National Fire Protection Association Report · 2.2 NFPA Publications. National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471. NFPA 1, Fire Code, 2015 edition

National Fire Protection Association

1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471

Phone: 617-770-3000 • Fax: 617-770-0700 • www.nfpa.org

M E M O R A N D U M

TO: Technical Committee on Road Tunnel and Highway Fire Protection

FROM: Sarah Caldwell, Project Administrator

DATE: January 18, 2016

SUBJECT: NFPA 502 Second Draft Technical Committee FINAL Ballot Results

(A2016)

According to the final ballot results, all ballot items received the necessary affirmative votes to pass

ballot.

30 Members Eligible to Vote

0 Members Not Returned

24 Members Voted Affirmative on All Revisions (w/ comment: Alston, Fitzpatrick, Harvey,

Ingason, Maevski, Plotkin, Ruiz, van der Waart van Gulik, Wah Onn)

5 Members Voted Negative on one or more Revisions (Alston, Connell, Kashef, Maevski, Ruiz)

1 Members Abstained on one or more Revisions (Wah Onn)

The attached report shows the number of affirmative, negative, and abstaining votes as well as the

explanation of the vote for each revision.

To pass ballot, each revision requires: (1) a simple majority of those eligible to vote and (2) an

affirmative vote of 2/3 of ballots returned. See Sections 3.3.4.3.(c) and 4.4.10.1 of the Regulations

Governing the Development of NFPA Standards.

Second Revision No. 1-NFPA 502-2015 [ Chapter 2 ]

Chapter 2 Referenced Publications

2.1 General.

The documents or portions thereof listed in this chapter are referenced within this standard and shall beconsidered part of the requirements of this document.

National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...

1 of 62 1/18/2016 3:21 PM

2.2 NFPA Publications.

National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471.

NFPA 1, Fire Code, 2015 edition.

NFPA 4, Standard for Integrated Fire Protection and Life Safety System Testing, 2015 edition.

NFPA 10, Standard for Portable Fire Extinguishers, 2013 edition.

NFPA 11, Standard for Low-, Medium-, and High-Expansion Foam, 2016 edition.

NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, 2016 edition.

NFPA 14, Standard for the Installation of Standpipe and Hose Systems, 2016 edition.

NFPA 15, Standard for Water Spray Fixed Systems for Fire Protection, 2017 edition.

NFPA 16, Standard for the Installation of Foam-Water Sprinkler and Foam-Water Spray Systems, 2015edition.

NFPA 18, Standard on Wetting Agents, 2011 edition.

NFPA 18A, Standard on Water Additives, 2011 edition.

NFPA 20, Standard for the Installation of Stationary Pumps for Fire Protection, 2016 edition.

NFPA 22, Standard for Water Tanks for Private Fire Protection, 2013 edition.

NFPA 24, Standard for the Installation of Private Fire Service Mains and Their Appurtenances, 2016edition.

NFPA 25, Standard for the Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-Based Fire Protection Systems,2017 edition.

NFPA 70®, National Electrical Code®, 2017 edition.

NFPA 72®, National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code, 2016 edition.

NFPA 80, Standard for Fire Doors and Other Opening Protectives, 2016 edition.

NFPA 92, Standard for Smoke Control Systems, 2015 edition.

NFPA 101®, Life Safety Code®, 2015 edition.

NFPA 110, Standard for Emergency and Standby Power Systems, 2016 edition.

NFPA 111, Standard on Stored Electrical Energy Emergency and Standby Power Systems, 2016 edition.

NFPA 241, Standard for Safeguarding Construction, Alteration, and Demolition Operations, 2013 edition.

NFPA 262, Standard Method of Test for Flame Travel and Smoke of Wires and Cables for Use inAir-Handling Spaces, 2015 edition.

NFPA 750, Standard on Water Mist Fire Protection Systems, 2015 edition.

NFPA 820, Standard for Fire Protection in Wastewater Treatment and Collection Facilities, 2016 edition.

NFPA 1561, Standard on Emergency Services Incident Management System, 2014 edition.

NFPA 1670, Standard on Operations and Training for Technical Search and Rescue Incidents, 2014edition.

NFPA 1963, Standard for Fire Hose Connections, 2014 edition.

2.3 Other Publications.

2.3.1 ASTM Publications.

ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.

ASTM E84, Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, 2015a.

ASTM E119, Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials,2012a 2015 .

ASTM E136, Standard Test Method for Behavior of Materials in a Vertical Tube Furnace at 750°C, 2012.

ASTM E2652, Standard Test Method for Behavior of Materials in a Tube Furnace with a Cone-shapedAirflow Stabilizer, at 750°C, 2012.


2 of 62 1/18/2016 3:21 PM

2.3.2 BSI Publications.

British Standards Institute, 389 Chiswick High Road, London, W4 4AL, United Kingdom.

BS 476-4, Fire Tests on Building Materials and Structures, Part 4: Non-Combustibility Test for Materials,1970, Corrigendum, 2014 .

2.3.3 CSA Publications.

Canadian Standards Associations, 178 Rexdale Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M9W 1R3.

CSA C22.2 No. 0.3, Test Methods for Electrical Wires and Cables, 2009, includes Update No.12010 reaffirmed 2014 .

2.3.4 Efectis Publications.

Efectis Group, 320 Walnut St. #504, Philadelphia, PA 19106, www.efectis.com.

Efectis-R0695, “Fire Testing Procedure for Concrete Tunnel Linings,” 2008.

2.3.5 FHWA Publications.

Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Washington, DC 20590.

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), 2009, revision 1 and 2 , 2012.

2.3.6 IEEE Publications.

IEEE, Three Park Avenue, 17th Floor, New York, NY 10016-5997.

FT4/IEEE 1202, Standard for Flame-Propagation Testing of Wire and Cable, 2006.

2.3.7 ISO Publications.

International Organization for Standardization, 1, ch. de la Voie-Creuse, CP 56, CH-1211 Geneva20, Central Secretariat, BIBC II, 8, Chemin de Blandonnet, CP 401, 1214 Vernier, Geneva, Switzerland.

ISO 1182, Reaction to fire tests for products — Non-combustibility test, 2010.

2.3.8 Military Specifications.

Department of Defense Single Stock Point, Document Automation and Production Service, Building 4/D,700 Robbins Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19111-5094.

MIL-DTL-24643C, Detail Specification: Cables, Electric, Low Smoke Halogen-Free, for Shipboard Use,Revision C.

2.3.9 OSHA Publications.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20210.

CFR, Part 1910.146, “Permit-Required Confined Spaces.”

2.3.10 UL Publications.

Underwriters Laboratories Inc., 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 60062-2096.

ANSI/UL 1685, Vertical-Tray Fire-Propagation and Smoke-Release Test for Electrical and Optical-FiberCables, 2007, revised 2010.

UL 1724, Outline of Investigation for Fire Tests for Electrical Circuit Protective Systems, 2004 2006 .

ANSI/UL 2196, Tests for Fire Resistive Cables, 2012.

2.3.11 Other Publications.

Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th edition, Merriam-Webster, Inc., Springfield, MA, 2003.


3 of 62 1/18/2016 3:21 PM

2.4 References for Extracts in Mandatory Sections.

NFPA 3, Recommended Practice for Commissioning and Integrated Testing of Fire Protection and LifeSafety Systems, 2015 edition.

NFPA 10, Standard for Portable Fire Extinguishers, 2013 edition.

NFPA 70®, National Electrical Code®, 2017 edition.


NFPA 402, Guide for Aircraft Rescue and Fire-Fighting Operations, 2013 edition.

NFPA 472, Standard for Competence of Responders to Hazardous Materials/Weapons of MassDestruction Incidents, 2013 edition.

NFPA 1142, Standard on Water Supplies for Suburban and Rural Fire Fighting, 2017 edition.

NFPA 1901, Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus, 2016 edition.

NFPA 5000®, Building Construction and Safety Code®, 2015 edition.

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Chad Duffy

Organization: [ Not Specified ]

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Mon Oct 19 23:36:22 EDT 2015

Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Updated SDO addresses, standard names, numbers and editions.

Response Message:

Public Comment No. 2-NFPA 502-2015 [Chapter 2]

Public Comment No. 4-NFPA 502-2015 [Section No. 2.3.1]

Ballot Results

This item has passed ballot

30 Eligible Voters

0 Not Returned

26 Affirmative All

4 Affirmative with Comments

0 Negative with Comments

0 Abstention

Affirmative All

Alston, Jarrod

Barry, Ian E.

Both, Cornelis Kees

Colella, Francesco


4 of 62 1/18/2016 3:21 PM

Connell, William G.

Conrad, James S.

Dalton, John A.

Debs, Alexandre

Dix, Arnold

Fitzpatrick, Michael F.

Huczek, Jason P.

Ingason, Haukur

Kashef, Ahmed

Kroboth, III, Joseph

Lake, James D.

Maevski, Igor Y.

Magnone, Zachary L.

Marino, Antonino

Nelsen, John

Pilette, Maurice M.

Plotkin, David M.

Shugarman, Blake M.

Sprakel, Dirk K.

Sturm, Peter J.

Tedesco, Anthony

van den Bosch, Rene

Affirmative with Comment

Harvey, Norris

NA

Ruiz, Ana

I agree with the specified NFPA Codes.

Wah Onn, Adrian Cheong

Nil Comments

van der Waart van Gulik, Tim Gian

affirmative


5 of 62 1/18/2016 3:21 PM

Second Revision No. 21-NFPA 502-2015 [ New Section after 3.3.46 ]

3.3.47 Primary Structural Element.

An element of the structure whose failure is expected to result in the collapse of the structure or theinability of the structure to perform its function.

3.3.48 Progressive Structural Collapse.

The spread of an initial local failure from element to element resulting in the eventual collapse of anentire structure or a disproportionately large part of it.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Thu Oct 22 23:01:19 EDT 2015

Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

New definitions added for new terms used to the body of the standard. Renumbersubsequent sections accordingly.

ResponseMessage:

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

0 Not Returned

26 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Affirmative All

Alston, Jarrod

Barry, Ian E.

Both, Cornelis Kees

Colella, Francesco

Connell, William G.

Conrad, James S.

Dalton, John A.


6 of 62 1/18/2016 3:21 PM

Debs, Alexandre

Dix, Arnold


Huczek, Jason P.

Ingason, Haukur

Kashef, Ahmed


Lake, James D.

Maevski, Igor Y.

Magnone, Zachary L.

Marino, Antonino

Nelsen, John

Pilette, Maurice M.

Plotkin, David M.

Shugarman, Blake M.

Sprakel, Dirk K.

Sturm, Peter J.

Tedesco, Anthony

van den Bosch, Rene


Harvey, Norris

NA

Ruiz, Ana

I agree with the new definition.


Nil Comments


affirmative


7 of 62 1/18/2016 3:21 PM

Second Revision No. 18-NFPA 502-2015 [ Section No. 4.3.1 ]

4.3.1*

Regardless of the length of the facility, as at a minimum, the following factors shall be fully considered aspart of a an holistic multidisciplinary engineering analysis of the fire protection and life safetyrequirements for the facilities covered by this standard for the protection of life in the facility :

(1) New facility or alteration of a facility

(2) Users of Transportation modes using the facility

(3) Anticipated traffic mix and volume

(4) Restricted vehicle access and egress

(5) Fire emergencies ranging from minor incidents to major catastrophes

Fire emergencies occurring at one or more locations inside or in close proximity to the facility

(6) Fire emergencies occurring in remote locations at a long distance from emergency responsefacilities Potential fire emergencies including but not limited to the following:

(a) At one or more locations inside or on the facility

(b) In close proximity to the facility

(c) At facilities a long distance from emergency response facilities

(7) Exposure of emergency systems and structures to elevated temperatures

(8) Traffic congestion and control requirements during emergencies

(9) Built-in fire Fire protection features such as , including but not limited to the following:

(a) Fire alarm and detection systems

(b) Standpipe systems

(c) Water-based fire-fighting systems

(d) Ventilation systems

(e) Emergency communications systems

(f) Protection of structural elements

(10) Facility components, including emergency systems

(11) Evacuation and rescue requirements

(12) Emergency response time

(13) Emergency vehicle access points

(14) Emergency communications to appropriate agencies

Vehicles and property being transported

(15) Facility location such as urban or rural (risk level and response capacity)

(16) Physical dimensions and configuration, including roadway profile , number of traffic lanes, androadway geometry

(17) Natural factors, including prevailing wind and pressure conditions

(18) Anticipated cargo

(19) Impact to buildings or landmarks near the facility

(20) Impacts to facility from external operations conditions and/or incidents

(21) Traffic operating mode ( unidirectional, bidirectional, switchable, or reversible)


8 of 62 1/18/2016 3:21 PM

Supplemental Information

File Name Description

Staff_use_only_Section_4.3.1_Revisions.docx Attached file for staff use.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Section 4.3.1 has been updated to better define intent of this section and the factors to beconsidered in an engineering analysis.

