Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVail Lionshead Filing 2 Block 1 Lot 5 Egress AnalysisTown of Vail, Colorado Dobson Ice Arena Egress Analysis FINAL REPORT ARUP Town of Vail, Colorado Dobson Ice Arena Egress Analysis May 2001 Ove Arup & Partners Massachusetts, Inc 160 East Main Street, Westborough, MA 01581 Tel +1 508 616 9990 Fax +1 508 616 9991 www.arup.com Job Number 31761/00 Town of Vail, Colorado Dobson Ice Arena ARUPDocument Verification Page 1 of 1 Job title Dobson Ice Arena Job number 31761/00 Document title Egress Analysis File reference Document ref Revision Date Filename Dobson - Final Re ort.doc Draft 1 06/05/01 Description First draft Prepared by Checked by Approved by Name Brian Meacham, Chris Marrion, Andrew Hedges Chris Marrion Brian Meacham Signature Filename Description Prepared by Checked by Approved by Name Signature Filename Description Prepared by Checked by Approved by Name Signature Filename Description Prepared by Checked by Approved by Name Signature Issue Document Verification with Document 2✓ Ova Arup 8 Partners California Lid F8.5 OA Rev 1/00 1 October 2000 Town of Vail, Colorado Dobson Ice Arena CONTENTS Page 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 2. DISCLAIMER 3 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4 3.1 Background and Overall Project Scope 4 3.2 Scope of This Effort - Life Safety and Egress Analysis 5 3.3 Form of Analysis 5 4. FIRE SAFETY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 7 4.1 Code Objectives - ICC Performance Code 7 4.2 Stakeholder Goals and Objectives 12 4.3 Design Objectives 12 4.4 Performance Criteria 13 5. DESIGN FIRE SCENARIOS AND TIMES TO HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS 14 5.1 Design Fire Scenarios and Design Fire Curves 14 5.2 Smoke Development and Layer Descent Times 16 6. EGRESS SCENARIOS AND EGRESS ANALYSIS 17 7. DESIGN OPTIONS 19 7.1 Fire Initiation and Development 19 7.2 Means Of Escape 21 7.3 Smoke Development And Management 22 7.4 Control of Fire Spread (Compartmentation) 22 7.5 Structural Stability 22 7.6 Fire Detection And Alarm 22 7.7 Fire Suppression 23 7.8 Fire Fighting Facilities 24 7.9 Emergency Lighting, Signage & Power 24 7.10 Fire safety management 24 8. RESULTS FROM ANALYSES 25 9. ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS 32 9.1 General 32 9.2 Assumptions 32 9.3 Limitations 33 10. CONCLUSION 34 11. CODES AND STANDARDS 35 11.1 References 35 11.2 Applicable Codes and Standards 35 Town of Vail, Colorado 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Dobson Ice Arena This document summarizes the fire engineering analysis undertaken for the Dobson Ice Arena, Vail, Colorado, and presents options for attaining an acceptable level of safety that is at least equivalent to that intended by the Uniform Building Code (UBC) requirements. The bases for discussing acceptable levels of safety and associated performance criteria for the Dobson Ice Arena include: • the ICC Performance Code for Buildings and Facilities, Final Draft (ICC, August, 2000), • the Uniform Building Code (ICBO, 1997), and • discussions with and correspondence from Mr. Gary Goodell, Chief Building Official, and Mr. Michael McGee, Fire Marshal, Town of Vail, Colorado. The basis for the fire engineering analysis was The SFPE Engineering Guide to Performance - Based Fire Protection Analysis and Design of Buildings (SFPE, 2000). The criteria for ascertaining the level of safety acceptable for the Dobson Ice Arena, safe egress time and time to hazardous conditions, were identified and agreed to in conjunction with the Chief Building Official and Fire Marshal of the Town of Vail. It is our understanding that this decision was based on the above documents and on input from Arup Fire. The specific values used for determining the estimated egress time and the time to hazardous conditions were developed by Arup Fire. This was done using design fire scenario input and arena use information developed in concert with the Chief Building Official and Fire Marshal of the Town of Vail, and computer models selected by Arup Fire. The design fire scenarios were specified to address a broad range of facility uses, including dinner dances, merchandise sales events, and concerts. A fire effects model was used to estimate fire and smoke production from these design fire scenarios and fuel type, quantity and configuration assumed reasonable for the facility. An egress model was used to estimate likely egress times for facility occupants given various egress system arrangements, occupant characteristics and design fire scenarios. Safe egress time was determined to be available if the model results indicated that occupants could evacuate the facility prior to hazardous conditions being reached for the design fire and egress scenarios selected. Hazardous conditions were assumed to be reached when the predicted smoke layer descended to within 8 feet of floor level. Egress time assumed movement time, as well as an estimate of pre- movement time. Once these times were calculated, they were compared against each other to determine whether the predicted egress time was greater than or less than the onset of hazardous conditions for the design fires modeled. Where the predicted egress times were greater than the predicted onset of hazardous conditions, it was determined that changes would be required for the facility to reach an acceptable level of safety. These changes could range from limiting occupant capacity, to the addition of more exit capacity, to the addition of a smoke management system to fire safety management procedures to limit characteristics of the fuel loads. CAWINDOWS \TEMP\FINAL REPORT.DOC Page I Ove Amp & Partners Massachusetts, Inc Draft Final Report - 28 May 2001 Town of Vail, Colorado Dobson Ice Arena Table 1— Summary of Proposed Fire Safety Measures Fire Protection Feature Suggested Supplemental Approaches Fuel Load Materials should be selected to limit fire growth rate to "medium" as defined by NFPA 72. (i.e. max. 300 seconds to reach a 1 MW fire) • Fuel packages should be separated by a sufficient distance to prevent ignition of two fuel packages at the same time. • Fire retardant material should be applied to combustible ceiling components immediately above pedestrian walkway (mezzanine), or combustible ceiling components in those areas should be replaced with non - combustible components. • In addition, one of the following alternatives should be selected in order to either control the hazard of the materials allowed in the Arena, or to manage the impact of the hazard: Control Hazard Alternative • Steady State Fires - Efforts should be made to limit maximum heat release rates to: Slow /Medium Growth Rate Fires - 2.5 MW per fuel package. Fast Growth Rate Fires - 1 MW per fuel package Ultra -Fast Growth Rate Fires - 0.75 MW per fuel package • Non - Steady State Fires —Where fires are not steady state and meet the above limitations, then a qualified Fire Protection Engineer should perform an engineering analysis on the various fuel packages. This would allow the mass of each package to be evaluated for its contribution to total smoke production in the Arena to determine limits on how much fuel needs to be consumed to develop a smoke layer that descends to head level. • A qualified fire protection engineer should provide written confirmation that an evaluation of the various hazards specific to individual events has been undertaken, and that the above criteria are met. (see Appendix D) Manage Impact of Hazards Alternative • Where the above limitations are not feasible, other fire protection systems and features will need to be installed to provide an acceptable level of safety. One alternative noted is a smoke management system. Means of Escape Existing exit door capacity at the main exit and both side exits should be supplemented with the addition of four 3 -foot doors at the main exit, and two 3 -foot doors at each side exit. • The fixed seating area should be modified to include 3 -foot wide stairs at both ends of the fixed seating area (along wall, leading up to 'mezzanine level to exit). • Additional egress width and openings from the ice rink should be added (as planned in the renovation). Smoke Provided fuel loads and growth rates are limited, either via controls outlined above, by Management sprinklers, or by manual suppression, so that tenable conditions are maintained during the egress period, smoke management is not required. • If fuel loads and fire growth rates are expected that exceed the above levels, and an additional margin of safety is desired, addition of a smoke management system is an option. Compartmentation In addition to maintaining required ratings on existing assemblies, it is recommended to enclosing the open side of the refrigeration room with 4 -hour fire - resistive construction, sealing any existing penetrations and installing 2 sets of 90- minute self - closing doors. Structural No modifications or additional features are required in order to provide the desired level of Elements life safety. If property protection or business continuity objectives become more important, additional fire protection measures may be warranted, especially with regard to the roof structure and material, from interior or exterior exposure fires. C:\WINDOWS \TEMP \FINAL REPORT.DOC Page 2 Ove Arup & Partners Massachusetts, Inc Draft Final Report - 28 May 2001 Town of Vail, Colorado Dobson Ice Arena Fire Detection & a Discussions should be had with the Fire Department regarding procedures for detecting Alarm fires as well as transmitting alarm signals and notifying the Fire Department when the beam type smoke detectors are taken out of service during events due to the potential of false alarms. • No modifications or additional features appear to be needed other than those required to meet code. However, a well designed and intelligible voice paging system is desirable for facilitating emergency evacuation. Sprinklers & 0 No modifications or additional features appear to be needed other than those required to standpipes meet code. Normal inspection, testing and maintenance is recommended. Emergency 0 No modifications or additional features appear to be needed other than those required to Systems meet code.. Normal inspection, testing and maintenance are recommended. Fire Safety 0 Fire safety management plan required for (1) each type of major event as well as for special Management events that either (2) pose an unusual fire hazard or (3) presents an unusual risk to facility occupants. 2. DISCLAIMER This report has been developed in accordance with standards, guidelines, practices and review procedures generally accepted in the building design and construction, and fire protection engineering communities. It is based on information provided to Arup Fire that is assumed accurate and sufficiently complete for the analysis undertaken. Acceptance of this report indicates acceptance of the information and assumptions that serve as the basis for the analysis. The concepts outlined in this report assume a complete and operational building, and do not address protection of the building during construction, renovation or demolition. The major fire protection features to be incorporated with respect to occupant safety in the event of a fire are outlined in this report in principle. Property protection, business interruption, environmental protection and insurance requirements were not specifically considered in the analysis, as they were not in the proposed scope of work. Arup Fire makes all reasonable efforts to incorporate practical and advanced fire protection concepts into its advice. The extent to which this advice is carried out affects the probability of fire safety. It should be recognized, however, that fire protection and prediction of occupant behavior is not an exact science. No amount of advice can, therefore, guarantee freedom from either ignition or fire related damage. C: \WINDOWS \TEMP\F1NAL REPORT.DOC Page 3 Ove Arup & Partners Massachusetts, Inc Draft Final Report - 28 May 2001 Town of Vail, Colorado 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 Background and Overall Project Scope Dobson lee Arena The Dobson Ice Arena was reported as being constructed during the time period between 1978 and 1981. The plans that are available are dated March 20, 1978. The facility is owned by the Town of Vail and operated by the Vail Recreation District. The building is an earth - sheltered structure with most of its walls and interior areas lying below grade. The walls are constructed of concrete. The roof structure consists of exposed heavy timber wooden arches with an exposed wood sub - structure and an untreated wood shake roof covering. The lower level, with a total floor area of about 31,000 sq. ft., contains an approximately 17,000- sq. -ft. ice skating rink and a number of accessory office, ticketing, restroom, locker room and mechanical equipment areas. The upper mezzanine area, with a floor area of approximately 6,750 sq. ft., includes a bench type seating area and other minor accessory areas. Total existing floor area for the facility is approximately 37,750 square feet. Currently, the building is being used as a multi -use facility and, since it is the largest facility of this type currently available in the town, it is heavily used for a wide variety of events. Uses range all the way from leisure skating by the public, to children's and adult amateur hockey practice and games, all with a relatively low occupant load; to rodeos, rock concerts, professional wrestling and other venues with occupant loads as high as 3 -4,000 persons. A recent review has highlighted several safety concerns with the Dobson Ice Arena, particularly with respect to the life safety and egress system (2nd Draft Preliminary Analysis, Dobson Ice Arena, April 26, 2000, Gary Goodell). Historical. As originally constructed, the building, with a few exceptions, met UBC requirements for a facility housing up to 1,000 persons. If it were occupied by no more than 1,000 persons, it would have been permitted to be constructed as Type III 1 -Hour construction, which would permit the exposed wooden roof structure, and only the three (3) existing separate exits would be required. The existing non -fire- retardant - treated wood shake roof would not have been permitted, and there would still be issues with the number of aisles provided in the seating area and whether or not a second exit would be required from the refrigeration room. 2. Roof Structure. The roof structure does not meet the requirements for non - combustible materials and a protected, fire- resistive assembly as is required for Type I F.R. or Type II F.R. construction. 