC
AND LESS LAWS.
A NEW BEGINNING, A NEW DIRECTION
So we need a new technology of fire safety and we need
it fast. We need a technology oriented, not toward the
needs of the insurance industry, not toward the needs of
a Washington bureaucracy, but oriented toward the needs
of the American business community and the American
public.
It is my hope to play a part in creating such a techno-
logy. It is my intent to help develop the basic concepts
and the basic tools of a new technology, I hope to build
an organization that can serve industry and find fire
solutions for industry. I hope to serve as a catalyst to
unite industry in this endeavor that is so important to
industry.
This may sound extremely ambitious. Perhaps you will
think me overly optimistic because American Industry
so far has shown no great zeal in pursuing the fire chal-
lenge. But I have a theory on this. I believe industry
has so far been lethargic because much of the fire pro-
tection they have seen has been very expensive, frequent-
ly redundant, and often illogical. I THINK FIRE PRO-
TECTION PEOPLE HAVE BEEN TURNING BUSINESS
LEADERS OFF. American Industry has been buying in-
surance, and swallowing a mediocre brand of fire pro-
tection as part of the price of the insurance contract.
But I think that American Industry can and will be-
come interested in fire protection when it is put to-
gether in a form that makes sense. Industry is very skep-
tical today because for too many years they have been
subjected to an inferior brand of fire safety. But fire pro-
tection CAN make sense, and when it does I think in-
dustry will welcome it.
It is my belief that every industry not only has its own
fire hazards, but also has the untapped knowledge of how
to deal with them. It is wrong to have committees sit-
ing in ivory towers promulgating regulations for indus-
tries of which they have little or no knowledge. Rather,
the fire specialists should go out into industry, tap the
technical knowledge within industry, work in partner-
ship with industry, and put together jointly developed
fire protection solutions that really work.
FIRE PROTECTION SHOULD NOT BE A BY-PRO-
DUCT OF INSURANCE. FIRE PROTECTION SHOULD
BE THE BASE. HAVING ESTABLISHED THE BASE,
THEN INSURANCE SHOULD BE ERECTED AS A
COVER, NOTHING MORE.
I am a very strong believer that the future of fire pro-
tection lies in the development of new systems of detect-
ing and suppressing fire. We cannot permit fire regula-
tions to become overpowering as a determinant in build-
ing design, plant layout, selection of furnishings, and
operational matters. We must solve the fire problem with
independent fire detection and control systems of very
high reliability. When we do this we can then permit the
architect, the plant manager, the hospital administrator,
and the home owner to concern themselves with matters
more pertinent to their own basic objectives. We can
solve the fire problems or industry, and let industry
pursue business problems.
Good solutions to the fire problem are not that diffi-
cult to find. The only reason they evade us is because
we have been chasing ourselves up too iflatly blind alleys.
Once we look at the problems in proper perspective the
solutions will be there to be seen.
I further believe that once the basic concepts of a new
technology are defined, once the doors to new systems
of fire safety are opened, once the process of creating
a new technology is undertaken, there will be support
from many quarters. I would expect the insurance in-
dustry would join in the overall effort once it is firmly
established, because; if the insurance industry is given
the choice of WORKING WITH industry, or being SUB-
JECT TO federal regulation, they will choose the for-
mer. The National Fire Protection Association could al-
so play a very significant role in the creation of a new
technology. But American Industry must first make it
clear that it will no longer buy the old, stale solutions.
I am hopeful that the Forest Products Industry will
lend its support to the beginning of what I hope will
eventually prove to be the development of a third force
in thc field of fire safety. We have had the Insurance
Industry, and soon we will have the Federal Govern-
ment as powerful forces in fire protection. American In-
dustry should be a third powerful force. But American
Industry must have some valid fire safety concepts to
rally round.
I hope to be able to prove that we do have new con-
cepts, new ideas, new systems and new reasons for opti-
mism, which can serve as a starting off point. We don't
have all the answers, but we have enough for a beginn-
ing.
I hope that we can all work together to create SECOND
PLATEAU PROTECTION.
Talk Presented To
National Forest Products Association Meeting
San Francisco, California
November 9, 1971
By: Richard M. Patton, President
Patton Fire Protection & Research, inc.