ResponseMessage:

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

0 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Affirmative All

Barry, Ian E.

Both, Cornelis Kees

Colella, Francesco

Connell, William G.

Conrad, James S.

Dalton, John A.

Debs, Alexandre

Dix, Arnold


Huczek, Jason P.

Ingason, Haukur

Kashef, Ahmed



9 of 62 1/18/2016 3:21 PM

Lake, James D.

Maevski, Igor Y.

Magnone, Zachary L.

Marino, Antonino

Nelsen, John

Pilette, Maurice M.

Plotkin, David M.

Shugarman, Blake M.

Sprakel, Dirk K.

Sturm, Peter J.

Tedesco, Anthony

van den Bosch, Rene


Alston, Jarrod

The factors listed are appropriate, however: the terma 'holistic mutidisciplinary' adds nothing to the clause and isnot addressed through any of the listed factors; the form of item (1) is inconsistent with the remainder of the list;item (10) appears redundant to (9); item (18) should likely be included under item (3) in that traffic mix is speakingto the potential to cargo vehicle; traffic mix and volume (item 3) are separate issues.

Harvey, Norris

NA

Ruiz, Ana

I agree wirh the list of items.


Nil Comments


affirmative


10 of 62 1/18/2016 3:21 PM

Second Revision No. 7-NFPA 502-2015 [ Section No. 6.2 [Excluding any Sub-Sections] ]

For the purpose of this standard, length or other elements of engineering analysis of the bridge orelevated highway length shall dictate the minimum fire protection requirements.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Length is not the only important element in the engineering analysis (see 4.3.1) to determineor assess the minimum protection requirements.

ResponseMessage:

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

0 Not Returned

24 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Affirmative All

Barry, Ian E.

Both, Cornelis Kees

Colella, Francesco

Conrad, James S.

Dalton, John A.

Debs, Alexandre

Dix, Arnold


Huczek, Jason P.

Ingason, Haukur


11 of 62 1/18/2016 3:21 PM

Kashef, Ahmed


Lake, James D.

Maevski, Igor Y.

Magnone, Zachary L.

Marino, Antonino

Nelsen, John

Pilette, Maurice M.

Plotkin, David M.

Shugarman, Blake M.

Sprakel, Dirk K.

Sturm, Peter J.

Tedesco, Anthony

van den Bosch, Rene


Harvey, Norris

NA


Nil Comments


affirmative

Negative with Comment

Alston, Jarrod

While the intent of the proposed edits are reasonable, the wording is confusing and runs contrary to thesubsequent clauses which defines fire/life safety requirements in terms of bridge or elevated highway length.

Connell, William G.

Proposed change adds confusion as to when this Chapter applies and is also creates a conflict with Paragraph6.2.1.

Ruiz, Ana

I think that the the length is the most important factor.


12 of 62 1/18/2016 3:21 PM


6.2.1

For bridges or elevated highways less than 300 m (1000 ft) in length, the provisions of thisstandard chapter shall not apply.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The term "standard" was revised to "chapter" to address the concern that shorter bridges mayneed evaluation according to 4.3.1. As currently written section 4.3.1 would not be applicable.

ResponseMessage:

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

0 Not Returned

26 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Affirmative All

Alston, Jarrod

Barry, Ian E.

Both, Cornelis Kees

Colella, Francesco

Connell, William G.

Conrad, James S.

Dalton, John A.

Debs, Alexandre

Dix, Arnold


13 of 62 1/18/2016 3:21 PM


Huczek, Jason P.

Ingason, Haukur

Kashef, Ahmed


Lake, James D.

Maevski, Igor Y.

Magnone, Zachary L.

Marino, Antonino

Nelsen, John

Pilette, Maurice M.

Plotkin, David M.

Shugarman, Blake M.

Sprakel, Dirk K.

Sturm, Peter J.

Tedesco, Anthony

van den Bosch, Rene


Harvey, Norris

NA

Ruiz, Ana

I agree with the term chapter.


Nil Comments


affirmative


14 of 62 1/18/2016 3:21 PM


6.3.1*

Regardless of bridge or elevated highway length, all primary structural elements shall be protected inaccordance with this standard in order to:

Maintain life safety

Mitigate structural damage and prevent progressive structural collapse

Minimize economic impact

Acceptable means shall be included within the design of the bridge or elevated highway to preventprogressive structural collapse or collapse of primary structural elements.

6.3.1.1

Primary structural elements shall be protected in accordance with this standard in order to achieve thefollowing functional requirements:

(1) Support fire fighter accessibility

(2) Minimize economic impact

(3) Mitigate structural damage




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Revised section 6.3.1 to clarify the requirement applies to bridges as outlined in section 6.2.1 andnot all bridges regardless of length. Bridges outside the scope of chapter 6 are not exempt from theengineering analysis as defined in section 4.3.1. Section 6.3.1.1 was revised to align with therequirements found in section 7.3.1.

ResponseMessage:

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

0 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All




15 of 62 1/18/2016 3:21 PM

0 Abstention

Affirmative All

Barry, Ian E.

Both, Cornelis Kees

Colella, Francesco

Conrad, James S.

Dalton, John A.

Debs, Alexandre

Dix, Arnold


Huczek, Jason P.

Ingason, Haukur


Lake, James D.

Maevski, Igor Y.

Magnone, Zachary L.

Marino, Antonino

Nelsen, John

Pilette, Maurice M.

Plotkin, David M.

Shugarman, Blake M.

Sprakel, Dirk K.

Sturm, Peter J.

Tedesco, Anthony

van den Bosch, Rene


Alston, Jarrod

The revised arrangement is sensible; however, it is presumed that 'life safety' is still an objective in protecting thefacility structure. Also, though not the subject of the proposed revision the mention of minimizing 'economicimpact' extends beyond the stated scope of the standard. The intention and meaning of it are understood andabsolutely shoudl be considered in facility design, but are broader context than should be directly addressedwithin the standard. This sort of consideration should be dealt with in normative text within the standard annexes,specifically in reference to section 4.3.1.

Harvey, Norris

NA


Nil Comments


affirmative



16 of 62 1/18/2016 3:21 PM

Connell, William G.

The undefined phrase "acceptable means" in 6.3.1 is unenforceable and therefore inappropriate in the context ofthis paragraph.

Kashef, Ahmed

one of the functional requirements should be "to maintain fire safety"

Ruiz, Ana

I agree with the original definition.


17 of 62 1/18/2016 3:21 PM


6.3.2*

Critical structural members shall be protected from collision and high-temperature exposure that canresult in dangerous weakening or complete collapse of the bridge or elevated highway. Where it hasbeen determined by engineering analysis that collapse of the bridge or elevated highway will impact lifesafety or have unacceptable implications, the bridge or elevated highway, including its primary structuralelements, shall be protected from collision and capable of withstanding the time-temperature exposurerepresented by the selected design fire and its location.

6.3.2.1

The design fire size and heat release rate produced by a vehicle(s) shall be used to design a bridge orelevated highway.

6.3.2.2

The selection of the design fire (heat release rate) shall consider the types of vehicles passing underand on the bridge or elevated highway.



New_Annex_A_6_3_2.docx Annex A.6.3.2




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Edits made to section 6.3.2 to provide clarification to requirements for protection of primarystructural elements and protection to prevent structural collapse in bridges. This also necessitatedthe addition of definitions for primary structural elements and progressive structural collapse. Seealso new annex 6.3.2.

ResponseMessage:

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

0 Not Returned

24 Affirmative All



18 of 62 1/18/2016 3:21 PM


0 Abstention

Affirmative All

Barry, Ian E.

Both, Cornelis Kees

Colella, Francesco

Conrad, James S.

Dalton, John A.

Debs, Alexandre

Dix, Arnold


Huczek, Jason P.

Ingason, Haukur

Kashef, Ahmed


Lake, James D.

Maevski, Igor Y.

Magnone, Zachary L.

Marino, Antonino

Nelsen, John

Pilette, Maurice M.

Plotkin, David M.

Shugarman, Blake M.

Sprakel, Dirk K.

Sturm, Peter J.

Tedesco, Anthony

van den Bosch, Rene


Harvey, Norris

NA

Ruiz, Ana



Nil Comments


affirmative


Alston, Jarrod

The proposed language in terms of using the selected design fire to define the time-temperature exposure does


19 of 62 1/18/2016 3:21 PM

not have an agreed basis. Where there are limited test results that provide both transient temperature and heatrelease rate data, this may be done. Otherwise, analysis of the design conditions to determine the exposureconditions resulting from a particular design fire heat release rate history.

Connell, William G.

The proposed revision to 6.3.2 implies the possibility that a bridge or elevated highway collapse might NOTimpact life saftey or have unacceptable implications. The proposed revision is incorrectly stated and introducesunenforcable language by use of the phrase "unacceptable implications" which is not defined.


20 of 62 1/18/2016 3:21 PM

A.6.3.2 Suggested locations for the design fire considered within the engineering evaluation include: (1) Location A - Fire source centered at mid-span under the bridge deck spanning traffic below, both

longitudinally and transversely. (2) Location B - Fire source centered at mid-span under the bridge deck spanning traffic below

longitudinally, but transversely offset to be outside of an exterior girder. (3) Location C - Fire source transversely centered under the bridge but longitudinally offset close to

the pier at the end of the span over traffic below. (4) Location D – Spill fire source on the bridge superstructure deck, with the spilled product entering

the bridge drainage system. (5) Location E – Other locations based on engineering judgment and evaluation. Suggested design fires considered within the engineering evaluation include: (1) For bridges spanning over moving traffic the design fire typically includes a Heavy Goods Truck. (2) For a bridge spanning over a freeway or interstate highway the design fire typically includes a

Flammable/Combustible Liquid Tanker. Refer to Table A.11.4.1 – Fire Data for Typical Vehicles to determine Representative Heat Release Rate and Peak Heat Release rate. Additional information for engineering evaluation can be found in NCHRP Project 12-85: Highway Bridge Fire Hazard Assessment – Guide Specification for Fire Damage Evaluation in Steel Bridges. This Guide Specification is intended to assist engineers with evaluation of highway bridge structures following fire events. This document discusses the majority of bridges in the U.S. consist of steel or concrete beams with a concrete deck. Additional information for engineering evaluation can be found in a graduate level thesis prepared by Michael Davidson from Western Kentucky University (2012) titled, Assessment of Passive Fire Protection on Steel-Girder Bridges. This document suggests fire-induced bridge collapses are perpetuated by the general lack of installed fire protection systems.


7.3.4

Structural fire protection material, where provided, shall satisfy the following performance criteria:

(1) Tunnel structural elements shall be protected to achieve the following for cast-in-situ concrete:

(a) Cast-in-situ concrete The concrete is protected such that fire-induced spalling is prevented.

(b) The temperature of the concrete surface does not exceed 380°C (716°F).

The temperature of the steel reinforcement with the concrete does not exceed 250°C (482°F).