3. Roof coverinl?. The untreated wood shake roof covering materials do not meet the requirements for roof coverings for the required Class `B" fire- resistive roof assembly. 4. Refrigeration Room. The refrigeration room may require a second exit door. 5. 4" Exit. Occupancy by more than 1,000 persons requires that a fourth separate exit be provided, and the current facility has only three separate exits. 6. Interior Means of EUM. The interior means of egress system is inadequate, and does not meet minimum code requirements for more than 1,000 persons, especially if a large number of people are present in the ice rink area. The main problems are only one means of egress CAWINDOWS \TEMP\FINAL REPORT.DOC Page 4 Ove Arup & Partners Massachusetts, Inc Draft Final Report - 28 May 2001 Town of Vail, Colorado 3.2 3.3 Dobson Ice Arena from the ice rink area (the main entrance) and highly inadequate exit widths for the 4 existing stairs to allow for emergency egress between the lower level and the upper level. 7. Aisles. Not enough stair aisles are provided in the upper level seating area. Scope of This Effort — Life Safety and Egress Analysis As part of proposed renovations to the Dobson Ice Arena, and due to the increased occupancy loads currently being experienced, it was requested that a life safety and egress system analysis be undertaken and that a life safety and egress system design strategy be developed. Given the nature of the facility and the background information above, it was requested that the life safety and egress system analysis use a performance -based approach. The stated aim of this effort is to identify options for attaining an acceptable level of safety that is at least equivalent to minimum Uniform Building Code requirements for the Dobson Ice Arena with respect to emergency egress. The bases for discussing acceptable levels of safety and associated performance criteria for the arena included: • the ICC Performance Code for Buildings and Facilities, Final Draft (ICC Performance Code), • the Uniform Building Code (UBC), and • discussions with and correspondence from Mr. Gary Goodell, Chief Building Official, and Mr. Michael McGee, Fire Marshal, both of the Town of Vail, Colorado. The basis for the fire engineering analysis was The SFPE Engineering Guide to Performance - Based Fire Protection Analysis and Design of Buildings (the SFPE Guide). The rationale for using the ICC Performance Code and the SFPE Guide was to provide structure to the alternate analysis and design allowed under the alternate methods and materials clause of the UBC (Article 104.2.8). These documents were selected as representing the building code community's direction for future building codes and the fire protection engineering community's consensus on appropriate engineered fire protection methodology. It is not within the scope of this effort to provide detailed designs for any of the life safety and egress options identified. Form of Analysis Although the ICC Performance Code and the SHE Guide provide similar requirements for documentation of performance -based designs, the analysis and design process for fire and life safety is more completely outlined in the SFPE Guide. As a result, this report follows the process for performance -based fire safety analysis and design of buildings as outlined in the SFPE Guide. As identified in the SFPE Guide, it is important to understand the form (i.e., deterministic or probabilistic) and level (i.e., component, system or building) of analysis selected for the project. For this effort, the form of analysis for the fire engineering assessment is a deterministic analysis based on "worst credible" fire scenarios for the various areas based on information provided by the design team regarding use of the space. The basis of the analysis was to evaluate whether occupants can evacuate safely prior to hazardous conditions being reached. As part of the analysis, it was necessary to consider two conditions: Time to the onset of hazardous conditions (e.g. smoke layer level, visibility, etc. versus time) CAWINDOWS \TEMPTUNAL REPORT.DOC Page 5 Ove Arup & Partners Massachusetts, Inc Draft Final Report - 28 May 2001 Town of Vail, Colorado Dobson Ice Arena • Time to evacuate the occupants in the building. The analysis uses fire and egress computer models, fire protection handbooks and other relevant methods as appropriate. The analysis takes into consideration the interaction between the different fire protection systems and components. A graphical representation of the available safe egress time is provided below. Pre - movement ion Ignition I Alarm or cue Evacuation se Fire development 1 010 Figure 1. Time to Hazard Development vs. Time Required for Safe Egress The level of analysis selected for this effort is a comparative, system -level analysis that considers: (1) UBC requirements (2) The ICC Performance Code levels of tolerable impact, and (3) Performance criteria selected for compliance with performance objectives. As part of the analysis, fire effects modeling and egress modeling were used. The fire effects modeling was used to estimate fire and smoke production from various fire scenarios deemed reasonable for the facility. The egress modeling was used to estimate likely egress times for various egress system arrangements and fire scenarios. Table 2 provides a summary listing of the methods and models used for comparative analysis. Detailed explanations, description of the analyses and assessment of results are provided in the Appendices to this report. Table 2 — Analysis Methods Fire Protection Feature Methods .. Hazard Development The computer model T -ZAM (spreadsheet -based calculation tool based on equations published in NFPA 92B and CIBSE TM19) Smoke Management • NFPA 92B Guide for Smoke Management Systems in Malls, Atria, and System Large Areas • CIBSE TM 19: "Relationships for Smoke Control Calculations" Technical Memoranda TM19:1995 Egress Methods (hand calculations) as published in the SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering • Simulex Evacuation Model Sprinkler Activation DETACT (NIST) C: \WINDOWS \TEMPT1NAL REPORT.DOC Page 6 Ove Arup & Partners Massachusetts, Inc Draft Final Report - 28 May 2001 Town of Vail, Colorado 4. FIRE SAFETY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Dobson Ice Arena There maybe many fire and life safety goals and objectives for any project— some of which may be competing. As such, it is necessary to establish the pertinent baseline goals and objectives and then seek agreement on those to be used in the fire and life safety analysis for a specific project. For this project, it has been determined to use the goals and objectives identifying in the ICC Performance Code, as well as those of the Town of Vail Building and Fire Departments. 4.1 Code Objectives — ICC Performance Code The ICC Performance Code identifies a number of functional and performance objectives that must be met. For this project, relevant objective can be found in Chapters 3, 17, 18 and 19 (of the ICC Performance Code). 4.1.1 Use and Design Performance Levels Starting with Chapter 3, Arup Fire has identified the Dobson Ice Arena as an A -4 Occupancy. Given the nature of the building use, some percentage of the occupants are assumed to be consuming alcohol, loud and distracting sounds are expected to be present, and flashing lights are expected to be present (from ICC Performance Code, Appendix A). These factors will be incorporated into design and protection system assumptions and bounding conditions. As an A -4 Occupancy, the Dobson Ice Arena is designated as being in Performance Group III (Table 303.1). In brief, this means that for the code - mandated level of performance: • Small and Medium design events may result in a Mild level of damage; • Large design events may result in a Moderate level of damage; and • Very Large design events may result in a High level of damage. The relationship between the Design Hazard Events, Levels of Tolerable Damage and Design Performance Levels is illustrated in the following graphic (from the ICC Performance Code, Chapter 3). C :\WINDOWS \TEMP,FINAL REPORT.DOC Page 7 Ove Arup & Partners Massachusetts, Inc Draft Final Report - 28 May 2001 Town of Vail. Colorado Dobson Ice Arena Below are excerpts from the ICC Performance code that provide further detail on the levels of tolerable damage and magnitude of design events. 4.1.2 Levels of Tolerable Damage The following description of Levels of Tolerable Damage is excerpted from Chapter 3 of the ICC Performance Code: 304.2 There are four design performance levels defined in terms of tolerable limits of impact to the building or facility, its contents, and its occupants: Mild, Moderate, High and Severe. 304.2.1 Mild impact. The tolerable impacts of the design loads are assumed as follows: 304.2.1.1 There is no structural damage and the building or facility is safe to occupy. 304.2.1.2 Nonstructural systems needed for normal building or facility use and emergency operations are fully operational. 304.2.1.3 Injuries to building or facility occupants are minimal in numbers and minor in nature. There is a very low likelihood of single or multiple life loss.' 304.2.1.4 Damage to building or facility contents is minimal in extent and minor in cost.2 304.2.1.5 Minimal hazardous materials are released to the environment. 304.2.2 Moderate impact. The tolerable impacts of the design loads are assumed as follows: 304.2.2.1 There is moderate structural damage which is repairable; some delay in re- occupancy can be expected. Applies only to hazard — related applied loads. 2 The nature of the applied load (i.e., fire hazard) may result in high levels of expected injuries and damage in localized areas, whereas the balance of the areas may sustain less injuries and damage. C: \WINDOWS \TEMP \FINAL REPORT.DOC Page 8 Ove Arup & Partners Massachusetts, Inc Draft Final Report - 28 May 2001 INCREASING LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE PERFORMANCE GROUPS Performance Performance Performance Performance Grou I Grou II Group III Group IV VERY 1— LARGE HIGH R MODEATE Z > T (Very Rare) w T W o T C LU T LARGE HIGH MODERATE MILD G o T (Rare) Z T LU z C7 T nU1 W T MEDIUM HIGH MODERATE MILD MILD H 0 T (Less Z T Frequent) C7 a a UJ c z SMALL MODERATE MILD MILD MILD (Frequent) Below are excerpts from the ICC Performance code that provide further detail on the levels of tolerable damage and magnitude of design events. 4.1.2 Levels of Tolerable Damage The following description of Levels of Tolerable Damage is excerpted from Chapter 3 of the ICC Performance Code: 304.2 There are four design performance levels defined in terms of tolerable limits of impact to the building or facility, its contents, and its occupants: Mild, Moderate, High and Severe. 304.2.1 Mild impact. The tolerable impacts of the design loads are assumed as follows: 304.2.1.1 There is no structural damage and the building or facility is safe to occupy. 304.2.1.2 Nonstructural systems needed for normal building or facility use and emergency operations are fully operational. 304.2.1.3 Injuries to building or facility occupants are minimal in numbers and minor in nature. There is a very low likelihood of single or multiple life loss.' 304.2.1.4 Damage to building or facility contents is minimal in extent and minor in cost.2 304.2.1.5 Minimal hazardous materials are released to the environment. 304.2.2 Moderate impact. The tolerable impacts of the design loads are assumed as follows: 304.2.2.1 There is moderate structural damage which is repairable; some delay in re- occupancy can be expected. Applies only to hazard — related applied loads. 2 The nature of the applied load (i.e., fire hazard) may result in high levels of expected injuries and damage in localized areas, whereas the balance of the areas may sustain less injuries and damage. C: \WINDOWS \TEMP \FINAL REPORT.DOC Page 8 Ove Arup & Partners Massachusetts, Inc Draft Final Report - 28 May 2001 Town of Vail, Colorado Dobson Ice Arena 304.2.2.2 Nonstructural systems needed for normal building or facility use are fully operational, although some cleanup and repair may be needed. Emergency systems remain fully operational. 304.2.2.3 Injuries to building or facility occupants may be locally significant, but generally moderate in numbers and in nature. There is a low likelihood of single life loss, very low likelihood of multiple life loss."' 304.2.2.4 Damage to building or facility contents may be locally significant, but is generally moderate in extent and Cost. 1, 2 304.2.2.5 Some hazardous materials are released to the environment, but the risk to the community is minimal. No emergency relocation is necessary. 304.2.3 High impact. The tolerable impacts of the design loads are assumed as follows: 304.2.3.1 There is significant damage to structural elements but no large falling debris; repair is possible. Significant delays in re- occupancy can be expected. 304.2.3.2 Nonstructural systems needed for normal building or facility use are significantly damaged and inoperable; egress routes may be impaired by light debris; emergency systems may be significantly damaged, but remain operational. 304.2.3.3 Injuries to building or facility occupants may be locally significant with a high risk to life, but are generally moderate in numbers and nature. There is a moderate likelihood of single life loss, with a low probability of multiple life loss.', 2 304.2.3.4 Damage to building or facility contents may be locally total and generally significant.', 2 304.2.3.5 Hazardous materials are released to the environment with localized relocation needed for buildings and facilities in the immediate vicinity. 4.1.3 Magnitude of Design Fire Events The following objectives and requirements for Magnitude of Design Fire Events are excepted from Chapter 17 of the ICC Performance Code: 1701.3.15 Magnitudes of design fire events shall reflect the ignition, growth and spread potential of fires and fire effluents that can be reasonably expected to impact on buildings as designed or constructed. 1701.3.15.1 Magnitudes of design fire events are described in terms of the potential spread of fire and fire effluents given the proposed design, arrangement, construction, furnishing and use of a building. 1701.3.15.2 Magnitudes of design fire events shall be defined as Small, Medium, Large and Very Large, where the quantification of the design fire event is a function of building use and associated Performance Group. 1701.3.15.3 Quantification of the magnitudes of design fire events shall be based on engineering analyses of potential fire scenarios that can be expected to impact a building through its intended life. For each design fire scenario considered, the analyses shall include the ignitability of the first item, the peak heat release rate of the item first ignited, the rate of heat release and expected fire growth, and the overall fuel load, geometry and ventilation of the space and adjoining spaces. CIWINDOWS \TEM"FNAL REPORT.DOC Page 9 Ove Arup & Partners Massachusetts, Inc Draft Final Report - 28 May 2001 Town of Vail, Colorado Dobson Ice Arena 1701.3.15.3.1 When determining (assigning) the magnitude of a design fire event, the physical properties of fire and its effluents shall only be considered in terms of how they impact the tolerable levels of damage. The magnitude of the fire event need not be characterized solely on the basis of the physical size of the fire in terms of its heat release rate and smoke production rate. 1701.3.15.3.2 Multiple design fire scenarios, ranging from Small to Very Large design fire events, must be considered to ensure that associated Levels of Tolerable Damage are not exceeded as appropriate to the Performance Group. 1701.3.15.3.3 The development of design fire scenarios shall consider the use of the room of fire origin and adjoining spaces in terms of impact of occupants, property and community welfare. 1701.3.15.3.4 Justification of the magnitudes of design fire events and design fire scenarios shall be part of the analysis prepared by the design professional, and shall consider the reasonableness, frequency and severity of the design fire event and design fire scenarios. 4.1.4 Management of People The following objectives and requirements for Management of People are excepted from Chapter 17 of the ICC Performance Code: 1801.1 Objective. To promote safe practices and actions of people, and to assure that the actions and practices of people, that are components of a design, are maintained. 1801.2 Functional statements. 1801.2.1 Through training and education, ensure that people possess the necessary skills and implement the appropriate actions to prevent fires or other emergencies as appropriate to the design performance level determined in Chapter 3. 1801.2.2 Through training and education, ensure that people possess the necessary skills and implement the appropriate actions during a fire or other emergency as appropriate to the design performance level determined in Chapter 3. 1801.3 Performance requirements 1801.3.1 Provide appropriate information so that occupants and staff can assist in identifying hazards. 1801.3.2 Develop procedures, and conduct training so that occupants and staff can take appropriate actions to prevent fires or other emergencies. 1801.3.3 Provide adequate information so that occupants and staff know the appropriate actions in the event of a fire or other emergency. 1801.3.4 Develop procedures, and conduct training so that occupants and staff can take the appropriate actions in the event of a fire or other emergency. 1801.3.5 Provide adequate information so that all persons involved in the handling and use of hazardous materials know the appropriate actions and safeguards for such materials. 1801.3.6 Develop procedures so that all persons involved in the handling and use of hazardous materials will take the appropriate actions in the event of an emergency. 1801.3.7 Provide the administrative controls to assure that the identified hazards are controlled, procedures are followed, and training occurs. CAWINDOWSUEMPTINAL REPORT.DOC Page 10 Ove Arup & Partners Massachusetts, Inc Draft Final Report - 28 May 2001 Town of Vail, Colorado Dobson Ice Arena 1801.3.8 Provide the administrative controls to evaluate and validate all policies, procedures and training, for occupants and staff. Whenever new occupants, staff, equipment, materials, or processes are introduced; the administrative controls shall provide for appropriate education and training. 1801.3.9 Assure that all aspects of a performance —based design that rely on a response or action from either occupants or staff are clearly identified and documented and that the necessary training and administrative controls are in place and maintained so that the response or action is appropriate. 4.1.5 Means of Egress The following objectives and requirements for Means of Egress are excepted from Chapter 17 of the ICC Performance Code: 1901.1 Objective. To protect people during egress and rescue operations. 1901.2 Functional statement. Enable occupants to exit the building, facility and premise, or reach a safe place as appropriate to the design performance level determined in Chapter 3. 1901.3 Performance requirements. 1901.3.1 The construction, arrangement and number of means of egress, exits and safe places for buildings shall be appropriate to the travel distance, number of occupants, occupant characteristics, building height, and safety systems and features. 1901.3.2 Means of egress shall be clearly identified, provided with adequate illumination, and easy and safe to use. 1901.3.3 Means of egress shall provide an unobstructed path of travel from each safe place to not less than one exit. 1901.3.4 Each safe place shall provide adequate protection from untenable conditions, an appropriate communication system and adequate space for the intended occupants. 1901.3.5 Means of egress shall enable reasonable use by the occupants in the building with due regard to human biomechanics and expectation of consistency. 1901.3.6 Suitable means of egress shall be provided in satisfactory arrangement throughout all buildings, facilities and premises, regardless of when it was constructed, based upon the number and character of occupants, length of travel, provision of existing alternate paths, time line of emergency detection and response, risk level, time to exit and safety systems provided. 1901.3.7 Means of egress shall be maintained without obstructions or reductions in capacity that would hinder the ability of the occupants to safely egress. 1901.3.8 Means of egress shall be readily identifiable. Buildings shall be operated and maintained in a manner that does not interfere with the identification of exits. 1901.3.9 Means of egress shall be maintained and operated in such a manner to ensure that all egress facilities are readily openable, and available without special knowledge or effort consistent with the use or occupancy characteristics. 1901.3.10 Means of egress shall be maintained and operated in such a manner to ensure that adequate lighting to facilitate safe egress is available. CAWINDOWSUEMPT NAL REPORT.DOC Page I I Ove Arup & Partners Massachusetts, Inc Draft Final Report - 28 May 2001 Town of Vail, Colorado 4.2 4.3 Stakeholder Goals and Objectives Dobson Ice Arena An important step in the performance -based process is to determine the fire safety goals and objectives of interest to the stakeholders, and to prioritize them for the specific project being addressed. The primary stakeholders that have been identified for this project include: • Vail Recreation District —Jim Heber, Dobson Arena Manager • Vail Recreation District — Dennis Jerger, Dobson Arena Facility Superintendent • Town of Vail — Gary Goodell, Chief Building Official • Town of Vail — Michael McGee, Fire Marshal Based on discussions with the stakeholders, and review of background materials for this project, it is the understanding of Arup Fire that the primary fire safety goal of this project is the following: • Provide an acceptable level of life safety for the building occupants and emergency responders (minimize fire- related injuries and prevent undue loss of life). Secondary goals that have been identified include: • Minimize impact of the fire protection systems on the existing building features and envelope, • Provide a cost effective fire safety solution, • Provide property protection (contents and structure), and • Minimize business interruption. It should be noted however that the property protection and business interruption goals and objectives have not been analysed in a quantitative manner, but will be provided to some degree when the life safety goals are addressed. Design Objectives A design objective is a stakeholder objective that is translated into values that can be quantified in fire protection engineering terms and from which performance criteria can be developed. Quantification can be in deterministic or probabilistic terms. The process of developing quantifiable design objectives focuses on targets, where the targets may be the structure, compartment, process, occupant, etc, that are being protected to meet a specific stakeholder objective. For this project, it was proposed that the primary design objectives be established in terms of time to reach hazardous conditions and available safe egress time. By defining the design objectives in these terms, specific performance criteria can be developed against which design options can be evaluated on their ability to meet the code and stakeholder objectives for life safety. In addition, by using the time to reach hazardous conditions, the secondary objectives of property protection and business continuity can be assessed as well. With respect to the primary objective of life safety, the hazardous conditions will be viewed in terms of tenable conditions. Although several approaches are theoretically possible for assessing tenability, the variability and uncertainty associated with the use of the Dobson Arena, with the population that may be present, and with the available analysis tools, it has been agreed to focus on two fundamental parameters: CAWINDOWS \TEMP\FINAL REPORT.DOC Page 12 Ove Arup & Partners Massachusetts, Inc Draft Final Report - 28 May 2001 Town of Vail, Colorado 4.4 • smoke layer height • temperature Dobson Ice Arena By focusing on these two parameters, the issues of visibility (travelling in smoke), species impact (smoke intake to the body), and radiant heat flux to the skin (from the hot upper layer) are accounted for. Performance Criteria 4.4.1 Life Safety Criteria Given the above design objectives, the following performance criteria have been established: • For the period of time that the hot layer remains higher than 8 feet (2.5m) above the level of egress, a tenability temperature threshold of 165 °F (74 °C) will be used. As noted above, no performance criteria are set for toxicity. This is in line with the view that limiting conditions for toxic products (asphyxiants and irritants) are unlikely to be exceeded if the smoke layer does not descend into the path of travel. Toxicity calculations are also reliant on the nature of the burning fuel. Results from calculations such as these therefore need to be treated with caution, as uncertainty about the chemical composition of the fuel, and of individual response to irritants leads to a potentially wide range of analysis results. The temperature criterion is suggested based on discussion provided in the text, Introduction to Performance -Based Fire Safety, by Custer and Meacham (NFPA, 1997). The layer height of 8 feet above floor level is more conservative than the 5.5 feet or 6 feet sometimes used in engineered designs, thus providing for a factor of safety to account for uncertainty in the calculations and actual fire conditions. The above performance criteria form the basis of this analysis. 