(c) The temperature of the steel reinforcement within the concrete [assuming a minimum cover of25 mm (1 in.)] does not exceed 250°C (482°F).

Tunnel structural elements shall be protected to achieve the following for pre-cast concrete:

Pre-cast concrete is protected such that fire-induced spalling is prevented.

The temperature of the steel reinforcement within the concrete does not exceed 250°C(482°F).

(2) Tunnel structural elements shall be protected to achieve the following for steel or cast iron:

(a) The lining temperature will not exceed 300°C (572°F).

(3) The material shall be noncombustible in accordance with ASTM E136, Standard Test Method forBehavior of Materials in a Vertical Tube Furnace at 750°C, or by complying with internationallyaccepted criteria acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction when tested in accordance withASTM E2652, Standard Test Method for Behavior of Materials in a Tube Furnace with aCone-shaped Airflow Stabilizer, at 750ºC; ISO 1182, Reaction to fire tests for building and transportproducts — Non-combustibility test; or BS 476-4, Fire Tests on Building Materials and StructuresNon-Combustibility Test for Materials Non-Combustibility, Part 4: Non-combustibility test formaterials. .

(4) The material shall have a minimum melting temperature of 1350ºC (2462ºF).

(5) The material shall meet the fire protection requirements with less than 5 percent humidity by weightand also when fully saturated with water, in accordance with the approved time-temperature curve.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Wed Oct 21 23:44:02 EDT 2015

Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Parenthesis (1) and (2) have been merged to avoid confusion between behavior in fireconditions of cast-in-situ concrete and pre cast concrete segments.


21 of 62 1/18/2016 3:21 PM

ResponseMessage:

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

0 Not Returned

24 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Affirmative All

Alston, Jarrod

Barry, Ian E.

Both, Cornelis Kees

Colella, Francesco

Connell, William G.

Conrad, James S.

Dalton, John A.

Debs, Alexandre

Dix, Arnold

Huczek, Jason P.

Ingason, Haukur


Lake, James D.

Maevski, Igor Y.

Magnone, Zachary L.

Marino, Antonino

Nelsen, John

Pilette, Maurice M.

Plotkin, David M.

Shugarman, Blake M.

Sprakel, Dirk K.

Sturm, Peter J.

Tedesco, Anthony

van den Bosch, Rene



See 1 (b) & 1(c): With continuous improvements being made to building materials, is there a case to look @ howlong the material will endure under heat vs. an finite temperature value?


22 of 62 1/18/2016 3:21 PM

Harvey, Norris

NA


Nil Comments


affirmative


Kashef, Ahmed

7.3.4.1(c) should not include [assuming a minimum cover of 25 mm (1 in.)] 7.3.4.5 "The material shall meet thefire protection requirements with less than 5 percent humidity by weight and also when fully saturated with water,in accordance with the approved time-temperature curve." no reason given for the 5 percent humidity requirement.

Ruiz, Ana

I agree with original definition.


23 of 62 1/18/2016 3:21 PM

Second Revision No. 19-NFPA 502-2015 [ New Section after A.4.2.1.1 ]

A.4.3.1

The engineering analysis should be used to guide the decision process by the stakeholders and theAHJ for implementation of specific fire protection and life safety requirements.

The engineering analysis can, for some facilities, involve conducting risk analysis. A risk analysis is ananalysis of potential hazards and the consequential risks imposed by those hazards on the facility. Riskanalysis should be conducted as an adjunct to, and not a substitute for, qualified professional judgment.The content and the results of the risk analysis can be included in the emergency response plandocumentation submitted to the AHJ. Risk analysis can also include a quantification of risks which canbe used to inform a performance-based approach to safety.

Guidance and background documentation for risk assessment can be found in the following documents:

(1) Directive 2004/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 onminimum safety requirements for tunnels in the Trans-European Road Network

(2) OECD/PIARC QRA Model (http://www.piarc.org/en/knowledge-base/road-tunnels/gram_software/)

(3) NFPA 550 , Guide to the Fire Safety Concepts Tree

(4) NFPA 551 , Guide for the Evaluation of Fire Risk Assessments

(5) PIARC 2012, Current Practice for Risk Evaluation for Road Tunnels

(6) Risk Analysis: From the Garden of Eden to its Seven Most Deadly Sins




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The annex language provides additional guidance on how to perform an engineering analysisand informational references that provide guidance on risk assessment for facilities coveredunder this standard.

ResponseMessage:

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

0 Not Returned

24 Affirmative All


24 of 62 1/18/2016 3:21 PM



0 Abstention

Affirmative All

Barry, Ian E.

Both, Cornelis Kees

Colella, Francesco

Connell, William G.

Conrad, James S.

Dalton, John A.

Debs, Alexandre

Dix, Arnold


Huczek, Jason P.

Ingason, Haukur

Kashef, Ahmed


Lake, James D.

Magnone, Zachary L.

Marino, Antonino

Nelsen, John

Pilette, Maurice M.

Plotkin, David M.

Shugarman, Blake M.

Sprakel, Dirk K.

Sturm, Peter J.

Tedesco, Anthony

van den Bosch, Rene


Alston, Jarrod

Discussion of risk analysis is where it would be appropriate to discuss issues relating to operational continuity,down-time/repair time, repair costs, economic impact. It is within the risk context that fire safety provisions inexcess of the minimum required for life safety would be identified as being necessary for satisfying economicobjectives. Such discussion can be expanded upon in future revisions if deemed appropriate by the committee.

Harvey, Norris

NA

Maevski, Igor Y.

Misleading standard language: "Risk analysis should be conducted as an adjunct to, and not a substitute for,qualified professional judgment".


Nil Comments


25 of 62 1/18/2016 3:21 PM


affirmative


Ruiz, Ana

I do not agree with risk analysis.


26 of 62 1/18/2016 3:21 PM

Second Revision No. 10-NFPA 502-2015 [ New Section after A.6.2.2 ]

A.6.3.1

Preventing progressive structural collapse or collapse of primary structural elements should includeanalysis of the following effects of the fire:

(1) Loss of strength

(2) Loss of stiffness, causing plastic deformations

(3) Loss of durability due to cracking, which could lead to structural collapse (taking into account thatsome cracking, both during and after a fire, can occur at the non-visible external perimeter of thestructure that cannot be detected or repaired)

(4) Progressive fire-induced concrete spalling




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The annex language provides the user guidance on what to evaluate when performing ananalysis in an effort to prevent progressive structural collapse or collapse of primary structuralelements.

ResponseMessage:

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

0 Not Returned

26 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Affirmative All

Alston, Jarrod

Barry, Ian E.


27 of 62 1/18/2016 3:21 PM

Both, Cornelis Kees

Colella, Francesco

Connell, William G.

Conrad, James S.

Dalton, John A.

Debs, Alexandre

Dix, Arnold


Huczek, Jason P.

Ingason, Haukur

Kashef, Ahmed


Lake, James D.

Maevski, Igor Y.

Magnone, Zachary L.

Marino, Antonino

Nelsen, John

Pilette, Maurice M.

Plotkin, David M.

Shugarman, Blake M.

Sprakel, Dirk K.

Sturm, Peter J.

Tedesco, Anthony

van den Bosch, Rene


Harvey, Norris

NA

Ruiz, Ana

I agree with new definition.


Nil Comments


affirmative


28 of 62 1/18/2016 3:21 PM

Second Revision No. 5-NFPA 502-2015 [ Section No. A.7.3.2 ]


29 of 62 1/18/2016 3:21 PM

A.7.3.2


30 of 62 1/18/2016 3:21 PM

Any passive fire protection material should satisfy the following performance criteria:

(1) Be resistant to freezing and thawing and follow STUVA Guidelines; BS EN 12467, Fibre-cement flatsheets. Product specification and test methods ; or ASTM C666, Standard Test Method forResistance of Concrete to Rapid Freezing and Thawing

(2) Withstand dynamic suction and pressure loads; 3 kPa (12 in. w.g.) to 5 kPa (20 in. w.g.) dependingon traffic type, cross section, speed limits; amount of cycle s to be determined based on trafficvolume

(3) Withstand both hot and cold thermal shock from fire exposure and hose streams

(4) Meet all applicable health and safety standards

(5) Not itself become a hazard during a fire

(6) Be resistant to water ingress; follow BS EN 492, Fibre-cement slates and fittings. Productspecification and test methods

The time-temperature development is shown in Table A.7.3.2(a) and in Figure A.7.3.2(a).

Table A.7.3.2(a) Furnace Temperatures

Time (min)Temperature

ºC ºF

0 20 68

3 890 1634

5 1140 2084

10 1200 2192

30 1300 2372

60 1350 2462

90 1300 2372

120 1200 2192

An engineering analysis for the purposes of determining the appropriate time-temperature curve shouldconsider the following:

(1) Tunnel geometry

(2) Types of vehicles anticipated

(3) Types of cargoes

(4) Expected traffic conditions

(5) Applicable fire Fire mitigation measure(s), including fixed water-based fire-fighting systems, inaddition to the mandatory requirements

(6) Reliability and availability of the fixed water-based fire-fighting systems fire mitigation measure(s)

Figure A.7.3.2(a) RWS Time-Temperature Curve.


31 of 62 1/18/2016 3:21 PM

The RWS fire curve represents of actual tunnel fires for various combustibles but not necessarilyhazardous materials or flammable liquids. This fire curve was initially developed during extensive testingconducted by the Dutch Ministry of Transport (Rijkswaterstaat, RWS) in cooperation with the NetherlandsOrganization for Applied Scientific Research (TNO) in the late 1970s, and later proven in full-scale firetests in the Runehamar tunnel tests in Norway in September 2003, conducted as part of the EuropeanUnion (EU)–funded research project, Cost-Effective Sustainable and Innovative Upgrading Methods forFire Safety in Existing Tunnels (UPTUN), in association with SP Technical Research Institute of Swedenand the Norwegian Fire Research Laboratory (SINTEF/NBL).

As shown in Table A.7.3.2(b) , four tests were carried out on fire loads of nonhazardous materials usingtimber or plastic, furniture, mattresses, and cardboard cartons containing plastic cups.

Table A.7.3.2(b) Fire Test Data

Time fromIgnition to

Peak HRR

Linear Fire Growth Rate (R-LinearRegression Coefficient)

Peak HRR

Estimated HRR fromLaboratory Tests

(No Target /

Inclusive Target)

Test (min) (MW/min) (MW) (MW)

1 18.5 20.5 (0.997)200(average) 186/217

2 14.3 29.0 (0.991)158(average) 167/195

3 10.4 17.0 (0.998) 124.9 —

4 7.75–70

17.7 (0.996)70.5 79/95

All tests produced time-temperature developments in line with the RWS curve as shown in FigureA.7.3.2(b).

Figure A.7.3.2(b) Test Fire Curves.

All fires produced heat release rates of between 70 MW for cardboard cartons containing plastic cups and203 MW for timber/plastic pallets.

Figure A.7.3.2(c) depicts the T1 Fire Test curve in comparison to various accepted time-temperaturecurves.

Figure A.7.3.2(c) Various Time-Temperature Curves and Fire Test Curve.


32 of 62 1/18/2016 3:21 PM

The RWS requirements are adopted internationally as a realistic design fire curve that represents oftypical tunnel fires.

The level of fire resistance of structures and the emergency time/temperature certification of andequipment should be proven by testing or reference to previous testing.

Fire test reports are based on the following requirements:

(1) Concrete slabs used for the application of passive fire protection materials for fire testing purposeshave dimensions of at least 1400 mm × 1400 mm (55 in. × 55 in.) and a nominal thickness of 150mm (6 in.).

(2) The exposed surface is approximately 1200 mm × 1200 mm (47 in. × 47 in.).

(3) The passive fire protection material is fixed to the concrete slab using the same fixation material(anchors, wire mesh, etc.) as will be used during the actual installation in the tunnel.