4.4.2 Property Protection and Business Continuity Criteria Property protection is typically achieved through material control, fire separation, smoke control, and fire suppression systems. Business continuity is typically achieved through the same criteria, although sometimes at different levels. As property protection and business continuity are secondary objectives, no specific criteria have been established. Rather, the approach taken is to assume that if the life safety criteria have been met, the associated property protection and business continuity objectives will be met as well. C: \WINDOWS \TEMPT1NAL REPORT.DOC Page 13 Ove Arup & Partners Massachusetts, Inc Draft Final Report - 28 May 2001 Town of Vail, Colorado 5. 5.1 Dobson Ice Arena DESIGN FIRE SCENARIOS AND TIMES TO HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS Design Hazard Events, Design Fire Scenarios and Design Fire Curves As defined in the SFPE Guide, design fire scenarios describe possible fire events from ignition or established burning through extinguishment or burn -out. Design fire scenarios are a representative subset of all possible fire scenarios, typically selected to represent "worst credible" events and scenarios that will challenge the fire protection systems. For design purposes, design fire scenarios are equivalent to design hazard events as defined in the ICC Performance Code. In brief, the design fire scenarios /design hazard events describe the fire /people/buil ding interaction. If proposed fire safety features limit fire damage to an acceptable level for the design scenarios /events considered, then the design options are considered acceptable. Referring to performance matrix and ICC Performance Code objectives discussed in Section 4, the primary objectives for the Dobson Arena are to limit design hazard events to Medium, thus limiting the tolerable level of damage to Mild. Once a set of design fire scenarios /design hazard events are established, design fire curves are developed to represent the development and growth of the fire that is anticipated by the design fire scenario. Together, design fire scenarios and design fires are used to evaluate possible design options to determine if the performance criteria are met. Through correspondence from and discussions with the project stakeholders, it was determined that the design fire scenarios /design hazard events of concern relate to various configurations of the Dobson Arena for a range of events involving large numbers of people. The primary scenarios of concern were narrowed down to the following: hockey game, concert events, the annual Ski Swap, dinner dances, and conferences and conventions. The approach taken to address design hazard events, design fire scenarios, and design fire curves is as follows. 1. It is assumed from the Performance Matrix (ICC Performance Code, Chapter 3), that the target level of tolerable damage is Mild, which should not occur for Small or Medium fire hazard events. Although it is recognized that larger events could occur, they would likely occur as a result of larger than anticipated fuel loads, fire protection system failure, over capacity of occupant load, or similar feature outside of the bounding conditions for the design. 2. Given (1), the aim is to demonstrate a high probability of success for the fire protection system to limit the tolerable level of damage to Mild for the range of fire loads, occupant loads and fire protection systems considered. 3. Once bounding conditions are identified for the above, indicate bounding conditions that must be maintained to achieve the desired performance, indicate the potential impact of larger fires, and suggest options for mitigating the larger fires that could result. Table 4 below illustrates various event scenarios, including postulated occupant loads and potential fire scenarios, as determined via discussion with the project stakeholders. The scenarios were evaluated for the design fire events listed. These design hazard events were translated into design fire curves of Slow, Medium and Fast, as described in Table 5. Later in the report, it is illustrated how a more severe fire, and Ultra -Fast fire, impacts the Dobson Arena, and what additional fire protection features may be considered if warranted. C \WIND0WS \TEMPT1NAL REPORT.DOC Page 14 Ove Arup & Partners Massachusetts, Inc Draft Final Report - 28 May 2001 Town of Vail, Colorado Table 4 - Design Fire Scenarios Dobson Ice Arena Scenario Event Population Number Fixed Rink Area Total Design Hazard Event Seating Up to 400, including Fast growing fire in ancillary Hockey players, officials, space (i.e. concession area) 1 Game 800 people standing 1200 around in other areas Medium fire event Concert - Fast growing fire on stage. 2 Open Rink 900 2100 3000 Large fire event. Floor Concert or Fast growing fire on stage. 3 Convention - Seating on 800 1800 2600 Large fire event. Rink Floor Fast growing fire on rink floor. 4 Ski Swap 400 800 1200 Large fire event. Dinner Medium growth rate fire on table ignited by candle. 5 Dance, 6' 0 800 800 round tables Small fire event. Dinner Medium growth rate fire on table Dance, ignited by candle. 6 buffet, long 0 1200 1200 tables Small fire event. The above scenarios were selected primarily based on the following factors: • Differences in occupant loading, • Difference in fire hazard(s), • Differences in seating arrangements, and 0 Differences in egress arrangements. Q\WINDOWS \TEMP\PINAL REPORT.DOC Page 15 Ove Arup & Partners Massachusetts, Inc Draft Final Report - 28 May 2001 Town of Vail, Colorado 5.2 Dobson Ice Arena The fuels, fuel characteristics, and fuel arrangements used as the basis for developing the design fire curves are detailed in Appendix A. It was assumed that the ventilation conditions were constant for the main arena area in all cases. A summary of the design fire curves is provided in Table 5. Table 5 -Design Fires Scenario Fire Location Fire Growth Max AnticipatedHRR Plume Type Ancillary space (i.e. Rate Fire size determined by 1 concession area) Fast sprinkler response. Sprinklers assumed to Axi- symmetric Medium fire event limit further fire growth. Fire size determined by 2 On stage. Fast sprinkler response. Axi- symmetric Sprinklers assumed to limit further fire growth. Fire size determined by 3 On stage Fast sprinkler response. Sprinklers assumed to Axi- symmetric limit further fire growth. Fire size determined by 4 On rink floor Fast sprinkler response. Sprinklers assumed to Axi - symmetric limit further fire growth. Fire size determined by 5 On table on rink floor Medium sprinkler response. Sprinklers assumed to Axi- symmetric limit further fire growth. Fire size determined by 6 On table on rink floor Medium sprinkler response. Sprinklers assumed to Axi- symmetric limit further fire growth. Smoke Development and Layer Descent Times Given the design fire curves identified above, an analysis of smoke production, smoke filling, and smoke layer descent times was undertaken. This analysis is an essential component of the time to hazardous conditions assessment. The smoke production correlations contained within CIBSE Guide TM 19, and NFPA 92B - Guide for Smoke Management Systems in Malls, Atria and Large Areas ", National Fire Protection Association were used to analyze the development of the descent of the upper smoke layer, as well as the temperature. The results of this analysis are contained in Appendix C. C: \WIND0WS \TEMP\F1NAL REPORT.DOC Page 16 Ove Arup & Partners Massachusetts, Inc Draft Final Report - 28 May 2001 Town of Vail, Colorado 6. EGRESS SCENARIOS AND EGRESS ANALYSIS Dobson Ice Arena Similar to the development of design fire scenarios and smoke filling times to determine the time to hazardous conditions, the development of egress scenarios and time to evacuation are essential components of the analysis. Much like the design fire scenario development, the egress scenario development focused on a few representative scenarios that covered a range of uses for the Dobson Arena. The primary scenarios of concern were determined to be the following. Table 6a — Egress Scenarios Scenario Number Event Fixed Population Rink Area Total Seating Up to 400, including 1 Hockey Game 800 players, officials, people 1200 standing around in other areas 2 Concert, Open Rink 900 2100 3000 Floor Concert or 3 convention - Seating 800 1800 2600 on Rink Floor 4 Ski Swap 400 800 1200 5 Dinner Dance, 6' 0 800 800 round tables 6 Dinner Dance, 0 1200 1200 buffet, long tables As noted before, the above scenarios were selected primarily based on the following factors: • Differences in occupant loading, • Difference in fire hazard(s), • Differences in seating arrangements, and • Differences in egress arrangements. As noted in the SFPE Guide and other references, calculation of egress time should include pre - movement time (time to see or hear alarm, decide that there is an emergency, and decide to move) and movement time. This means that the analysis must consider fire detection (by devices or by people) and alarm signalling (by devices or by people), as well as expected travel time. C: \WINDOWS \TEMPT[NAI REPORT.DOC Page 17 Ove Arup & Partners Massachusetts, Inc Draft Final Report - 28 May 2001 Town of Vail, Colorado Dobson Ice Arena Based on discussions with the stakeholders, including the facilities people, it is assumed that staff response will be immediate upon alarm, meaning that pre- movement time after the fire alarm has sounded will be minimal. Example recognition times are given in DD240 — Fire Safety Engineering In Buildings. For notification systems using non -voice type systems times of greater than 4 minutes are given for occupancies where people are awake and predominantly familiar with the building, alarm and evacuation procedures. For occupancies where occupants are awake, but may be unfamiliar with the building, alarm system and evacuation procedures a recognition time of greater than 6 minutes is stated. As the Arena is open with exits visible from most areas, where a fire starting in the public area should be visible to most people, and it is anticipated that the response time will be quite minimal, a 4 minute pre- movement time is used. Given the design fire and egress scenarios outlined above, as well as the assumption that egress begins soon after alarm, egress times have been estimated. The following table summarizes the exit times for the various fire scenarios, as assessed using `hand calculations' from the SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, and using the computer based egress model Simulex. Additional details are contained in Appendix B. Table 6b — Calculated Egress Time Summary Note that the hand calculations assume the occupant density at the doors is 10 square feet per person, queue time is greater than travel time to an exit, and that occupants in the seats use the mezzanine exits only, while the occupants on the lower level use the main exits only. In addition to the primary egress calculations, egress estimations were also developed for situations in which an exit is assumed to be blocked. Simulex models showed that for a blockage of the front door during scenario 2, egress time was calculated to be 9 minutes. C: \WINDOWS \TEMP\FINAL REPORT.DOC Page 18 Ove Arup & Partners Massachusetts, Inc Draft Final Report - 28 May 2001 Hand Calculations' Egress Scenario Detection Time (min) Pre - movement Time (min) Egress Time (min) Total Time (min) Egress Time (min) Total Time (min) Note that the hand calculations assume the occupant density at the doors is 10 square feet per person, queue time is greater than travel time to an exit, and that occupants in the seats use the mezzanine exits only, while the occupants on the lower level use the main exits only. In addition to the primary egress calculations, egress estimations were also developed for situations in which an exit is assumed to be blocked. Simulex models showed that for a blockage of the front door during scenario 2, egress time was calculated to be 9 minutes. C: \WINDOWS \TEMP\FINAL REPORT.DOC Page 18 Ove Arup & Partners Massachusetts, Inc Draft Final Report - 28 May 2001 Town of Vail, Colorado 7. DESIGN OPTIONS Dobson Ice Arena The following sections outline the design options that have been identified to address the design fire scenarios. The various design options identify the fire protection measures required to meet with the performance requirements and performance criteria. In some cases, the design options are management related, such as "make the building non - smoking," whereas other design options related to fire protection features or systems. In some cases the design features will be in place, and in other places they will be new. The following sections are formatted in such a way to identify the control mechanism (title), the objective for implementing the control mechanism (objective), and the related design option or feature (design feature). 7.1 Fire Initiation and Development 7.1.1 Fire Initiation Objective Reduce the frequency of ignitions. Design Features • Require that the Dobson Arena be `non- smoking' throughout. • Undertake routine maintenance of electrical systems, wiring and components. • Practice good housekeeping measures, including routine cleaning and no interior storage of trash. • Minimize the storage of highly combustible material. In specific, store flammable liquids in appropriately rated dispensing containers (not to exceed fire code limits) and in appropriately rated storage cabinets (e.g., where the Zamboni is stored). 7.1.2 Control Fire Development Obiec tive Reduce the rate of fire development and resulting smoke and heat production. Design Features • Interior finishes: - Wood lattice ceiling above pedestrian walkway: - Although the ceiling structure is protected by automatic sprinklers, there is a concern that a fire could develop in the lattice in such a place that sprinkler effectiveness is suspect. As a result, it is suggested that some form of fire retardant be used on the lattice above the pedestrian walkway. Options include: - (1) coat with fire retardant material - (2) replace with fire resistant material • Construction elements: - Timber beams: CAWfNDOWS \TEMP\FINAL REPORT.DOC Page 19 Ove Amp & Partners Massachusetts, Inc Draft Final Report - 28 May 2001 Town of Vail, Colorado Dobson Ice Arena - The massive timber beams would not be expected to ignite easily or burn rapidly unless there were a significant fire. In addition, the ceiling structure is protected by automatic sprinklers. For these reasons, no additional protection is suggested. • Automatic sprinklers: - Provided throughout. • Combustible loads (i.e., fuel packages): - Limits on maximum heat release rates and fire growth rates are desirable. Although this cannot be achieved in all cases, limitations can be imposed on fuel loading for convention center and display type arrangements. - Limits can also be imposed through combustibility and heat release rate limitations on typical furnishings and contents, such as tables, chairs, tablecloths, and the like. Following requirements set forth in the UBC is acceptable for control of such fuel loads. - Associated fire growth rate and fuel load limitations are suggested as follows: • Materials should be selected to limit fire growth rate to "medium" as defined by NFPA 72. (i.e. max. 300 seconds to reach a 1MW fire) • Fuel packages should be separated by a sufficient distance to prevent ignition of two fuel packages at the same time. • Fire retardant material should be applied to combustible ceiling components immediately above pedestrian walkway (mezzanine), or combustible ceiling components in those areas should be replaced with non - combustible components. • In addition, one of the following alternatives should be selected in order to either control the hazard of the materials allowed in the Arena, or to manage the impact of the hazard: Control Hazard Alternative • Steady State Fires - Efforts should be made to limit maximum heat release rates to: Slow/Medium Growth Rate Fires - 2.5 MW per fuel package. Fast Growth Rate Fires - 1 MW per fuel package Ultra -Fast Growth Rate Fires - 0.75 MW per fuel package Non - Steady State Fires — Where fires are not steady state and meet the above limitations, then a qualified Fire Protection Engineer should perform an engineering analysis on the various fuel packages. This would allow the mass of each package to be evaluated for its contribution to total smoke production in the Arena to determine limits on how much fuel needs to be consumed to develop a smoke layer that descends to head level. Manage Impact of Hazards Alternative • Where the above limitations are not feasible, other fire protection systems and features will need to be installed to provide an acceptable level of safety. One alternative noted is a smoke management system. - As an accurate assessment of the combustible loading present at the various events is critical to determining whether the Arena's goals and objectives will be met, it is recommended that a process be developed with the local Authorities and put in place to CAWINDOWS \TEMPTINAL REPORT.DOC Page 20 Ove Arup & Partners Massachusetts, Inc Draft Final Report - 28 May 2001 Town of Vail, Colorado Dobson Ice Arena conduct an evaluation of combustible materials for each event. It is recommended that this process involve a review by a qualified Fire Protection Engineer of the combustible materials and provide a written evaluation to all stakeholders for each event as to: - The maximum heat release rate of the individual fuel packages. - Estimated fire growth rate - Amount of smoke produced and its impact on the time to egress and untenable conditions - Amount of radiant energy produced and resultant separation distances to adjacent fuel packages to help reduce potential for radiant ignition of adjacent fuel packages. Events such as hockey games, dinner dances, etc. whose combustible loading and configuations would not change from event to event, could be evaluated for a few different layouts, and would not be expected to be analysed each time the event occurs. An example letter regarding the analysis is contained in Appendix E. • Compartmentation and Ventilation — General - Back of house /non - public areas (i.e. mechanical /electrical rooms, storage, etc.) should be fire separated from the public areas. 7.2 Means Of Escape Objective Allow occupants adequate time to reach a place of safety in the event of a fire. Design Features • Smoke detectors are provided throughout the building to detect a fire at an early stage. Activation of the smoke detection system will automatically activate the fire alarm system. • All occupants in the building have access to at least two exit routes under normal conditions, allowing for at least one path to a clear exit should an exit be block by the fire. • The combustibility of interior finishes and contents in the path of exit travel is minimized. • Facility staff are on hand for all events to assist in safe, quick, and orderly evacuation in the event of fire or other emergency. It is also recommended that the following are provided: • Existing exit door capacity at the main exit and both side exits should be supplemented with the addition of four 3 -foot doors at the main exit, and two 3 -foot doors at each side exit. • The fixed seating area should be modified to include 3 -foot wide stairs at both ends of the fixed seating area (along wall, leading up to `mezzanine level to exit). Additional egress width and openings from the ice rink should be added (as planned in the renovation). C: \WINDOWS \TEMP\FINAL REPORT.DOC Page 21 Ove Arup & Partners Massachusetts, Inc Draft Final Report - 28 May 2001 Town of Vail, Colorado 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 Dobson Ice Arena Smoke Development And Management Objective Reduce the hazard resulting from smoke by limiting its production and controlling its movement. Design Features • Passive smoke management is proposed to be used to maintain tenable conditions during evacuation in the building, in conjunction with controlling the hazard/fuel load. The detailed analysis of this is contained in the Appendices. • If it is not possible, or feasible to manage the hazard introduced by the combustible material brought into the arena, then one alternative would be to provide a smoke management system sized to extract the smoke produced from the largest anticipated fire. Sample calculations are provided in Appendix D. However, extract quantities would need to be confirmed, and would be based on the largest fuel load anticipated to be provided for the various events. Control of Fire Spread (Compartmentation) Objective Reduce the likelihood of fire spreading from the room of fire origin to other areas or compartments of the building. Design Features Compartmentation by fire rated construction is generally provided between main arena area and `back of house' areas. In addition to maintaining required ratings on existing assemblies, it is recommended to enclosing the open side of the refrigeration room with 4 -hour fire - resistive construction, sealing any existing penetrations and installing 2 sets of 90- minute self - closing doors. (This option to ensure separation of hazards is in lieu of adding a second exit, which has limited practicality for a normally unoccupied room.) • The arena is fully sprinklered. Structural Stability Ob; ec tive Minimize the likelihood of premature collapse of part or all of a structure due to fire. Design Features • The arena is fully sprinklered. • In specific areas (above pedestrian walkway /path of exit travel), the wood ceiling structure will be fire retarded or replaced. This will help to minimize the likelihood of the ceiling structure contributing to a fire, and thus assist in maintaining structural stability. Fire Detection And Alarm Objectives Provide early detection of a fire in order to notify occupants and emergency personnel, or to activate an active fire protection system, such as a smoke management or suppression system. C: \WINDOWS \TEMP\FINAL REPORT.DOC Page 22 Ove Arup & Partners Massachusetts, Inc Draft Final Report - 28 May 2001 Town of Vail, Colorado V&A Design Features Dobson Ice Arena An automatic fire detection system is provided for early detection and notification to building personnel (employees, occupants, etc.), security personnel, and the Fire Department, of a fire condition. This system will also supervise all of the fire protection systems and activate appropriate ancillary systems. Automatic detection devices provided throughout include, or should include: • Smoke detectors throughout all areas, including beam -type smoke detection in the main arena area • Manual pull stations • Water flow switches on sprinkler systems • Tamper switches on all sprinkler valves The automatic detection system will sound audible and visible notification appliances. It also automatically notifies the Vail Fire Department of an alarm. In addition to the automatic detection system, it is anticipated that detection within the arena is likely to be through visual detection. Occupants should be awake and alert. Occupants should become aware of a fire through the direct visual connection they have with the fire source and the smoke that will be developed. The arena is provided with automatic alarm notification appliances to notify the occupants of a fire. In addition, facility staff will be trained to notify the public of emergency conditions and to assist in the safe and quick evacuation of occupants. It has been indicated that during some events, the beam type smoke detectors are taken out of service to prevent false alarms. Fire safety management procedures should be developed in conjunction with the local authorities and put in place to address applicable items including providing 1) alternative means for detecting a fire as quickly as possible (i.e. fire wardens /watchers, etc.) and 2) means to notify the Fire Department with all pertinent details regarding taking the detector out of service (reason, duration, acknowledgement, etc.) and 3) the means to notify the Fire Department of a fire in order to limit delays during this period. Fire Suppression Objectives Control or extinguish fire. Design Features • Fire extinguishers will be provided throughout the building. • Sprinklers are provided throughout the building. The sprinklers help to ensure that a fire cannot develop and grow to a point where flashover could occur. Sprinklers limit the fire growth and prevent fire spread. Typically, a fire would be controlled by one to four sprinklers. • In spaces with low ceiling heights and high fire loads, sprinklers are also be provided. In these areas, they will provide early suppression of fires, limiting heat and smoke spread and resulting damage. CAWINDOWS \TEMPTINAL REPORT.DOC Page 23 Ove Arup & Partners Massachusetts, Inc Draft Final Report - 28 May 2001 Town of Vail, Colorado Dobson Ice Arena 7.8 Fire Fighting Facilities Objective Assist fire fighters in their rescue and fire control operations. Design Features • The fire department will be automatically notified of a fire via the fire detection system. • Adequate access is provided to the arena for fire fighting equipment. 7.9 Emergency Lighting, Signage & Power Emergency lighting and exit signage are to be provided throughout the building, to the requirements of the local codes. 7.10 Fire safety management The Dobson Ice Arena appears to be well managed and should have a well - defined fire safety management policy. This policy should be developed with the various stakeholders and should include details of. • limits on total occupants for the range of expected events • evacuation and fire department response plans for the above events • additional event staff for large events to facilitate fast and safe evacuation • good housekeeping /fire prevention procedures • regular maintenance of all fire protection equipment • training of staff in evacuation procedures and first aid fire fighting • management of occupants with special needs • regular fire evacuation drills • hot work permit system • limiting fuel loads and materials as outlined herein • limiting occupant loads as specified herein. C: \WINDOWS \TEMPT]NAL REPORT.DOC Page 24 Ove Arup & Partners Massachusetts, Inc Draft Final Report - 28 May 2001 Town of Vail, Colorado 8. RESULTS FROM ANALYSES 8.1 General Dobson Ice Arena The following summarizes the results for each fire scenario. Information regarding inputs and the design scenario conditions are detailed within the Appendices. 8.2 Egress Calculations Table 8a summarizes the times calculated for egress using both hand calculations, and Simulex. Table 8a — Calculated Egress Time Summary Notes: 1. Hand calcuations assume density of 10 sq ft per person at exit 2. Detection time assumed to occur when fire reaches I MW (2.5 min for fast growth rate, and 5 minutes for medium growth rate) either by automatic or manual means. 