(4) In the case of board protection, a minimum of one joint in between two panels should be created, tojudge if any thermal leaks would occur in a real fire in the tunnel.

(5) In the case of spray materials, the number of applications (number of layers) should be registeredwhen preparing the test specimen. This number of layers should be considered when the spraymaterial is applied in a real tunnel.

(6) Temperatures are recorded by K-type thermocouples in the following locations:

(a) At the interface between the concrete and the passive fire protection material

(b) At the bottom of the reinforcement

(c) On the nonexposed face of the concrete slab

For a an example test procedure to assess the spalling and the thermal protection of a concretestructure, see Efectis-R0695, “Fire Testing Procedure for Concrete Tunnel Linings.”

The installation of passive fire protection materials should be done with anchors having the followingproperties:

(1) The diameter should be limited to a maximum of M6 6 m m ( 1 ⁄4 in.) to reduce the heat sink effectthrough the steel anchor into the concrete. It has been reported that thicker Larger diameter anchorscan create a local spalling effect of on the concrete. This local effect is only temporary because thespalling spreads over the surface once a small part of the concrete is directly exposed to fire.

(2) The use of high grade stainless steel anchors is recommended. Types that can be used are A4,316, 1.4401, and 1.4571. In some countries, even higher requirements are applied, such as 1.4529.

(3) If necessary, a washer should be used to avoid a pull-through effect when the system is exposed todynamic loads.

(4) The anchors should be suitable for use in the tension zone of concrete (cracked concrete).

(5) The anchors should be suitable for use under dynamic loads.


33 of 62 1/18/2016 3:21 PM




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

A.7.3.2. (1) Guidelines and standards have been added to provide information on test methodsand criteria.

A.7.3.2. (2) Example criteria are added based on dynamic load requirements found in practice.These values do have a safety factor included, which explains why actual measurements intunnels can be lower than the ones provided here. Ref. BD 78/99 UK Highways Agency DesignManual.

A.7.3.2. (6) Standard has been added to provide information on test methods and criteria.

Several editorial changes were made to eliminate duplication and to provide clarification.

ResponseMessage:

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

0 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Affirmative All

Barry, Ian E.

Both, Cornelis Kees

Colella, Francesco

Connell, William G.

Conrad, James S.

Dalton, John A.

Debs, Alexandre

Dix, Arnold


Huczek, Jason P.

Ingason, Haukur


34 of 62 1/18/2016 3:21 PM

Kashef, Ahmed


Lake, James D.

Magnone, Zachary L.

Marino, Antonino

Nelsen, John

Pilette, Maurice M.

Shugarman, Blake M.

Sprakel, Dirk K.

Sturm, Peter J.

Tedesco, Anthony

van den Bosch, Rene


Alston, Jarrod

The proposed text provides useful context and examples. However: (1) Are there only British or Europeanstandards concerning water ingress. If not, what are the appropriate or equivalent North American standards.(2)There is a typographical error in the last section: "The diameter should be limited to a maximum of 6 m (1?4in.)..." The SI units should read as 6 mm.

Harvey, Norris

NA

Plotkin, David M.

Last (1), "6 mm", not "6 m".


Nil Comments


comment 1: ...speed limits; amount of cycles to be determined... (the 's' behind cycles is now missing) comment2: ...limited to a maximum of 6 mm (1?4 in.) to reduce... (the second 'm' of 6 mm is now missing)


Maevski, Igor Y.

References to STUVA Guideline, British Standards and other nations' documents and specifications should beavoided. The standard should be developed as a stand alone document. Extraction the important language fromother documents is acceptable with references to those documents. Terminology of emergency time/temperaturecertification is unclear.

Ruiz, Ana

I do not aree with the new definition.


35 of 62 1/18/2016 3:21 PM

Second Revision No. 14-NFPA 502-2015 [ Section No. A.7.16.6.3 ]

A.7.16.6.3

The maximum means of egress travel speed should be computed for reduced visibility due to a smoke-filled environment. The travel speed for such an environment is in the range of 0.5–1.5 m/s (100–300 fpm)depending on visibility, illuminance, design of exit signs, and egress pathway.

Wayfinding lighting (egress path marking) may provide a valuable aid during evacuation of the tunnel.Wayfinding lighting is used to provide guidance and delineate an evacuation route to an emergency exit.This information is not intended to address directional lighting.

(1) Where used, wayfinding lighting should be located at a height of less than 1 m (3.28 ft) above theegress pathway surface.

(2) The wayfinding lighting systems should be automatically initiated when the tunnel emergencysystems are activated.

(3) Minimum marker illumination levels should be in accordance with CIE 193, Emergency Lighting inRoad Tunnels .

(4) Powered wayfinding lighting systems should be connected to the emergency power system.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

In the event smoke obscures visibility, wayfinding lighting can aid in marking the egress pathto an emergency exit.

ResponseMessage:

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

0 Not Returned

24 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Affirmative All


36 of 62 1/18/2016 3:21 PM

Barry, Ian E.

Both, Cornelis Kees

Colella, Francesco

Conrad, James S.

Dalton, John A.

Debs, Alexandre

Dix, Arnold


Huczek, Jason P.

Ingason, Haukur

Kashef, Ahmed


Lake, James D.

Maevski, Igor Y.

Magnone, Zachary L.

Marino, Antonino

Nelsen, John

Pilette, Maurice M.

Plotkin, David M.

Shugarman, Blake M.

Sprakel, Dirk K.

Sturm, Peter J.

Tedesco, Anthony

van den Bosch, Rene


Alston, Jarrod

The proposed language relating to 'wayfinding lighting' is helpful and useful, but appears out of place in thecontext of the subject matter of the leading paragraph of A7.16.6.3. Or rather, the leading paragraph coveringtravel speeds should more appropriately be incoroporated with A.7.16.6.2; the wayfinding lighting discussion,pertaining to the egress pathway, belongs withi A7.16.6.3.

Connell, William G.

In para (4) the new reference CIE 193, Emergency Lighting in Road Tunnels, should be added to Chapter 2References.

Harvey, Norris

NA

Ruiz, Ana

I agree with the new definitions.


Nil Comments


affirmative


37 of 62 1/18/2016 3:21 PM

Second Revision No. 20-NFPA 502-2015 [ Section No. B.2.6 ]

B.2.6 Noise Levels.

Criteria for noise levels should be established for the various situations and potential exposures particularto the environments addressed by this standard. The intent of the recommended criteria is to maintain atleast a minimal level of speech intelligibility along emergency evacuation routes. This might requireadditional noise control measures and acoustical treatment to achieve. Exceptions taken to therecommended noise levels for reasons of cost and feasibility should be as few and as slight as reasonablypossible. For example, local area exceptions to the recommended acoustic criteria could be required to beapplied for defined limited distances along the evacuation path that are near active noise sources. Othermeans of providing emergency evacuation guidance using acoustic, non-acoustic or combined methodsmay be considered. Recommendations for noise criteria for various design scenarios are Starting pointsfor various design scenarios should be considered as follows:

In general, noise levels should not exceed the following:

During emergency response, the sound pressure level from all active systems measuredinside a tunnel along the path of evacuation at any point 5 ft above the walking surfaceshould not exceed 94 dBA L eq “slow” for a period of 1-hour and should at no time exceed

140 dBZ peak [ISO 1999, EU Directive 2003/10/EC, and Canada Occupational Safety andHealth Regulations, SOR/86-304, Part VII] .

The sound pressure level from all active systems measured where staff would be present formaintenance and testing and where hearing protection is not available should not exceed 85dBA TWA “slow” for a period of 8-hours and should at no time exceed 140 dBZ peak. [See 29CFR 1910.95 (OSHA)]. Time Weighted Average applied to a sound level is a continuoussound level which, over a defined period, would produce the same noise dose as the varyingsound level.

(1) Where reliance upon unamplified speech is used as part of the emergency response, duringemergency response, the speech interference level (SIL) {a calculated quantity providing a guide tothe interfering effect of noise on speech intelligibility (Unit: decibel:] from during emergency responsefrom all active systems measured inside a tunnel along the path of evacuation at any point 5 ft (1.52m) above the walking surface should not exceed 78 dBZ Leq “slow” over any period of 1 minute,

using the [one-fourth] arithmetic average of unweighted sound pressure level in the 500, 1000, 2000,and 4000 Hz octave bands.

(2) Where reliance upon amplified speech is used as part of the emergency response within a tunnel,the following applies: sound pressure level from all active systems measured inside a tunnel alongthe path of evacuation at any point 5 ft (1.52 m) above the walking surface speech intelligibility offixed voice communication systems to achieve a measured speech transmission index (STI) of notless than 0.45 [0.65 common intelligibility scale (CIS)] and an average STI of not less than 0.5 (0.7CIS) as per D.2.4.1 in NFPA 72 . Refer to Annex D of NFPA 72 for further information on speechintelligibility for voice communication systems.

Where a voice communication system is intended to be used within a tunnel, duringemergency response, the sound pressure level from all active systems measured inside atunnel along the path of evacuation at any point 5 ft (1.52 m) above the walking surfaceshould not exceed 75 dBA L eq “slow” measured over any period of 1 minute.

The speech intelligibility of fixed voice communication systems under the same conditionsand for the same spaces should achieve a measured STI of not less than 0.45 (0.65 CIS) andan average STI of not less than 0.5 (0.7 CIS) as per D.2.4.1 NFPA 72 . (Refer to Annex D ofNFPA 72, for further information on speech intelligibility for voice communication systems) .



38 of 62 1/18/2016 3:21 PM



Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Annex B.2.6 as proposed in the First Draft contained excessive prescriptive requirements thatwould have caused concerns if adopted into legislation. The modified text as adopted addressesboth of these concerns.

ResponseMessage:

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

0 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



1 Abstention

Affirmative All

Barry, Ian E.

Both, Cornelis Kees

Colella, Francesco

Conrad, James S.

Dalton, John A.

Debs, Alexandre

Dix, Arnold


Huczek, Jason P.

Ingason, Haukur

Kashef, Ahmed


Lake, James D.

Magnone, Zachary L.

Marino, Antonino

Nelsen, John

Pilette, Maurice M.

Plotkin, David M.


39 of 62 1/18/2016 3:21 PM

Shugarman, Blake M.

Sprakel, Dirk K.

Sturm, Peter J.

Tedesco, Anthony

van den Bosch, Rene


Harvey, Norris

NA

Ruiz, Ana



affirmative


Alston, Jarrod

Although the revised text limits the prescriptive content of the proposed Annex and defers to NFPA 72 whereappropriate, as written the language may still be interpreted to impose noise limitations within the tunnel that maynot be practical in that environment. As written, the language implies that some level of noise limitations arerequired as there will either be uamplified or amplified communications. Audible or voice communication systemsare not requirements under Chapter 7; as such the proposed language (while not statutory being in Annex B)imposes restrictions that are not aligned with trainway requirements. The efforts of the working group arerecognized; it is preferrable that the work done to date is not lost. The issue can be addressed through inclusion ofan additional sub-clause that identifies noise levels appropriate to trainways not utilizing audible communicationsystems (such as pain thresholds or similar).

Connell, William G.

The maximum SIL level of 78dBLeq is extremely difficult and likely impossible to attain in road tunnels equippedwith jet fans and/or fixed fire suppression systems both of which must be assumed active during an emergency.

Maevski, Igor Y.

This eliminates the previously established minimum requirements (criteria) for noise levels and replaces it withthe discussion on specific case of reliance upon unamplified speech.

Abstention


The proposed clause:"sound pressure level from all active systems measured inside a tunnel along the path ofevacuation at any point 5 ft (1.52 m) above the walking surface speech intelligibility of fixed voice communicationsystems to achieve a measured speech transmission index (STI) of not less than 0.45 [0.65 common intelligibilityscale (CIS)] and an average STI of not less than 0.5 (0.7 CIS) as per D.2.4.1 in NFPA 72. Refer to Annex D ofNFPA 72 for further information on speech intelligibility for voice communication systems." is not properly phrasedbecause there is a disjoint between the SPL at the start of the proposed clause and the STI values mentioned.


40 of 62 1/18/2016 3:21 PM

Second Revision No. 13-NFPA 502-2015 [ Section No. D.1 ]


41 of 62 1/18/2016 3:21 PM

D.1 General.

The simultaneous solution of the following equations, by iteration, determines the critical velocity. Thecritical velocity, Vc, is the minimum steady-state velocity of the ventilation air moving toward a fire that is

necessary to prevent backlayering.

[D.1]

where:

Vc = critical velocity [m/sec (fpm)]

K1 = 0.606 ( Froude number factor, Fr−1⁄3) (see Table D.1 )

Kg = grade factor (see Figure D.1 )

g = acceleration caused by gravity [m/sec2 (ft/sec2)]

H = height of duct or tunnel at the fire site [m (ft)]

Q = heat fire is adding directly to air at the fire site [kW (Btu/sec)]

ρ = average density of the approach (upstream) air [kg/m3 (lb/ft3)]

Cp = specific heat of air [kJ/kg K (Btu/lb°R)]

A = area perpendicular to the flow [m2 (ft2)]

Tf = average temperature of the fire site gases [K (°R)]

T = temperature of the approach air [K (°R)]

Figure D.1 provides the grade factor for (Kg) in equation D.1.

Figure D.1 Grade Factor for Determining Critical Velocity.

Equation D.1 is based on research founded on theoretical work performed in the late 1950s (Thomas,1958) and correlated by large scale tests in the mid-1990s (see Annex H ) . The equation previouslyused a constant K 1 value equal to 0.606. Later research on critical velocity (see, for example, Li et al.,

Wu and Bakar, and Oka and Atkinson) , suggests that a refinement of K 1 values as shown in Table D.1

is desired for heat release rates (HRRs) lower than or equal to 100 MW.

Table D.1 A Range of K 1 Values That Apply for Various HRRs

Q (MW) K 1

>100 0.606

90 0.62

70 0.64

50 0.68

30 0.74

<10 0.87


42 of 62 1/18/2016 3:21 PM



502_SR13_new_Table_D.1.docx




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Additional research on critical velocity suggests that a refinement of K1 values is advisable.Theequation previously used a constant K1 value equal to 0.606 but the new research indicates thatK1 in fact is not a constant for HRR lower than 100 MW.

ResponseMessage:

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

0 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Affirmative All

Barry, Ian E.

Both, Cornelis Kees

Colella, Francesco

Connell, William G.

Conrad, James S.

Dalton, John A.

Debs, Alexandre

Dix, Arnold


Huczek, Jason P.

Ingason, Haukur

Kashef, Ahmed



43 of 62 1/18/2016 3:21 PM

Lake, James D.

Maevski, Igor Y.

Magnone, Zachary L.

Marino, Antonino

Nelsen, John

Pilette, Maurice M.

Plotkin, David M.

Shugarman, Blake M.

Sprakel, Dirk K.

Sturm, Peter J.

Tedesco, Anthony

van den Bosch, Rene


Alston, Jarrod

The research to date, as reviewed by the committee, supports the proposed changes. However, given thevariation in K1 it is suggested that the form of the equation is incorrect in that K1 is not constant and has afunctional relationship to heat release rate. As such, revisions to the form of equation D.1 should be explored bythe committee working group for the next standard cycle.

Harvey, Norris

NA

Ruiz, Ana

I agree with the new definition of critical control velocity.


Nil Comments


affirmative


44 of 62 1/18/2016 3:21 PM

Table D.1 A range of Kl value that apply for various HRRs.

Q (MW) K1 >100 0.606 90 0.62 70 0.64 50 0.68 30 0.74 <10 0.87

Second Revision No. 3-NFPA 502-2015 [ Sections E.5.7, E.5.8, E.5.9 ]

E.5.7

For the German research project SOLIT (Safety of Life in Tunnels) , more than 50 fire tests were carriedout in the test tunnel of San Pedro Des Anes in Spain , involving pool fires of up to 35 MW and coveredtruck fuel packages with a potential heat release rate of 200 MW. As well as the water mist systems,several types of detection systems were tested in combination with a longitudinal ventilation velocity of 6m/s (1181 fpm). Some tests were also performed with semitransverse ventilation. The maximum activatedlength of the tested system was 45 m (148 ft). Cooling and attenuation of radiant heat by the water mistkept the heat release rate of the fire below 50 MW. Conditions were such that fire brigade intervention waspossible at all times.

E.5.8

In 2011, the Efectis of the Netherlands performed a fire suppression test program on the assignment ofLand Transport Authority (LTA) Singapore. The aims of the test program were to investigate the effect offire suppression on the HRR and tunnel ventilation, to reduce the risk of vehicular fire spread, and toacquire information on the appropriate design parameters to adopt. The SOLIT 2 research project testedover 39 full scale fires. The test program was performed at the San Pedro Des Anes test tunnel facility inSpain. Both Class A Heavy Goods Vehicle fire loads with a potential heat release rate of 150 MW andClass B fires with heat release rates in the range of 30 MW to 100 MW were tested. A high-pressurewater mist system was tested and included both longitudinal and semitransverse ventilation systems. Theresearch program generated extensive reports that are available in German and English from the publicdomain.

Seven large-scale fire tests were conducted in the San Pedro de Anes test tunnel. The fire sourcesconsisted of 228 wooden (80 percent) and plastic (20 percent) pallets. The HGV mock-up was 2 m wide,3 m high and 7.5 m long covered by a tarpaulin. The tunnel had a ventilation velocity of around 3 m persecond. Two piles of pallets were placed 5 m behind the edge of the HGV mock up to investigate thepossibility of fire spread to adjacent targets. The water spray system was a deluge system with nozzlesusing a K-factor of 80 and an operating pressure of 1 to 2 bar. Two 25 m long and 7.2 m wide sectionswere applied, totaling 50 m. The water flow rate was 8 mm per minute in one test and 12 mm per minutein five tests. The system was activated 4 minutes after the “fire detection,”, corresponding to 60°C gastemperature measured below the ceiling.

The test data showed that the peak HRRs were below 40 MW if the deluge system was activated 4minutes after detection. The free burn test had a peak HRR of 115 MW for a period of 5 minutes and anew peak of 150 MW for a short period (2 minutes,) most likely when the piles collapsed. If the delugesystem was activated 8 minutes after detection, the HRR was as high as 100 MW. The ceiling gastemperature in Test 1 was reduced to 300°C, compared to 1200°C in the free burn test.


45 of 62 1/18/2016 3:21 PM

E.5.9

In 2013, SP Fire Research of Sweden carried out a series of fire suppression tests in the Runehamartunnel on assignment from the Swedish Transport Administration (STA). Six tests were carried out. Woodpallets were used as fuel with an estimated free burn peak HRR of 100 MW. A total length of 30 m wascovered by the fire suppression system with a 1.1 bar water pressure at the nozzles with K-360 (l/min

/bar 1/2 ) yielded a water flow rate of 375 l/min. The coverage area was 37.5 m 2 , which corresponds toa water density of 10 mm per minute. Authorities in Singapore organized a fire test program in the SanPedro Des Anes test tunnel facility that consisted of seven fire tests. The fire test program was carried outfor the purpose of investigating the influence of a deluge fixed fire-fighting system on peak fire heatrelease rate and to acquire information on the appropriate design parameters (e.g., types of nozzles,discharge density, and activation time) to adopt for road tunnels. The fire test program included one freeburn test and six tests with different deluge system arrangements. The fire load consisted of 228 pallets,both plastic (20 percent) and wooden (80 percent). All fire tests were carried out with longitudinalventilation of approximately 3 m/s (9.84 ft/s). The peak heat release rate measured in the free burn testwas 150 MW. When the deluge system was activated at 4 minutes after fire ignition, the peak heatrelease rates ranged between 27 MW and 44 MW. In addition, 97 MW was measured when the delugesystem was activated 8 minutes after ignition of fire. The water application rate during the fire test

program was 8 mm/min (0.20 gpm/ft 2 ) and 12 mm/min (0.30 gpm/ft 2 ).

The criterion for the “fire detection” was a ceiling gas temperature of 141°C. The activation of the firesuppression system was delayed by 2 to 12 minutes after the fire detection. The results showed that theHRR on activation, ranged from approximately 10 MW to 30 MW. The HRR was controlled after activationfor a period of 10 to 20 minutes. After that the fire was suppressed over a period of 10 to 30 minutes,which means that the system prevented further fire spread inside the fuel.

The FFFS resulted in peak HRRs lower than 50 MW in all five cases, which was one of the originalquestions postulated by the STA. The maximum temperatures at the ceiling were never higher than400°C to 800°C after activation. In all experiments the fire was controlled in the first period after activationand then suppressed with a considerable amount of fuel remaining. A target consisting of a pile of palletsstood 5 m away from one end of the fire.

E.5.10

Authorities in Sweden carried out a fire test program in the Runehamar tunnel. The five tests includedClass A wooden pallet fire loads and one free burning test. As fuel pack, 420 pallets were used, and 21pallets were used as a fire target 5 m (16 ft) downstream of the fire load. The measured free burn peakheat release rate for the fire load was 80 MW, and all fire tests were carried out with longitudinal

ventilation of 3 m/s (9.84 ft/s). The tested deluge system used a 10 mm/min (0.25 gpm/ft 2 ) waterapplication rate and was able to prevent fire propagation to the adjacent target. The heat release ratewas kept under 40 MW after activation of one test and 20 MW for the remaining four tests.

E.5.11

There have been many tunnel fire tests initiated by tunnel owners and operators around the world. Fullscale fire test results are available from the following projects: A86 tunnel, Paris, France (high-pressurewater mist); A73 Roer tunnel, the Netherlands (high-pressure water mist); Dartford tunnel, UnitedKingdom (high-pressure water mist); M30 tunnels, Madrid, Spain (high-pressure water mist); Channeltunnel, France/United Kingdom (high-pressure water mist); and Tunnel Mont Blanc, France (deluge,low- and high-pressure water mist).




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



46 of 62 1/18/2016 3:21 PM

Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Proposed first draft language was modified in order to provide a more thuro discription of the firetests including a general statement of purpose, as well additional edits. Additional test informationwas added in E.5.10 and E.5.11.

ResponseMessage:

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

0 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Affirmative All

Barry, Ian E.

Both, Cornelis Kees

Colella, Francesco

Connell, William G.

Conrad, James S.

Dalton, John A.

Debs, Alexandre

Dix, Arnold


Huczek, Jason P.

Ingason, Haukur

Kashef, Ahmed


Lake, James D.

Maevski, Igor Y.

Magnone, Zachary L.

Marino, Antonino

Nelsen, John

Pilette, Maurice M.

Plotkin, David M.

Shugarman, Blake M.

Sprakel, Dirk K.

Sturm, Peter J.

Tedesco, Anthony

van den Bosch, Rene


47 of 62 1/18/2016 3:21 PM


Alston, Jarrod

The additional information provides useful summaries from which additional research reviews can be undertakan.To be useful references need to be provided, so it need sto be verified that the corresponding report titles areincorporated either in Annex E or in Annex M. The editors are advised that there are various typographical andgrammatical errors within the second revision that should be addressed prior to publication.

Harvey, Norris

NA

Ruiz, Ana

I agree with this comment.


Nil Comments


affirmative


48 of 62 1/18/2016 3:21 PM

Second Revision No. 12-NFPA 502-2015 [ New Section after L.1 ]

Annex M Automatic Fire Detection Systems

This annex is not part of the requirements of this NFPA document but is included for informationalpurposes only.

M.1 General.

This annex provides information on the use of automatic fire detection (AFD) systems in road tunnels.This annex does not include information on manual fire detection, such as pull stations or emergencytelephones.

Installation of AFD systems is becoming more common in road tunnels as a means for detecting a fireand identifying the fire location. AFD is required in some tunnels without continuous 24-hoursupervision.