3. Total time = detection time + pre- movement time + egress time Times calculated using these methods are fairly consistent for each scenario. As would be expected, egress times increase with increasing populations. 8.3 Smoke Calculations Table 8b provides predictions of the smoke filling times produced by fires of different growth rates. The estimated fire sizes at the time that the smoke descends to 8ft above floor level at the mezzanine level are given along with estimated smoke temperatures. The calculations were performed using computer spreadsheets called T -Zam, which is a computer program developed by Arup Fire (based on equations contained within CIBSE TM 19: Relationships for smoke control calculations, 1995). The results are presented in their entirety at the end of this report. CAMNDOWS \TEMPTINAL REPORT.DOC Page 25 Ove Arup & Partners Massachusetts, Inc Draft Final Report - 28 May 2001 Hand Calculations' Egress Scenario Detection Time (min) Pre - movement Time (min) Egress Time (min) Total Time (min) Egress Time (min) Total Time (min) Notes: 1. Hand calcuations assume density of 10 sq ft per person at exit 2. Detection time assumed to occur when fire reaches I MW (2.5 min for fast growth rate, and 5 minutes for medium growth rate) either by automatic or manual means. 3. Total time = detection time + pre- movement time + egress time Times calculated using these methods are fairly consistent for each scenario. As would be expected, egress times increase with increasing populations. 8.3 Smoke Calculations Table 8b provides predictions of the smoke filling times produced by fires of different growth rates. The estimated fire sizes at the time that the smoke descends to 8ft above floor level at the mezzanine level are given along with estimated smoke temperatures. The calculations were performed using computer spreadsheets called T -Zam, which is a computer program developed by Arup Fire (based on equations contained within CIBSE TM 19: Relationships for smoke control calculations, 1995). The results are presented in their entirety at the end of this report. CAMNDOWS \TEMPTINAL REPORT.DOC Page 25 Ove Arup & Partners Massachusetts, Inc Draft Final Report - 28 May 2001 Town of Vail, Colorado Table 8b — Smoke filling times for various fire growth rates Dobson Ice Arena Fire Growth Rate Predicted time for smoke layer to descend to 8 ft above mezzanine Predicted average temperature of smoke layer at Ti Approximate convective heat release rate (fire size) at T1 Approximate total heat release rate (fire size) at T1 floor level (T1) 11' .11 11 time Material :1' 111 111 • ' 1' .1'• 11 11 • (no.) 1 ' 1' 111 I 11 As can be seen from the above table, the predicted time for the smoke layer to descend to 8ft above the mezzanine floor level ranges between approximately 4.5 minutes and 12 minutes depending on the fire growth rate. For the fast fire growth rate the time is 6.5 minutes. It has been postulated that the most probable fire growth rate for a ski -swap type event would be that of a fast growing fire, although the actual nature of the fire load could result in faster or slower fire growth rates (hence the range of fire growth rates considered for the analysis). The design fires considered, therefore, may not represent the actual fire conditions, but rather a range. The following table provides an indication of dimensions that the above fire sizes represent. While it is unlikely that some of the items shown in the table will be present in the arena, they are included for comparison. Table 8C — Equivalent Fire Load Approximate total heat release rate at critical Equivalent Fire Load Shop Christmas Stacking Suitcases Display Timber time Material trees chairs Material (kW) (ft 2) (no.) (no.) (no.) (ft 2) (lb) see rate 1 see rate 2 see rote 3 see rote 5 see rate 6 see rote 7 13,700 295 21 343 46 1522 1674 7,000 150 11 175 23 778 856 3,500 75 5 88 12 389 428 1,500 32 2 38 5 167 183 Note 1: data source CIBSE TM19 Note 2: data source NFPA 92B, CIBSE TM 19 Note 3: data source NFPA 92B Note 4: data source NFPA 92B Note 5: data from lull scale testing carried out by Arup Fire Note 6: data source NFPA 92B, CIBSE TM 19 Note 7: assuming 20 minute effective bum time, data source CIBSE TM19 C: \WINDOWS \TEMP\FINAL REPORT.DOC Page 26 Ove Arup & Partners Massachusetts, Inc Draft Final Report - 28 May 2001 Town of Vail, Colorado 8.4 8.5 Dobson Ice Arena The first column of the above table considers typical shop material. Although the fire load for the ski -swap event for example is not clearly defined, it is likely that the floor area of the rink will, in several ways, resemble a shop sales area. For the fast fire growth rate, the fire area after 6.5 minutes is predicted to be 150 ft2 (approximately 12 ft x 12 ft) for typical shop fire loads. This represents a considerable fire size. Effect of Sprinklers on Fire Growth It is our understanding that the entire arena space is protected by an automatic sprinkler system. In many situations sprinklers have been shown to be effective in controlling fire growth, however there are circumstances where the activation times of sprinklers are delayed in particular where floor to ceiling heights are large, and thus their effectiveness is reduced,. The floor to ceiling height in the center of Dobson Arena is in excess of 45 ft. If a fire were to occur in the center of the arena (which would be possible in a ski -swap event), the fire size at sprinkler activation would be larger than if a fire were to occur towards the edges of the arena where the floor to ceiling heights are lower. Sprinklers are less effective at controlling large fires as the proportion of the sprinkler discharge that reaches the seat of the fire is reduced. Calculations have been performed using the NIST computer program DETACT to calculate the response time and heat release rate at sprinkler response. These are summarized in the table below. In comparing this with Table 813, it can be seen that sprinklers may not go off prior to the time that the smoke layer descends to 8 feet above the Mezzanine Level for any of the fire scenarios. Table 8D — Sprinkler Response Analysis Fire Growth Fire Rate I Size at Sprinkler Activation (1\1«) Time at Sprinkler Activation (min) -I Fire in an Ancillary Space It is our understanding that all storage areas are provided with fire rated doors. If closed, these doors should minimize the quantity of smoke entering the arena space. C: \WINDOWS \TEMP\FINAL REPORT.DOC Page 27 Ove Arup & Partners Massachusetts, Inc Draft Final Report - 28 May 2001 Town of Vail, Colorado 8.6 Summary Dobson Ice Arena Given the above summary of the analyses contained herein, the following conclusions may be made: - The times calculated for evacuation for the different scenarios are greater than the times for the smoke layer to descend to 8 feet above the Mezzanine Level where none of the hazard reduction or mitigation alternatives were considered. (see Table 8E) - Sprinklers may not activate prior to the time that the smoke layer descends to 8 feet above the Mezzanine Level for any of the fire scenarios due to the heat release rate required to raise the temperature in the vicinity of the sprinklers. Table 8E — Comparison of Egress Time and Time to Untenable Conditions Scenario Number Event Egress Hand Ca1c. (min) Time Simulex (min) Time to Untenable Conditions Safe Egress Time -7 Available? 1 Hockey Game 8.2 10.5 6.5 No Concert - 2 Open Rink 12.3 12.5 6.5 No Floor Concert or 3 Convention - 11.5 11.5 6.5 No Seating on Rink Floor 4 Ski Swap 8.7 9 6.5 No Dinner Dance, 5 6' round 11.2 11 9 No tables Dinner Dance, 6 buffet, long 12 12 9 No tables C: \WINDOWS \TEMP\FINAL REPORT.DOC Page 28 Ove Arup R Partners Massachusetts, Inc Draft Final Report - 28 May 2001 Town of Vail, Colorado Dobson Ice Arena Given the above results, it can be seen that alternatives are needed to either control the hazard (i.e. limit maximum heat release rates, etc.), or to provide fire protection features that manage the impact of the hazard on the arena (i.e. smoke management). Table 8F presents a comparison of the various scenarios with their resultant levels of impacts for various alternatives. Table 8F — Arena Event vs Level of Impact for various hazard reduction /mitigation options Scenario Number Event Unmitigated (i.e. as is) Sprinklers Fuel Control Smoke Management 1 Hockey Game Mild Mild Mild System Mild Concert - 2 Open Rink Mild Mild Mild Mild Floor Concert or 3 Convention - Seating on Moderate -High Moderate -High Mild Mild Rink Floor 4 Ski Swap High High Mild Mild Dinner Dance, 5 6' round Mild Mild Mild Mild tables Dinner Dance, 6 buffet, long Mild Mild Mild Mild tables Based on this information and the goals and objectives previously established of limiting the level of impact to mild, the following recommendations are made: CAWINDOWS \TEMP\PINAL REPORT.DOC Page 29 Ove Arup & Partners Massachusetts, Inc Draft Final Report - 28 May 2001 Town of Vail, Colorado Table 1— Summary of Proposed Fire Safety Measures Dobson Ice Arena Fuel Load Materials should be selected to limit fire growth rate to "medium" as defined by NFPA 72. (i.e. max. 300 seconds to reach a 1 MW fire) • Fuel packages should be separated by a sufficient distance to prevent ignition of two fuel packages at the same time. • Fire retardant material should be applied to combustible ceiling components immediately above pedestrian walkway (mezzanine), or combustible ceiling components in those areas should be replaced with non - combustible components. • In addition, one of the following alternatives should be selected in order to either control the hazard of the materials allowed in the Arena, or to manage the impact of the hazard: Control Hazard Alternative • Steady State Fires - Efforts should be made to limit maximum heat release rates to: Slow /Medium Growth Rate Fires - 2.5 MW per fuel package. Fast Growth Rate Fires - 1 MW per fuel package Ultra -Fast Growth Rate Fires - 0.75 MW per fuel package • Non - Steady State Fires — Where fires are not steady state and meet the above limitations, then a qualified Fire Protection Engineer should perform an engineering analysis on the various fuel packages. This would allow the mass of each package to be evaluated for its contribution to total smoke production in the Arena to determine limits on how much fuel needs to be consumed to develop a smoke layer that descends to head level. Manage Impact of Hazards Alternative • Where the above limitations are not feasible, other fire protection systems and features will need to be installed to provide an acceptable level of safety. One alternative noted is a smoke management system. • A qualified fire protection engineer should provide written confirmation that an evaluation of the various hazards specific to individual events has been undertaken, and that the above criteria are met. (see Appendix D) Means of Escape 0 Existing exit door capacity at the main exit and both side exits should be supplemented with the addition of four 3 -foot doors at the main exit, and two 3 -foot doors at each side exit. • The fixed seating area should be modified to include 3 -foot wide stairs at both ends of the fixed seating area (along wall, leading up to 'mezzanine level to exit). • Additional egress width and openings from the ice rink should be added (as planned in the renovation). Smoke Provided fuel loads and growth rates are limited, either via controls outlined above, by Management sprinklers, or by manual suppression, so that tenable conditions are maintained during the egress period, smoke management is not required. • If fuel loads and fire growth rates are expected that exceed the above levels, and an additional margin of safety is desired, addition of a smoke management system is an option. Compartmentation In addition to maintaining required ratings on existing assemblies, it is recommended to enclosing the open side of the refrigeration room with 4 -hour fire - resistive construction, sealing any existing penetrations and installing 2 sets of 90- minute self - closing doors. C: \WINDOWS \TEMP \FINAL REPORT.DOC Page 30 Ove Arup & Partners Massachusetts, . Inc Draft Final Report - 28 May 2001 Town of' Vail, Colorado Dobson Ice Arena Structural No modifications or additional features are required in order to provide the desired level of Elements life safety. If property protection or business continuity objectives become more important, additional fire protection measures may be warranted, especially with regard to the roof structure and material, from interior or exterior exposure fires. Fire Detection & Discussions should be had with the Fire Department regarding procedures for detecting Alarm fires as well as transmitting alarm signals and notifying the Fire Department when the beam type smoke detectors are taken out of service during events due to the potential of false alarms. • No modifications or additional features appear to be needed other than those required to meet code. However, a well designed and intelligible voice paging system is desirable for facilitating emergency evacuation. Sprinklers & 0 No modifications or additional features appear to be needed other than those required to standpipes meet code. Normal inspection, testing and maintenance is recommended. Emergency No modifications or additional features appear to be needed other than those required to Systems meet code.. Normal inspection, testing and maintenance is recommended. Fire Safety Fire safety management plan required for (1) each type of major event as well as for special Management events that either (2) pose an unusual fire hazard or (3) presents an unusual risk to facility occupants. If it is desired to provide the maximum flexibility and consider using fuel packages of higher heat release rates, or fast /ultra -fast growth rates within the Arena, a mechanical smoke management system could also be considered. Appendix D provides an analysis of the effect of a mechanical system sized to extract 100,000 CFM, on delaying the descent of the upper layer. However, extract quantities would need to be confirmed, and would need to be based on the largest fuel load anticipated to be provided for the various events. C: \WINDOWS \TEMP\FINAL REPORT.DOC Page 31 Ove Arup & Partners Massachusetts, Inc Draft Final Report - 28 May 2001 Town of Vail, Colorado 0 9.1 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS General Dobson Ice Arena This section of the report.defines the assumptions used in the assessment and the limitations on the application of the results. In this context, assumptions are defined to be inputs to the analysis, which may include simplifications of reality based on engineering judgement or accepted approaches that are necessary to enable the issues in question to be rationally addressed. These inputs are described in order that users of the report are made aware of them and their applicability can be reviewed. Limitations are defined as boundaries to the applicability of the results, including aspects that have specifically been excluded from consideration. Furthermore, the assumptions used in the analysis may imply limitations on the use of the results. Typical assumptions include tenability criteria and models used. Limitations may include a decision that no particular property protection issues are to be addressed and that the design solution is subject to a strong fire safety management plan and training of occupants. Assumptions The general assumptions used in this analysis are provided below. Any alterations to the design that result in any of the assumptions becoming invalid will result in the need for a new fire engineering analysis. • All fire protection systems and management strategies will be installed and fully maintained in accordance with this report and relevant Standards. • The building will contain various occupancies including an ice arena, offices and storage areas. • The works of Pauls and Bryan (SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering) are acceptable methods for predicting occupant movement times. Simulex software is validated for use. • The criteria for tenability described in this report should help to ensure an adequate level of life safety is being provided for the occupants to evacuate prior to the onset of untenable conditions. • Occupants are familiar with the building and capable of moving and responding to an alarm. • Occupants will be coherent and their judgement will not be impaired so that they will move away from the fire to an exit and leave the building within the time calculated herein, including recognition and response times, and they will not remain in the fire compartment. • Simulex is an acceptable method for predicting occupant movement times. • The fire growth rates and smoke spread analysis predicted by the CIBSE TM 19 smoke spread model and the NFPA 92B Guide For Smoke Management Systems In Large Areas provide sufficiently accurate results for the purposes of design. (See Appendices) • The fuel loads are representative of those analyzed herein with particular regard to growth rate, maximum heat release rate and duration. • The fuel loads in the arena will not exceed those used in this analysis. • Security measures will be provided to limit the occurrence of arson. CAWINDOWSUEMPTINAL REPORT.DOC Page 32 Ove Arup & Partners Massachusetts, Inc Draft Final Report - 28 May 2001 Town of Vail, Colorado 9.3 Limitations Dobson Ice Arena The following limitations apply to the fire safety analysis. Any change in the limitations or in the assumption stated within this report or part of the analysis may alter the final design solution and hence needs to be referred to a qualified fire engineer for review prior to altering the design. 9.3.1 Building Characteristics • The building is used as an arena. If the building use is to change in the future, the building will have to be re- assessed. (i.e. fuel loads, occupant loads, egress, etc.) • Fire protection systems within the building will include those discussed herein. • All fire protection systems will be installed and maintained as per their relevant standards and as discussed herein. 9.3.2 Occupant Characteristics • The analysis is limited to the population figures, characteristics, egress provisions and installation of the fire safety systems discussed in this report. • None of the exits can be blocked for any reason at any time (i.e. furnishings, displays, storage, etc) • The occupant loads in each area need to be strictly adhered to • Occupant judgement is assumed to be rational and should not be impaired. For example, use of the space for consumption of alcohol will need to be avoided as occupants' judgement in responding to an emergency situation cannot be impaired by the use of alcohol, drugs, etc. 9.3.3 Fire Characteristics • The building will be non - smoking throughout. • Fire growth rates of materials will need to be limited to slow or medium growth rates. • Fuel loads (i.e. furnishings, contents, etc.) will need to be separated so that multiple fuel packages will not be able to be ignited by radiant energy. • The analysis does not assess the level of property protection and business interruption within the subject building. Acceptance of this assessment, including the scope of works and limitations contained therein, is considered to be an acceptance of the risk for contents and property protection within the building. Responsibility for this risk is considered to be subrogated to the owner and their insurer unless otherwise directed via further correspondence in which case this report becomes invalid. C: \WINDOWS \TEMP\FINAL REPORT.DOC Page 33 Ove Arup & Partners Massachusetts, Inc Draft Final Report - 28 May 2001 Town of Vail, Colorado 10. CONCLUSION Dobson Ice Arena This document represents the fire engineering analysis for the Dobson Ice Arena. The approach uses a performance -based fire engineering methodology to provide fire safety measures tailored to the specific needs and challenges of the design. Recommendations are provided with regards to fire protection systems and managing fuel loads to help ensure occupants can evacuate prior to the onset of untenable conditions and meet the goals and objectives established by the stakeholders. C: \WINDOWS \TEMP\FINAL REPORTDOC Page 34 Ove Arup & Partners Massachusetts, Inc Draft Final Report - 28 May 2001 Town of Vail, Colorado 11. 11.1 11.2 CODES AND STANDARDS Dobson Ice Arena References SFPE Engineering Guide on performance Based Fire Protection Analysis and Design of Buildings, SFPE, 2000. ICC Building Performance Code Draft, Preliminary Committee report, August 1998 SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, P. DiNenno(ed), NFPA Boston MA, 1988. Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE), "Relationships for Smoke Control Calculations" Technical Memoranda TM19:1995 "NFPA 92B - Guide for Smoke Management Systems in Malls, Atria and Large Areas ", National Fire Protection Association. Applicable Codes and Standards NFPA 101— Life Safety Code, 2000 CIWINDOWS \TEMP\FINAL REPORT.DOC Page 35 Ove Arup & Partners Massachusetts, Inc Draft Final Report - 28 May 2001 Town of Vail, Colorado ArupFire Appendix A Design Fires Dobson Ice Arena C: \WINDOWS \TEMP\FINAL REPORT.DOC Page 36 Ove Arup & Partners Massachusetts, Inc Draft Final Report - 28 May 2001 Town of Vail, Colorado DESIGN FIRES The primary design fire scenarios reviewed were: • Concerts • Ski Swap • Dinner /Conference setup Dobson Ice Arena Smoke filling times were modeled for various fire growth rates ranging between ultra -fast and slow. The fires were assumed to be in the center of the arena and the smoke plumes were assumed to be axisymmetric. The table below gives typical fire growth rates for some common materials (results are from actual fire tests): Design Fire Fire Type Fire Growth Rate 1 Cotton (also PE, PE /Cot, Acrylic /Nylon /PE), >Ultra- Fast garments in 12ft high rack (see note 3 2 1 /2 -in plywood wardrobe with fabrics (see note > Ultra- Fast 2) 3 Metal wardrobe with fabrics (see note 2) Fast 4 Wood pallets, stack 5 ft high (see note 3) Fast 5 Love seat, wood frame, foam cushions (see Medium note 2) 6 Mail bags, filled, stacked 5ft high (see note 3) Medium 7 Waste paper basket (see note 1) Slow Note 1: data source CIBSE TM19 Note 1: data source NFPA 72 Note 3: data source NFPA 92B It is likely that items of clothing at a ski -swap event will either be on rails or on tables. The rate of fire growth in the initial stages of a fire is usually greater for vertically aligned combustibles. Thus, ignited clothing on hangars is likely to produce faster fire growth rates than clothing on tables. The above table contains a limited amount of data for clothing fires, ranging from Fast to >Ultra - Fast fire growth rates. The case of the clothing in 12ft high racks is more typical of warehouse storage — it is considered unlikely that storage of this kind will be present at a ski -swap event (although the exact nature of the ski -swap fire loads has not been made available for this analysis). Perhaps the fire type in the above table that would best represent the ski swap event is that of a metal wardrobe (as in the fire tests the only combustibles present were the cloths in the wardrobe and the paint on the metal). CAWINDOWS \TEMP\FINAL REPORT.DOC Page 37 Ove Arup & Partners Massachusetts, Inc Draft Final Report - 28 May 2001 Town of Vail, Colorado Dobson Ice Arena C: \WINDOWS \TEMP \FINAL REPORT.DOC Page 38 Ove Arup & Partners Massachusetts, Inc Draft Final Report - 28 May 2001 Town of Vail, Colorado Dobson Ice Arena C: \WINDOWS \TEMP\FINAL REPORT.DOC Page 39 Ove Arup & Partners Massachusetts, Inc Draft Final Report - 28 May 2001 ArupFire Appendix C Smoke Analysis Town of Vail, Colorado CONTENTS C -1. GENERAL C -2. ULTRA -FAST GROWTH RATE FIRE C -3. FAST GROWTH RATE FIRE C-4. MEDIUM GROWTH RATE FIRE C -5. SLOW GROWTH RATE FIRE Dobson Ice ,Arena C: \WINDOWS \TEMP \0002APPENDIX C - SMOKE ANALYSIS. DOC Ove Arup & Partners Consulting Engineers PC Draft 1 May 5, 2001 Town of Vail, Colorado C -1. GENERAL Dobson Ice Arena Appendix C contains the results of the calculations for analysing smoke layer development, and the temperature of the smoke layer. Four different fire growth rates are contained herein: Ultra -fast, fast, medium and slow. The heat release rates for each of these analyses are contained in each section along with a graph showing upper layer development versus the increasing temperature of the upper layer. The equations used in CIBSE Guide TM 19 were used to model the smoke production and resultant smoke layer development. CAWINDOWS \TEMP \0002APPENDIX C - SMOKE ANALYSIS.DOC Page DI Ove Arup & Partners Consulting Engineers PC Draft 1 May 5, 2001 Town of Vail. Colorado C -2. ULTRA -FAST GROWTH RATE FIRE tf x Fie Y Geale Danmerts Help Fire Model Results Case Script -- - Fke a,d D.IODg Smoke Aocess Oplms I Po.1 -a RID I u.a<a By mq.p N.pwf oe Tr -.smv, oL+ol.r Ie. lOm Ukn. Ga.nq Fn FIRE DESCRIPTION iFire CarMaMz Cwv<cs:re lraakn • 70 S j N<n Naase.ae -300 kW /m/ c Leap Oerony - I / Cakdsm value of Iw1 . • IB NO W / Yp I ! Fire type -.T- sq.mm � i Frt MS e.pu •0.1880 ssaYW I COMPMTYENT DESCRIPTION WaN.OD m l I1.Iai • D m Depth • O0 D I •ODm Bue pre ikon kr <I • 0 D m Poor >ea•OD ma Mw aea •Do m� Cpmpanmxn Maw area • OD T, I 1 Om / 6111pkB I Bakeny neq. • 0 0 m - I Bakwy iWln�0 ➢m - � CnanMVp zc aYak • OD m I Time (a) Heat Release (MN) Heat Release ON Notes Total Comect" I Total IConvect" 30.0 169.2 118.1 1700.5 1190.3 Veres o l 6000 676.8 173.8 13569.9 9198.9 2 <.21 .52.1 Veris o0 - 90.0 1522.8 106600 45760.2 32032.1 120.0 2707.2 18%.0 108423.1 7%%A 150.0 1230.0 296100 211711.5 1181991 180.0 6091.2 1263.6 365776.6 256063.6 ZIRD 8290.8 SBO361 580770.6 106539.1 210.0 10828.8 758121 8668/5.5 606791.9 170.0 13705.2 9593.6 1231153.3 863907.3 300.0 16920.0 11814.0 16928/6.1 1181992 3 Ne Ve. Croxe Doaaneris Heel - - - - -- -Smnke KAnrlpl RPCUItc Ete ena SI✓bEV ' Roaw Optlae ' fYM SncM toy( -) Nags 22.7 Ne'c IL'C 10'c V'C 0'L 12.0 Veas oO 7.5 Yeas al 52 Veris Oil 3.8 VeaS o8 3.0 Veres o l 2.{ 2 (- 2117 13ml Vales o0 - 2.1 2(- 237.83m Vents dl 1.9 2 <.21 .52.1 Veris o0 - O Time (s) SDO toy( -) Nags 22.7 Veas al 12.0 Veas oO 7.5 Yeas al 52 Veris Oil 3.8 VeaS o8 3.0 Veres o l 2.{ 2 (- 2117 13ml Vales o0 - 2.1 2(- 237.83m Vents dl 1.9 2 <.21 .52.1 Veris o0 - BUILDING DESCRIPTON Il.o. (in Baw to mol)- Ip.S . Fb« xea IM: o'1 «rain SMOKE MODEL DEECRtPT10N i ntype -. TN19, EpI. 32 se OmaO. Epn. ]]. auvmnsxa pYm.. small � aqe aawtx Fp.ca (i ro n« m>p. eo aYayT.neM PYme : opx.ps i pb Oren xd moan Man<.Mn mme impegxne apoY<urpppr - I.- x sM a ,,1« N- J :mawlve kssas Imn brx na k Ju/<q. isdbY to a rttkpyirf sqI rfs rws el xwke wnks<s - o➢n kq,kq TNTIl 011 PROVISIONS J ;ase Script aea Br ana.N Negpx w Tknmr. o«par mro a Fw 0, M, FN 'E DESCRIPTION ­M •I,kaF, sae- 100kW1ma WG OIL,. I., I Ipa prilic r & hNI • 18 W /kg e tp : T - Sq..W Ma pup.