AFD systems can do any or all of the following: detect a fire, identify the fire location, send a notificationsignal, and initiate activation of fire life safety systems.

Early detection, accurate identification of the fire location, rapid notification, and effective activation offire life safety systems are essential due to potentially rapid loss of tenability. Each technology has itsown response time.

M.2 Benefits of AFD Systems.

Early implementation of the emergency response plan will minimize the risk to motorists byself-evacuation, providing priority communication, managing traffic control, and initiating fire life safetysystems.

M.3 Fire Detection Technologies.

AFD systems are designed to recognize heat, flame, smoke, or combinations.

Examples of technologies for tunnel application include, but are not limited to, linear heat detection,video-based detection, flame detection, infrared heat detection, obscuration detection, and gasdetection, applied singly or in combination.

M.4 Prevention of Unwanted Alarms.

Factors that can initiate unwanted alarms include vehicle emissions, vehicle heat, vehicle lights(including flashing lights of emergency vehicles), portal sunlight, tunnel lighting, and tunnel environment.

Means to reduce unwanted alarms include using a pre-alarm signal, alarm verification, or more than onedetection device to confirm a fire.

M.5 Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance.

Inspection, testing, and maintenance requirements of AFD devices and systems are defined in NFPA72 . The frequency of these requirements might need to be increased due to the tunnel environment.

Replication of fire signature and detection threshold(s) is necessary for testing. Consideration should begiven to minimize delays in replacing out of service detectors.


49 of 62 1/18/2016 3:21 PM

M.6 Design, Installation, and Performance Considerations.

The environment in road tunnels can be significantly more severe than it is in buildings (wet, dirty,temperature extremes, etc.). These conditions can affect the performance of the AFD devices andsystems by reducing their accuracy and delaying or preventing alarm activation.

AFD devices or systems should have a documented history of proven performance in a road tunnelenvironment acceptable to the AHJ of accurately identifying fire(s), the fire location, and an acceptablelevel of unwanted alarms. All other AFD devices or systems should be tested in a comparable tunnelenvironment or other test facility to the satisfaction of the owner/operator and AHJ.

For recommended maximum detection time, see A.7.4.7.7 . Tests are available that show detectioncan occur for a small fire in a short period of time within the tunnel environment ( see M.7 ).

AFD systems can report an alarm directly to the tunnel operator, to a central supervisory service, oranother approved location. For tunnels without supervision, a central supervisory service could be usedto receive the alarm and notify the tunnel operator, tunnel owner, and/or the emergency responseagencies.

For tunnels with continuous 24-hour operator supervision, integrating the AFD system to automaticallyactivate fire life safety systems may not be necessary or desirable since the operator can initiate thenecessary fire life safety systems.

Integrated activation of fire life safety systems, traffic control system, and other systems or notificationscan reduce tunnel operator actions and the potential for human error.

Integration of these systems can be accomplished through a fire alarm control panel or, if available,through the tunnel facility supervisory control and data acquisition system or other approved system.

Additional information on AFD is in NFPA 72 , Chapter 17, Initiating Devices.

M.7 Tunnel Automatic Fire Detection References and Research.

To inform the tunnel industry of research and testing in this limited area, the following resources areprovided.

(1) Azuma, T., S. Gunki, A. Ichikawa, and M. Yokota, “Effectiveness of a flame-sensing-type firedetector in a large tunnel,” Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne House, Berkshire, UnitedKingdom, 2005.

(2) Ingason, H. , et al. , “Development of a test method for fire detection in road tunnels,” FireTechnology , SP Report 2014:13, SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden.

(3) Maevski, I., B. Josephson, R. Klein, D. Haight, and Z. Griffith, “Final testing of fire detection andfire suppression systems at Mount Baker Ridge and First Hill Tunnels in Seattle,” 16thSymposium on Aerodynamics, Ventilation and Fire in Tunnels, Seattle, WA, 2015.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Current language in the standard does not provide adequate information to make necessarydecisions on the possible uses of Automatic Fire Detection (AFD). This annex provides informationon: benefits, performance criteria, unwanted alarms and other factors which are important todecision making process for AFD.


50 of 62 1/18/2016 3:21 PM

ResponseMessage:

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

0 Not Returned

24 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Affirmative All

Barry, Ian E.

Both, Cornelis Kees

Colella, Francesco

Connell, William G.

Conrad, James S.

Dalton, John A.

Debs, Alexandre

Dix, Arnold


Huczek, Jason P.

Kashef, Ahmed


Lake, James D.

Maevski, Igor Y.

Magnone, Zachary L.

Marino, Antonino

Nelsen, John

Pilette, Maurice M.

Plotkin, David M.

Shugarman, Blake M.

Sprakel, Dirk K.

Sturm, Peter J.

Tedesco, Anthony

van den Bosch, Rene


Alston, Jarrod

The proposed language pertaining to automatic fire detection within tunnels is useful and warrants inclusionwithin the standards. In future cycles, the committee should look to provide additional references as the current list


51 of 62 1/18/2016 3:21 PM

is incomplete. Of particular interest would be ones discussing unwanted alarms (sources and mitigation)andrelative performance of detection technologies.

Harvey, Norris

NA

Ingason, Haukur

Change the ref in M7 Ingason, H. et al. “Development of a test method for fire detection in road tunnels,” SPReport, 13, SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden, 2014. to a better ref: H. Ingason, G. Appel, J. Gehandler,Y. Z. Li, H. Nyman, P. Karlsson, and M. Arvidson, Development of a test method for fire detection in road tunnels,Fire Technology, SP Report 2014:13, SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden.

Ruiz, Ana

I agree with this comment.


Nil Comments


affirmative


52 of 62 1/18/2016 3:21 PM

Second Revision No. 2-NFPA 502-2015 [ Chapter M ]

Annex N Informational References

N.1 Referenced Publications.

The documents or portions thereof listed in this annex are referenced within the informational sections ofthis standard and are not part of the requirements of this document unless also listed in Chapter 2 forother reasons.

N.1.1 NFPA Publications.

National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471.

NFPA 3, Recommended Practice for Commissioning and Integrated Testing of Fire Protection and LifeSafety Systems, 2015 edition.

NFPA 30, Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code, 2015 edition.

NFPA 30A, Code for Motor Fuel Dispensing Facilities and Repair Garages, 2015 edition.

NFPA 70B, Recommended Practice for Electrical Equipment Maintenance, 2016 edition.

NFPA 72®, National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code, 2016 edition.


NFPA 170, Standard for Fire Safety and Emergency Symbols, 2015 edition.

NFPA 262, Standard Method of Test for Flame Travel and Smoke of Wires and Cables for Use inAir-Handling Spaces, 2015 edition.

NFPA 550 , Guide to the Fire Safety Concepts Tree , 2012 edition.

NFPA 551 , Guide for the Evaluation of Fire Risk Assessments , 2016 edition.

NFPA 730, Guide for Premises Security, 2014 edition.

NFPA 731, Standard for the Installation of Electronic Premises Security Systems, 2015 edition.

NFPA 1561, Standard on Emergency Services Incident Management System, 2014 edition.

NFPA 1600®, Standard on Disaster/Emergency Management and Business Continuity Programs, 2016edition.

N.1.2 Other Publications.

N.1.2.1 AISC Publications.

American Institute of Steel Construction, One East Wacker Drive, Suite 700, Chicago, IL 60601-1802.

AISC 325, LRFD Manual of Steel Construction, 2005 2012 .

N.1.2.2 ANSI Publications.

American National Standards Institute, Inc., 25 West 43rd Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10036.

ANSI NGV2, American National Standard for Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Containers, 2007.

IEEE/ANSI SI 10, Standard for Use of the International System of Units (SI): the Modern Metric System,2010.

N.1.2.3 ASCE Publications.

American Society of Civil Engineers, 1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Reston, VA 20191-4400.

ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Load for Buildings and Other Structures, 2010.


53 of 62 1/18/2016 3:21 PM

N.1.2.4 ASME Publications.

American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Two Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990.

Harris, K. J., “A Basis for Determining Fill Times for Dry Fire Lines in Highway Tunnels,” in F. J. Mintz, ed.,Safety Engineering and Risk Analysis, SERA Vol. 6, Book No. G01033, 1996.

N.1.2.5 ASTM Publications.

ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.

ASTM C666, Standard Test Method for Resistance of Concrete to Rapid Freezing and Thawing , 2015.

ASTM E136, Standard Test Method for Behavior of Materials in a Vertical Tube Furnace at 750°C, 2012.

ASTM E580/E580M14 , Application of Ceiling Suspension Systems for Acoustical Tile and Lay-in Panelsin Areas Subject Requiring Moderate Seismic Restraint to Earthquake Ground Motions , 2014.

ASTM E2652, Standard Test Method for Behavior of Materials in a Vertical Tube Furnace at 750°C with aCone-Shaped Airflow Stabilizer with a Cone-shaped Airflow Stabilizer , at 750°C, 2012.

N.1.2.6 BSI Publications.

BSI British Standards, 12110 Sunset Hills Road, Suite 200, Reston, VA 20190-5902.

BS 476-4, Non-Combustibility, Part 4: Non-combustibility test for materials , 1970, corrigendum, 2014.

BS EN 492, Fibre-cement slates and fittings. Product specification and test methods , 2012.

BS EN 12467, Fibre-cement flat sheets. Product specification and test methods , 2012.

N.1.2.7 CENELEC Publications.

CEN-CENELEC Management Centre, 17, Avenue Marnix, 17, 4th Floor, B-1000, Brussels, Belgium.

BS- EN 61508-1, Functional Safety of Electrical/Electronic/Programmable Electronic Safety-RelatedSystems,2002 edition 2010 .

N.1.2.8 Efectis Publications.

Efectis Group, Brandpuntlaan Zuid 16, 2665 NZ, Bleiswijk, the Netherlands.

Efectis-R0695, “Fire Testing Procedure for Concrete Tunnel Linings,” 2008.

N.1.2.9 FEMA Publications.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW, Washington, DC 20472.

FEMA 141, “Emergency Management Guide for Business and Industry,” October 1993.

“Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP),” April 2013.

“National Exercise Program,” March 2011.

N.1.2.10 IEEE Publications.

IEEE, Three Park Avenue, 17th Floor, New York, NY 10016-5997.

IEEE 693, Recommended Practices for Seismic Design of Substations, 2005.

IEEE 1402, IEEE Guide for Electric Power Substation Physical and Electrical Security, 2000 reaffirmed2008 .

N.1.2.11 IESNA Publications.

Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, 120 Wall Street, Floor 17, New York, NY 10005.

IESNA DG4, Design Guide for Roadway Lighting Maintenance, 2003 2014 .

NECA/IESNA 502, Recommended Practice Standard for Installing Industrial Lighting Systems,1999 2006 .


54 of 62 1/18/2016 3:21 PM

N.1.2.12 ISO Publications.

International Organization for Standardization, 1, ch. de la Voie-Creuse, CP 56, CH-1211 Geneva20 Central Secretariat, BIBC II, 8, Chemin de Blandonnet, CP 401, 1214 Vernier, Geneva , Switzerland.

ISO 1182, Reaction to Fire Tests for Building Products fire tests for products — Non-CombustibilityTest combustibility test ,2002 edition 2010 .

ISO 1999, Acoustics — Estimation of Noise-Induced Hearing Loss, 2013.

N.1.2.14 MassDOT.

MassDOT, 10 Park Plaza, Suite 4160, Boston, MA 02116.

“Memorial Tunnel Fire Ventilation Test Program — Test Report,” Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff Quadeand Douglas, Inc., November 1995.

N.1.2.13 NCHRP Publications.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Transportation Research Board,National Cooperative Highway Research Program, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001.

NCHRP Project 12-85: Highway Bridge Fire Hazard Assessment – Guide Specification for Fire DamageEvaluation in Steel Bridges.

NCHRP Synthesis 415: Design Fires in Road Tunnels.

N.1.2.14 NHTSA Publications.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE, Washington, DC 20590.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 304, Compressed Natural Gas Fuel Container Integrity.

N.1.2.15 NIOSH Publications.

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600Clifton Road, Atlanta, GA 30329.

NIOSH 136, “Guidance for Filtration and Air-Cleaning Systems to Protect Building Environments fromAirborne Chemical, Biological, or Radiological Attacks,” 2003.

N.1.2.18 OSHA Publications.

U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Health & Safety Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW,Washington, DC 20210.

29 CFR 1910.95, “ Occupational Noise Exposure .”

N.1.2.16 PIARC Publications.

World Road Association (PIARC), Tour Pascal B - 19th floor, 5 Place des Degrés, F-92055 La Défensecedex, France.

Current Practice for Risk Evaluation for Road Tunnels , 2012.

Design Fire Characteristics for Road Tunnels, 2011.

Fire and Smoke Control in Road Tunnels, 1999.

OECD/PIARC QRA Model: Quantitative Risk Assessment Model for Dangerous Goods Transportthrough Road Tunnels ,

Road Tunnels: An Assessment of Fixed Fire-Fighting Systems, 2004.

Systems and Equipment for Fire and Smoke Control in Road Tunnels, 2004 2007 .

N.1.2.17 SAE Publications.

Society of Automotive Engineers SAE International , 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096.

SAE J2344, Guidelines for Electric Vehicle Safety, 2010 edition.

N.1.2.18 UL Publications.

Underwriters Laboratories Inc., 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 60062-2096.

ANSI/UL 1598, Luminaires, 2008, revised 2010 2012 .


55 of 62 1/18/2016 3:21 PM

N.1.2.19 USACE Publications.

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, USACE Publications Depot, ATTN: CEHEC-IM-PD, 2803 52nd Avenue,Hyattsville, MD 20781-1102.

USACE TI 809, Seismic Design for Buildings, 2004, revised 2010.


56 of 62 1/18/2016 3:21 PM

N.1.2.20 Other Publications.

Azuma, T., S. Gunki, A. Ichikawa, and M. Yokota, “Effectiveness of a flame-sensing-type fire detector in alarge tunnel,” Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne House, Berkshire, United Kingdom, 2005.

Balke, K. N. , D. W. Fenno, B. Ullman, “Incident Management Performance Measures,” Texas A&MUniversity, Texas Transportation Institute, November 2002.

British Standards InstituteBS 476-4, Fire Tests on Building Materials and Structures Non-CombustibilityTest for Materials , 1970.

Canada Labor Code, SOR/86-304, Part VII, "Levels of Sound," 2014.

CIE 193, Emergency Lighting in Road Tunnels, International Commission on Illumination , 2010.

Cheong, M. K., W. O. Cheong, K. W. Leong, A. D. Lemaire, L. M. Noordijk, “Heat Rates of Heavy GoodsVehicle Fire in Tunnels,” proceedings of 15th International Symposium on Aerodynamics, Ventilation, andFire in Tunnels, BHR Group, Barcelona 2013. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32003L0010

Davidson, M., Assessment of Passive Fire Protection on Steel-Girder Bridges , 2012.

Directive 2003/10/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 February 2003 on the minimumhealth and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents(noise), European Parliament Council of the European Union, 2008.

Ferkl, L. and A. Dix., “Risk Analysis: From the Garden of Eden to Its Seven Most Deadly Sins,” 14thISAVT, Dundee, Scotland, May 2011.

Fire in Tunnels Thematic Network, Technical Report 3: “Fire Response Management,” 2004.

Guigas, X., A. Weatherill, C. Bouteloup, and V. Wetzif, “Dynamic fire spreading and water mist tests for theA86 East tunnel – description of the test set up and overview of the water mist tests.” Underground SpaceUse: Analysis of the Past and Lessons for the Future, Taylor & Francis Group, London, 2005.

Ingason, H., and A. Lönnermark, “Heat release in tunnel fires: a summary,” in Handbook of Tunnel FireSafety, 2nd edition, ed. Alan Beard and Richard Carvel, UK: Telford, Thomas Limiter, 2012.

Ingason, H., et al., “Development of a test method for fire detection in road tunnels,” Fire Technology ,SP Report 2014:13, SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden.

Ingason H., G. Appel, and Y. Z. Li, “Large Scale Fire Tests with Fixed Fire Fighting System in RunehamarTunnel,” SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden, 2014.

Ingason, H., Y. Z. Li, and A. Lönnermark, Tunnel Fire Dynamics, Springer, 2015.

Lakkonen, M., A. Feltmann, and D. Sprakel, “Comparison of Deluge and Water Mist Systems from aPerformance and Practical Point of View,” proceeding of 7th International Conference ‘ Tunnel Safety andVentilation’ , Graz, Austria, 2014.

Li, Y. Z., Lei, B., and Ingason, H., “Study of critical velocity and backlayering length in longitudinallyventilated tunnel fires,” Fire Safety Journal , 45, 6–8, 361–370, 2010.

Maevski, I., B. Josephson, R. Klein, D. Haight, and Z. Griffith, “Final testing of fire detection and firesuppression systems at Mount Baker Ridge and First Hill Tunnels in Seattle,” 16th Symposium onAerodynamics, Ventilation and Fire in Tunnels, Seattle, WA, 2015.

Oka, Y., and Atkinson, G. T., “Control of Smoke Flow in Tunnel Fires,” Fire Safety Journal , 25, 305–322,1995.

SOLIT2- Safety of Life in Tunnels Research research project, “Engineering Guidance for aComprehensive Evaluation of Tunnels with FFFS, ” v.2.1, SOLIT Research Consortium, Germany, 2012.

Thomas P. H., “The movement of buoyant fluid against a stream and venting of underground fires,” FireResearch Note No. 351, Fire Research Station, Watford, UK, 1958.

Wu, Y., and Bakar, M. Z. A., “Control of smoke flow in tunnel fires using longitudinal ventilation systems —a study of the critical velocity,” Fire Safety Journal , 35, 363–390, 2000.

N.2 Informational References.


57 of 62 1/18/2016 3:21 PM

The following documents or portions thereof are listed here as informational resources only. They are nota part of the requirements of this document.

NFPA 130, Standard for Fixed Guideway Transit and Passenger Rail Systems, 2014 edition.

ANSI/ASA S3.5, American National Standard Methods for Calculation of the Speech Intelligibility Index,1997 (R2012) revised 2012.

ANSI S12.65, American National Standard for Rating Noise with Respect to SpeechINterference Interference , 2006 (R2011) , revised 2011 .

Azuma, T., S. Gunki, A. Ichikawa, and M. Yokota, Effectiveness of a flame-sensing-type fire detector in alarge tunnel . Japan Highway Public Corporation, Transport Research Laboratory, Wokingham, Berkshire,RG40 3GA, UK, 2005.

British Toll Tunnels — Dangerous Traffic — List of Restrictions, 7th edition, Merseyside PassengerTransport Authority, Liverpool, United Kingdom, June 1993.

Cheong, M. K., W. O. Cheong, K. W. Leong, A. D. Lemaire, and L. M. Noordijkmark “Heat release rate ofheavy goods vehicle fire in tunnels with fixed water based fire-fighting system,” Fire Technology ,November 2013.

Davidson, M. Assessment of Passive Fire Protection on Steel-Girder Bridges , Western KentuckyUniversity, December 1, 2012.

Feltmann, A. and D. Laibach, “Dartford Crossing: High-Pressure Water Mist Technology Sets NewStandards in Tunnel Safety,” Tunnel Magazine , July 2013.

Guigas, X., et al., “Dynamic fire spreading and water mist test for the A86 East tunnel,” 5th InternationalConference on Tunnel Fires, London, UK, October 25–27, 2004.

Hossein, M., et al., Resilience of Critical Infrastructure to Extreme Fires — Gaps and Challenges ,Defence Research and Development Canada, Centre for Security Science, Ottawa ON, April 2014.

H. Ingason, G. Appel, J. Gehandler, Y. Z. Li, H. Nyman, P. Karlsson, and M. Arvidson, Development of atest method for fire detection in road tunnels, Fire Technology , SP Report 2014:13, SP TechnicalResearch Institute of Sweden.

H. Ingason, G. Appel, and Y. Li, “Large scale fire tests with Fixed Fire Fighting System in Runehamartunnel,” SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden, SP Report 2014:32, Sweden, 2014.

International Tunneling Association, Guidelines for Structural Fire Resistance for Road Tunnels, May2005.

Lakkonen, M., “Fixed fire fighting systems in tunnels — Case study: Channel tunnel (Eurotunnel),”proceedings of the World Tunnel Congress 2012, Bangkok, Thailand, May 20–23, 2012.

Lemaire, T. and V. Meeussen, “Experimental determination of BLEVE-risk near very large fires in a tunnelwith a sprinkler/water mist system,” proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Tunnel Safetyand Security, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, March 17–19, 2010.

Li, Y. Z., B. Lei, and H. Ingason, “Study of Critical Velocity and Backlayering Length in LongitudinallyVentilated Tunnel Fires,” Fire Safety Journal , 45, pp. 6–8, pp. 361–370, 2010.

Liu, Z. G., A. Kashef, G. D. Lougheed, G. P. Crampton, and D. Gottuk, “Summary of International RoadTunnel Fire Detection Research Project — Phase II,” Report B-4179.6, p. 33, September 12, 2008.

Maevski, I., B. Josephson, R. Klein, D. Haight, and Z. Griffith, “Final testing of fire detection and firesuppression systems at Mount Baker Ridge and First Hill Tunnels in Seattle,” pp. 745–754, 16th ISAVFT,Seattle, WA, 2015.

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) for Streets and Highways, , U.S. Department ofTransportation, 400 7th St Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590.

NCHRP Synthesis 415, Design Fires in Road Tunnels , National Cooperative Highway ResearchProgram, Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, 2011.

Mashimo, H. “State of the road tunnel safety technology in Japan,” Tunnelling and Underground SpaceTechnology , 17, pp. 145–152, 2002.

Nieman, B., “Cracking on the Unheated Side During a Fire in an Immersed Tunnel,” Master’s Thesis,University of Delft, the Netherlands, August 2008.


58 of 62 1/18/2016 3:21 PM

Oka, Y. and G. T. Atkinson, “Control of Smoke Flow in Tunnel Fires,” Fire Safety Journal , 25(4), pp.305–322, November 1995.

“Road Tunnels, Report of the Committee,” 20th PIARC World Road Congress, Montreal, Canada,September 3–9, 1995. http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=1168215

Subway Environmental Design Handbook, Vol. I, Principles and Applications, 2nd edition, AssociatedEngineers, a Joint Venture: Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas, Inc.; Deleuw Cather andCompany; Kaiser Engineers, under the direction of Transit Development Corporation, Inc., 1976.

SOLIT Research Consortium, “Water Mist Fire Suppression Systems for Road Tunnels — Final report,”Germany, September 2007.

SOLIT2 Research Consortium, “Engineering Guidance for a Comprehensive Evaluation of Tunnels withFixed Fire Fighting Systems – Final report,” Germany, November 2012.

Technical Committee 5 Road Tunnels (PIARC), “Systems and Equipment for Fire and Smoke Control inRoad Tunnels,” Report 05.16.BEN, 2006.

Thomas P. H., The Movement of Buoyant Fluid Against a Stream and Venting of Underground Fires, FireResearch Notes , No. 351, Fire Research Station, Watford, UK, 1958.

Transit Development Corporation, Inc., Subway Environmental Design Handbook, Vol. I, Principles andApplications , 2nd edition. Associated Engineers, a Joint Venture: Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff Quadeand Douglas, Inc.; Deleuw Cather and Company; Kaiser Engineers; 1976.

Transportation Research Board, “Design Fires in Road Tunnels, a Synthesis of Highway Practice,”NCHRP Synthesis 415, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, National Academy ofSciences, 2011.

Vergnault, J. M. and A. Boncour, “Présentation des résultats et des enseignements par SETEC TPI,”Seminar on Campagne de tests de Systèmes Fixes de Lutte contre l’Incendie — SFLI, Pré Saint Didier,Italy, January 15, 2015.

Wright, W., B. Lattimer, M. Woodworth, M. Nahid, and E. Sotelino, “Highway Bridge Fire HazardAssessment” and “Guide Specification for Fire Damage Evaluation in Steel Bridges,” NCHRP Project12–85, September 2013.

Wu, Y., and M. Z. A. Bakar, “Control of Smoke Flow in Tunnel Fires Using Longitudinal VentilationSystems, a Study of the Critical Velocity,” Fire Safety Journal , 35, pp. 363–390, 2000.


59 of 62 1/18/2016 3:21 PM

N.2.1 Alternative Fuels Codes and Standards.

NFPA 2, Hydrogen Technologies Code, 2011 edition.

NFPA 1975, Standard on Station/Work Uniforms for Fire and Emergency Services, 2009 edition.

Additional information can be found at www.Fuelcellstandards.com

CSA America Inc.’s NGV2, Basic Requirements for Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle (NGV) FuelContainers.

ISO 11439, Gas Cylinders — High Pressure Cylinders for the On-Board Storage of Natural Gas as a Fuelfor Automotive Vehicles.

FMVSS 304, Compressed natural gas fuel container integrity.

NCHRP Synthesis 415: Design Fires in Road Tunnels, National Cooperative Highway Research Program,2011.

SAE J2579, Technical Information Report for Fuel Systems in Fuel Cell and Other HydrogenVehicles,January 2008.

List of codes and standards that apply to CNG vehicles: http://nexgenfueling.com/t_codes.html

ASTM F1506, Standard Performance Specification for Flame Resistant Textile Materials for WearingApparel for Use by Electrical Workers Exposed to Momentary Electric Arc and Related Thermal Hazards,2008.

California Fuel Cell Partnership – Emergency Response Guide: Fuel Cell Vehicle and Hydrogen FuelingStations, August 2004.

In 2008, the United National Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) revised “An AgreementConcerning the Establishing of Global Technical Regulations for Wheeled Vehicles, Equipment and PartsWhich Can be Fitted and/or be Used on Wheeled Vehicles.” The document lists several nationalregulations and industry standards that apply to hydrogen, CNG, and hybrid-electric vehicles:

www.unece.org/trans/doc/2008/wp29grsp/SGS-4-01r1e.pdf

N.2.2 Alternative Fuels Research References.

Houf, B., “Releases from Hydrogen Fuel-Cell Vehicles in Tunnels,” International Journal of HydrogenEnergy, 37, pp. 715–719, 2012

Stephenson, R., Fire Investigation for Hybrid and Hydrogen-Fueled Vehicles, International Symposium onFire Investigation Science and Technology, June 2006.

Weyandt, N., Southwest Research Institute Final Report: Analysis of Induced Catastrophic Failure of a5000 psig Type IV Hydrogen Cylinder, February 2005.

Weyandt, N., Southwest Research Institute Final Report: Vehicle Bonfire to Induce Catastrophic Failure ofa 5000 psig Hydrogen Cylinder Installed on a Typical SUV, December 2006.

Weyandt, N., Southwest Research Institute Final Report: Ignited Hydrogen Releases from a SimulatedAutomotive Fuel Line Leak, December 2006.

Zalosh, R., CNG and Hydrogen Vehicle Fuel Tank Failure Incidents, Testing, and Preventive Measures,January 2008, www.mvfri.org

Zalosh, R., “Hydrogen Vehicle Post-Crash Fire Research Recommendations,” February 2003,www.mvfri.org

N.3 References for Extracts in Informational Sections.

NFPA 5000®, Building Construction and Safety Code®, 2015 edition.



NFPA_502_M_2_Informational_References.docxNew references to be added to section M2 Informational References.



60 of 62 1/18/2016 3:21 PM



Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Tue Oct 20 11:16:34 EDT 2015

Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Updated SDO names, addresses, standard names, numbers, and editions. Include newreferences from attached word document in section "M2 Informational References."

ResponseMessage:

Public Comment No. 3-NFPA 502-2015 [Chapter M]

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

0 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Affirmative All

Alston, Jarrod

Barry, Ian E.

Both, Cornelis Kees

Colella, Francesco

Connell, William G.

Conrad, James S.

Dalton, John A.

Debs, Alexandre

Dix, Arnold


Huczek, Jason P.

Kashef, Ahmed


Lake, James D.

Maevski, Igor Y.

Magnone, Zachary L.

Marino, Antonino

Nelsen, John


61 of 62 1/18/2016 3:21 PM

Pilette, Maurice M.

Plotkin, David M.

Shugarman, Blake M.

Sprakel, Dirk K.

Sturm, Peter J.

Tedesco, Anthony

van den Bosch, Rene


Harvey, Norris

NA

Ingason, Haukur

You can delete these ref. in N1.2.20 as they are also given later in N2 "Ingason, H. et al. “Development of a testmethod for fire detection in road tunnels,” SP Report, 13, SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden, 2014.Ingason H., G. Appel, and Y. Z. Li, “Large Scale Fire Tests with Fixed Fire Fighting System in Runehamar Tunnel,”SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden, 2014."

Ruiz, Ana

I agree with references.


Nil Comments


N.1.2.8: - The address has changed into: Efectis Group, Brandpuntlaan Zuid 16, 2665 NZ, Bleiswijk, theNetherlands - A reference has forgotten. As agreed during the meeting in Dallas, there must be a reference toreport Efectis-R0894(E), "Investigation of fire in the Lloydstraat car park, Rotterdam," 2008. The report is publicinformation. See: http://www.efectis.com/nl/groep/publicaties N.2: Nieman, B., “Cracking on the Unheated...(Nieman is written with single 'n' at the end; delete the last 'n')


62 of 62 1/18/2016 3:21 PM

502, M.2

M.2 Informational References. The following documents or portions thereof are listed here as informational resources only. They are not a part of the requirements of this document. NFPA 130, Standard for Fixed Guideway Transit and Passenger Rail Systems, 2014 edition. ANSI/ASA S3.5, American National Standard Methods for Calculation of the Speech Intelligibility Index, 1997, revised 2012. ANSI S12.65, American National Standard for Rating Noise with Respect to Speech Interference, 2006, revised 2011. Azuma, T., S. Gunki, A. Ichikawa, and M. Yokota, Effectiveness of a flame-sensing-type fire detector in a large tunnel. Japan Highway Public Corporation, Transport Research Laboratory, Wokingham, Berkshire, RG40 3GA, United Kingdom, 2005. British Toll Tunnels — Dangerous Traffic — List of Restrictions, 7th edition, Merseyside Passenger Transport Authority, Liverpool, United Kingdom, June 1993. Cheong, M. K., W. O. Cheong, K. W. Leong, A. D. Lemaire, and L. M. Noordijkmark “Heat release rate of heavy goods vehicle fire in tunnels with fixed water based fire-fighting system,” Fire Technology, November 2013. Davidson, M. Assessment of Passive Fire Protection on Steel-Girder Bridges, Western Kentucky University, December 1, 2012. Feltmann, A. and D. Laibach, “Dartford Crossing: High-Pressure Water Mist Technology Sets New Standards in Tunnel Safety,” Tunnel Magazine, July 2013. Guigas, X., et al., “Dynamic fire spreading and water mist test for the A86 East tunnel,” 5th International Conference on Tunnel Fires, London, UK, October 25–27, 2004. Hossein, M., et al., Resilience of Critical Infrastructure to Extreme Fires – Gaps and Challenges, Defence Research and Development Canada, Centre for Security Science, Ottawa ON, April 2014. H. Ingason, G. Appel, J. Gehandler, Y. Z. Li, H. Nyman, P. Karlsson, and M. Arvidson, Development of a test method for fire detection in road tunnels, Fire Technology, SP Report 2014:13, SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden.

H. Ingason, G. Appel, and Y. Li, “Large scale fire tests with Fixed Fire Fighting System in Runehamar tunnel,” SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden, SP Report 2014:32, Sweden, 2014. International Tunneling Association, Guidelines for Structural Fire Resistance for Road Tunnels, May 2005. Lakkonen, M., “Fixed fire fighting systems in tunnels – Case study: Channel tunnel (Eurotunnel),” proceedings of the World Tunnel Congress 2012, Bangkok, Thailand, May 20–23, 2012. Lemaire, T. and V. Meeussen, “Experimental determination of BLEVE-risk near very large fires in a tunnel with a sprinkler/water mist system,” proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Tunnel Safety and Security, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, March 17–19, 2010. Li, Y. Z., B. Lei, and H. Ingason, “Study of Critical Velocity and Backlayering Length in Longitudinally Ventilated Tunnel Fires,” Fire Safety Journal, 45, pp. 6–8, pp. 361–370, 2010. Liu, Z. G., A. Kashef, G. D. Lougheed, G. P. Crampton, and D. Gottuk, “Summary of International Road Tunnel Fire Detection Research Project - Phase II,” Report B-4179.6, p. 33, September 12, 2008. Maevski, I., B. Josephson, R. Klein, D. Haight, and Z. Griffith, “Final testing of fire detection and fire suppression systems at Mount Baker Ridge and First Hill Tunnels in Seattle,” pp. 745–754, 16th ISAVFT, Seattle, WA, 2015. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) for Streets and Highways, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 7th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. Mashimo, H. “State of the road tunnel safety technology in Japan,” Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 17, pp. 145–152, 2002. Niemann, B., “Cracking on the Unheated Side During a Fire in an Immersed Tunnel,” Master’s Thesis, University of Delft, the Netherlands, August 2008. Oka, Y. and G. T. Atkinson, “Control of Smoke Flow in Tunnel Fires,” Fire Safety Journal, 25(4), pp. 305–322, November 1995. “Road Tunnels, Report of the Committee,” 20th PIARC World Road Congress, Montreal, Canada, September 3–9, 1995. http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=1168215 SOLIT Research Consortium, “Water Mist Fire Suppression Systems for Road Tunnels – Final report,” Germany, September 2007. SOLIT2 Research Consortium, “Engineering Guidance for a Comprehensive Evaluation of Tunnels with Fixed Fire Fighting Systems – Final report,” Germany, November 2012.

Technical Committee 5 Road Tunnels (PIARC), “Systems and Equipment for Fire and Smoke Control in Road Tunnels,” Report 05.16.BEN, 2006. Thomas P. H., The Movement of Buoyant Fluid Against a Stream and Venting of Underground Fires, Fire Research Notes, No. 351, Fire Research Station, Watford, UK, 1958. Transit Development Corporation, Inc., Subway Environmental Design Handbook, Vol. I, Principles and Applications, 2nd edition. Associated Engineers, a Joint Venture: Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas, Inc.; Deleuw Cather and Company; Kaiser Engineers; 1976. Transportation Research Board, “Design Fires in Road Tunnels, a Synthesis of Highway Practice,” NCHRP Synthesis 415, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, National Academy of Sciences, 2011. Vergnault, J. M. and A. Boncour, “Présentation des résultats et des enseignements par SETEC TPI,” Seminar on Campagne de tests de Systèmes Fixes de Lutte contre l’Incendie – SFLI, Pré Saint Didier, Italy, January 15, 2015. Wright, W., B. Lattimer, M. Woodworth, M. Nahid, and E. Sotelino, “Highway Bridge Fire Hazard Assessment” and “Guide Specification for Fire Damage Evaluation in Steel Bridges,” NCHRP Project 12-85, September 2013. Wu, Y., and M. Z. A. Bakar, “Control of Smoke Flow in Tunnel Fires Using Longitudinal Ventilation Systems, a Study of the Critical Velocity,” Fire Safety Journal, 35, pp. 363–390, 2000.

Documents

National Fire Protection Association Report · 2.2 NFPA Publications. National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471. NFPA 1, Fire Code, 2015 edition