- D.INOfSa- .P ENT DESCRIPTION M•O.Om y11•BDm itn•DDm do. wan • OD m Aoe nrgle • OD m dw Base apere IMwr kv<I • 0. ti•OD 0.0 dw a<a -m/ rpann.rM Maoe spa • OD m em sn epb • 0➢ m p Y<ptn.D ➢m ILDING DESCRIPTION on ore wF<Ip moll. I.s m DNE MODEL DESCRIPTION me t,oe TN19. EpI. s2 Dm�D. Em. ss /w.vm. -wM pYa.,e, fm,1i brq aawtx seuoe pa pnxq. to aa�srmm.mr pYao< a openap ups a-q moanr DYx•f .nx wme <IpYq«wr oke txnp<ralae tM<n as tM arxaw 1«[M IL�r<afsaf Imm byx m xpwa<a. ra,rnre kssas Imm byx pa fmYla.q. Lify to a niknire fpn sz xelE o1 smote paNCles • OD13 kphq IITILITION PROVISIONS J Dobson Ice Arena CAWINDOWSWEMP\0002APPENDIX C -SMOKE ANALYSIS.DOC Page D2 Ove Arup & Partners Consulting Engineers PC Draft I May 5, 2001 Town of Vail, Colorado C -3. FAST GROWTH RATE FIRE Fik Virg GeMe Docuner4s Help Fire Model Results Case Script iDODTOn Prena FFe MrW � :. B121dry Sllld(G I it i 1' Ploeesa t f Run FYe II Rut Dobson Ice Arena $IIIgIla I i LNwaMl4p scrtm xreln • OD m I BUILDING DESCRIPTION Time (a) Crtx<d by � Hedges on Th-day. Onceer Notes Total 19.2000 i Total I 120.0 6696 + I I fast Grown9 Fn 150.0 1046.2 7324 FIRE DESCRIPTION 36655.4 - 100.0 Fin [onstatz Coveive tnnun =1 11154.6 904713 63329.9 Nex rekase rne: 600 kwlmk 210.0 2050.6 1435.5 Fn load Denny • 0 NU I m 100553.6 Vets off 240.0 Calonric value o11uN = 18 NU Ikg 1874.9 214405.9 150081.2 Frre type T Sgtland 27001 3389.8 2372.91 FR Mx outpu = 0 0465 s t a k W 213679.2 62.30 �'. COMPARTMENTDESCRIPTION 2929.5 418709.3 2930%.5 wdh 0.0m 330.0 5063.9 3544.7 Herpre • Do m 390093.7 Vats off 3600 Depn =ODm 42185 723469.3 506458.5 oM Miatn • D D m 390.0 70727 4950.9 oo -00m 643858.7 88.29 j • aDOn 14Nr kv0 •0 0m Dase b... 5741.8 11487742 804141.9 Fbor -- 0.0 ma 450.0 9416.3 6591 4 14129083 9890218 Z < -2.116 74m1 VeNs off 480.0 Lortpa4- surrace ana • 0.0 m 31.33 10448 000 = 000 Bakany B dWm • 00 m rDOny dean = 0-0 m 21 Z <• Z11710m1 VeNs olf $IIIgIla I i LNwaMl4p scrtm xreln • OD m I BUILDING DESCRIPTION Time (a) He Release (" Heat Release (W) Notes Total CDnrectlre i Total iCorindve 120.0 6696 468 7 268175 18772.2 8.51 150.0 1046.2 7324 523648 36655.4 4136 100.0 1506.6 11154.6 904713 63329.9 23729 210.0 2050.6 1435.5 1436480 100553.6 Vets off 240.0 2678.4 1874.9 214405.9 150081.2 731 27001 3389.8 2372.91 305256.0 213679.2 62.30 300.0 4185.0 2929.5 418709.3 2930%.5 421851 330.0 5063.9 3544.7 557276.7 390093.7 Vats off 3600 6026 4 42185 723469.3 506458.5 6.30 390.0 70727 4950.9 919798.2 643858.7 88.29 4200 8202 6 5741.8 11487742 804141.9 6591 4 450.0 9416.3 6591 4 14129083 9890218 Z < -2.116 74m1 VeNs off File View [4-tie Doclmmlts Help - - r Smoke Model Results Fire Mm a�V 511011! Pro - 0"b" R- Fire E PhINN (1n Dase to root) • 14.6 m F-1 area li< DYOr rail aw i SMOKE MODEL DESCRIPTION Plane type'. TMi B. Eqn. 5 2 all AF. 002<0. W ]]. Aisvmmxnc pkane. sm d brye diamwer source Do nn efrxpe to ausynrrMrlc plume x opmvg jM arM -fir, Plume .IMn 11ame mpnpmKr aas Smoke I'mP<rxUt Iakm as tM average for[M ayn IRa6xlre losses imn Byer n« kwwd<a. I [onn„a,re msses rrom by <r nA incwded. IDa]y to a nikcTlr. sib. ss yMld or smaN< p.-, = 0.026 kgkg ENTILATION PROVISIONS type. No WNilalion Case Script Crtxed DY apart. Fkdpes m t-day. On-- 10. 2DOO Fasl Grt Fn - FIRE DESCRIPTION Fre Cons , [onrenir<rrtnun -101 Hex rekase me =500 kW Ima F. Load DmsaV • D -I, m a Cxmfre value of IW = IB NU 1 kg Fir. type' T. Squared Fie Mx onpu • 00455 .I a kw COMPARTMENT DESCRIPTIDN h=ODm Wpa•OOm D.qh =ODm e -•00m oa Mrya =DDT •Dase aDOre rkor krN • D D m i fbor� arta0 0 m s •OOms Compagmera aveace arte • 0 0 m � b=DOO j axcony nagb • 00 m aakonyawN =DDm LKamelVp screen .ktn • OD m ' I BUILDING DESCRIPTION Nagll (in DaF<ta mol) = 14.6 m ibor area Ne'. 0lor ral.art I SMOKE MODEL DESCRIPTION Plumelyp< TM9. Eqn. 52 Aso DO]4O. Eqn ]3 Ae,symmnac *11 small brye eamxx swore. Do pat chxge to anayrmrelra plane x opevq ID � xw m.a1y Plum. rrm rbm...n�gm »r Smoke nmperiurt 1ak.n as In¢ average for the Yer ICI Raaiaare losses rmm bym na bckrded. I emaaa�re bss.s itpn bym na �ckw<d. -Rkk to a rtlknive sign. s ykla or smoxe p.-I • 0 025 k0kg ENTILATIDN PROVISIONS. type: 1b VimblMb- C- \WINDOWS \TEMP \0002APPENDIX C - SMOKE ANALYSIS.DOC Page D3 Ove Arup & Partners Consulting Engineers PC Draft I Mai 5, 2001 Co-d- MeA rVleeSe Smoke mass lbw (kg !s) SmaMe Temp. (C) Va4 mess ibw (kg fs) Clear Layer HW" (m) NsdaMy (m) Hales k 14355 2842 3581 000 8.51 81 Vets off 18749 2646 4136 000 808 65 Vans off 23729 2828 4760 000 768 5 3 Vets off 2929.5 27.94 5457 0.DO 731 44 Vents off 3544.7 27.47 62.30 0.00 6.96 3.7 Vents off 36001 421851 26.82 70841 0 D 6.63 32 Vats off 390.0 4950.9 25.98 80.23 0.00 6.30 2.7 Vets off 4200 5741.8 43.15 88.29 0.00 5.06 2.5 Z <- Z116.38m1 Vents otf 450.0 6591 4 40.34 95.82 0.00 5.35 2.3 Z < -2.116 74m1 VeNs off 480.0 7499 5 31.33 10448 000 486 21 Z <• Z11710m1 VeNs olf 510.0 8466.3 3421 11430 0.00 441 1.9 Z <• ZI 17.65m VeNs oll 540.0 9491.6 3101 12535 0.00 3.98 1.7 Z <- ZI 17 BOIRI Vets tI �. ........,,111■..''•'._.. 1111 � ■ ................... , PhINN (1n Dase to root) • 14.6 m F-1 area li< DYOr rail aw i SMOKE MODEL DESCRIPTION Plane type'. TMi B. Eqn. 5 2 all AF. 002<0. W ]]. Aisvmmxnc pkane. sm d brye diamwer source Do nn efrxpe to ausynrrMrlc plume x opmvg jM arM -fir, Plume .IMn 11ame mpnpmKr aas Smoke I'mP<rxUt Iakm as tM average for[M ayn IRa6xlre losses imn Byer n« kwwd<a. I [onn„a,re msses rrom by <r nA incwded. IDa]y to a nikcTlr. sib. ss yMld or smaN< p.-, = 0.026 kgkg ENTILATION PROVISIONS type. No WNilalion Case Script Crtxed DY apart. Fkdpes m t-day. On-- 10. 2DOO Fasl Grt Fn - FIRE DESCRIPTION Fre Cons , [onrenir<rrtnun -101 Hex rekase me =500 kW Ima F. Load DmsaV • D -I, m a Cxmfre value of IW = IB NU 1 kg Fir. type' T. Squared Fie Mx onpu • 00455 .I a kw COMPARTMENT DESCRIPTIDN h=ODm Wpa•OOm D.qh =ODm e -•00m oa Mrya =DDT •Dase aDOre rkor krN • D D m i fbor� arta0 0 m s •OOms Compagmera aveace arte • 0 0 m � b=DOO j axcony nagb • 00 m aakonyawN =DDm LKamelVp screen .ktn • OD m ' I BUILDING DESCRIPTION Nagll (in DaF<ta mol) = 14.6 m ibor area Ne'. 0lor ral.art I SMOKE MODEL DESCRIPTION Plumelyp< TM9. Eqn. 52 Aso DO]4O. Eqn ]3 Ae,symmnac *11 small brye eamxx swore. Do pat chxge to anayrmrelra plane x opevq ID � xw m.a1y Plum. rrm rbm...n�gm »r Smoke nmperiurt 1ak.n as In¢ average for the Yer ICI Raaiaare losses rmm bym na bckrded. I emaaa�re bss.s itpn bym na �ckw<d. -Rkk to a rtlknive sign. s ykla or smoxe p.-I • 0 025 k0kg ENTILATIDN PROVISIONS. type: 1b VimblMb- C- \WINDOWS \TEMP \0002APPENDIX C - SMOKE ANALYSIS.DOC Page D3 Ove Arup & Partners Consulting Engineers PC Draft I Mai 5, 2001 Co-d- MeA rVleeSe Smoke mass lbw (kg !s) SmaMe Temp. (C) Va4 mess ibw (kg fs) Clear Layer HW" (m) NsdaMy (m) Hales k 14355 2842 3581 000 8.51 81 Vets off 18749 2646 4136 000 808 65 Vans off 23729 2828 4760 000 768 5 3 Vets off 2929.5 27.94 5457 0.DO 731 44 Vents off 3544.7 27.47 62.30 0.00 6.96 3.7 Vents off 36001 421851 26.82 70841 0 D 6.63 32 Vats off 390.0 4950.9 25.98 80.23 0.00 6.30 2.7 Vets off 4200 5741.8 43.15 88.29 0.00 5.06 2.5 Z <- Z116.38m1 Vents otf 450.0 6591 4 40.34 95.82 0.00 5.35 2.3 Z < -2.116 74m1 VeNs off 480.0 7499 5 31.33 10448 000 486 21 Z <• Z11710m1 VeNs olf 510.0 8466.3 3421 11430 0.00 441 1.9 Z <• ZI 17.65m VeNs oll 540.0 9491.6 3101 12535 0.00 3.98 1.7 Z <- ZI 17 BOIRI Vets tI �. PhINN (1n Dase to root) • 14.6 m F-1 area li< DYOr rail aw i SMOKE MODEL DESCRIPTION Plane type'. TMi B. Eqn. 5 2 all AF. 002<0. W ]]. Aisvmmxnc pkane. sm d brye diamwer source Do nn efrxpe to ausynrrMrlc plume x opmvg jM arM -fir, Plume .IMn 11ame mpnpmKr aas Smoke I'mP<rxUt Iakm as tM average for[M ayn IRa6xlre losses imn Byer n« kwwd<a. I [onn„a,re msses rrom by <r nA incwded. IDa]y to a nikcTlr. sib. ss yMld or smaN< p.-, = 0.026 kgkg ENTILATION PROVISIONS type. No WNilalion Case Script Crtxed DY apart. Fkdpes m t-day. On-- 10. 2DOO Fasl Grt Fn - FIRE DESCRIPTION Fre Cons , [onrenir<rrtnun -101 Hex rekase me =500 kW Ima F. Load DmsaV • D -I, m a Cxmfre value of IW = IB NU 1 kg Fir. type' T. Squared Fie Mx onpu • 00455 .I a kw COMPARTMENT DESCRIPTIDN h=ODm Wpa•OOm D.qh =ODm e -•00m oa Mrya =DDT •Dase aDOre rkor krN • D D m i fbor� arta0 0 m s •OOms Compagmera aveace arte • 0 0 m � b=DOO j axcony nagb • 00 m aakonyawN =DDm LKamelVp screen .ktn • OD m ' I BUILDING DESCRIPTION Nagll (in DaF<ta mol) = 14.6 m ibor area Ne'. 0lor ral.art I SMOKE MODEL DESCRIPTION Plumelyp< TM9. Eqn. 52 Aso DO]4O. Eqn ]3 Ae,symmnac *11 small brye eamxx swore. Do pat chxge to anayrmrelra plane x opevq ID � xw m.a1y Plum. rrm rbm...n�gm »r Smoke nmperiurt 1ak.n as In¢ average for the Yer ICI Raaiaare losses rmm bym na bckrded. I emaaa�re bss.s itpn bym na �ckw<d. -Rkk to a rtlknive sign. s ykla or smoxe p.-I • 0 025 k0kg ENTILATIDN PROVISIONS. type: 1b VimblMb- C- \WINDOWS \TEMP \0002APPENDIX C - SMOKE ANALYSIS.DOC Page D3 Ove Arup & Partners Consulting Engineers PC Draft I Mai 5, 2001 Town of Vail, Colorado C -4. MEDIUM GROWTH RATE FIRE Dobson Ice Arena III Q X File View D-te D.Uivi p H* Fire Model Results _.. ____ -_ _ -__ _- Case Script -- F and: Buldrg Smoke Process OFII Or15 Run Fae I Run Smoke Bakony depM • 0 0 m Cnsnelknp screen Math - B D m ool�son Arena I ere M by mart. Hedges on TvasdaY. OctaOer IB, 2000 Gva«ip Fire '.. FIRE DESCRIPTION Fir< COry - Ganvectiw fxtkn • 70 Y Heal ukase rte • WD kW I m j Fke tpad DensrtY = 0 AU / m 1 C «odfk rakre of fuel • IB W Ikp I � Rretype.T SW.r Flee heat -ppA • 0.0120 A 1 k kW I COMPARTMENT DESCRIPTION wlem•DOm R «pM =DDm I Dept, WWdw MMh =00m !, YbindoM helpta = DO m j yNndoM base abo.e 11oor krel • O D m Fbor ma = 0.0 m 0 i W- GO m� Companmwd 0 D m d. = 0.00 Bakony MqM • 0 0 m Time (s) Heat Release (kW) Heat Release (kJ) Notes Total Convective E Total s Convective 5400 34992 24494 630031.0 441021 7 5700 38988 27292 740%7.0 518676.9 600.0 43200 30240 864216.0 604951.2 630.0 4762.8 3334.0 100042602 700298.3 660.0 5227.2 3659.0 1150245.4 805171.8 69001 57112 3999.2 13143211 920025.2 7200 . 6220.8 4354.6 14933031 1045312.1 750.0 6750.0 4725.0 1687837.5 1161486.3 ?80.0 7300.8 5110.6 18985731 1329001.1 8100 7873.2 5511 2 2126157.7 1488310.4 8400 8467.2 59270 2371239.4 1659867.6 870.0 %82.8 63580 2634466.2 18441263 Fib View C-R Docu -A, Help Smoke Model Results - Fire WW BI%dlFg Smoke Races 177Jt10'LS Fee Rut Srmke . .... ..... . . . .... . ....... ... .. . ............... C. \WINDOWS \TEMP \0002APPENDIX C - SMOKE ANALYSIS.DOC BUILDING DESCRIPTION Hl (five Wse to roof)- 145 Fbor -fik OtorvMI- SMOKE MODEL DESCRIPTION PNu type: T1119. Eq, 52 pso 00340. Eqs. 33 . adsymrMmp pW small ana krye au,Nter awloe. i D. - chanl4 tc aaisymmMlnc plume at opennA hegN Detect and modfy plane Moen Ill urs SmWe temper tare taken at the arenpe for [he kyer RadMNve fosses from kyer iwt inc40td. CmducYlve bsses from layer na bckdM I`lek to a rtf4ct re W' A4,s Yield of smoke pxicks • OD25 kpMp VENTILATION PROVISIONS J - -J Case Script Dotson hang C,MuW by md-, HedOes on Tvnday, October 19, 2000 '. nedhan faoM«A Fke . F F IRE DESCRIPTION c�i ea ns C iradan • 70 Y H ukase rate 50131-1 F IMad Dense, • 0 MI I m , C..f,c value of I N • 18 W I kA Fire type T SWared Fee Mat - -•00120 a t A kW COMPARTMENT DESCRIPTION vlmm� =DDm H «Ak =DDm Degn•OOm vMnaoM Mean • D.D m '. MMndoM Ease afore IIMtt keel • OD m '. Fbor ana • 0 0 m � MA- ana =00m C-P nmem -- arta • 0 0 ma d.•0m Bakony "I,t = 0.0 akony m B dean • 0 0 m ChiMellnp scorn Mkth • 0,0 m { BUILDING DESCRIPTION H«pk (flrt base to roof) • 14.5 m Fk r ana fik D for rail.an iSMOKE MODEL DESCRIPTION j j % . DD74D. pe. TN19, .>K oD2 Eqn d 2 I I Eqn. 33_ adsrmmnnc pk,me, :.�alli Iii a Samex soume. II Do nor cnanpe to ansymmetne Dome a opmnA I � M<R and modify pMn Mwn Ikme impnpeme� 1 Smoke nmpentue taken as the arenpe IDr Sue yer. I j Riiii bsses I- byer na mc4ded. I I Condualre bsses fnm kyer nor kwbded. I '4PEky to a nfkpti.e'W s Yk1d of smoke pmides 0 025 kAMD %. NTILATI ON PROVISIONS Page D4 Ove Arup & Partners Consulting Engineers PC Draft I May 5, 2001 man lot VeTts OR :1 IIIIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIIIII '�IIIIIIIIIIIIIII� 111®'' 1111111111111111111111®' "' II�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII� ' off - oil GO - vil .'e 111111111111 1111111111111111115♦' 'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII� 111® off . .... ..... . . . .... . ....... ... .. . ............... C. \WINDOWS \TEMP \0002APPENDIX C - SMOKE ANALYSIS.DOC BUILDING DESCRIPTION Hl (five Wse to roof)- 145 Fbor -fik OtorvMI- SMOKE MODEL DESCRIPTION PNu type: T1119. Eq, 52 pso 00340. Eqs. 33 . adsymrMmp pW small ana krye au,Nter awloe. i D. - chanl4 tc aaisymmMlnc plume at opennA hegN Detect and modfy plane Moen Ill urs SmWe temper tare taken at the arenpe for [he kyer RadMNve fosses from kyer iwt inc40td. CmducYlve bsses from layer na bckdM I`lek to a rtf4ct re W' A4,s Yield of smoke pxicks • OD25 kpMp VENTILATION PROVISIONS J - -J Case Script Dotson hang C,MuW by md-, HedOes on Tvnday, October 19, 2000 '. nedhan faoM«A Fke . F F IRE DESCRIPTION c�i ea ns C iradan • 70 Y H ukase rate 50131-1 F IMad Dense, • 0 MI I m , C..f,c value of I N • 18 W I kA Fire type T SWared Fee Mat - -•00120 a t A kW COMPARTMENT DESCRIPTION vlmm� =DDm H «Ak =DDm Degn•OOm vMnaoM Mean • D.D m '. MMndoM Ease afore IIMtt keel • OD m '. Fbor ana • 0 0 m � MA- ana =00m C-P nmem -- arta • 0 0 ma d.•0m Bakony "I,t = 0.0 akony m B dean • 0 0 m ChiMellnp scorn Mkth • 0,0 m { BUILDING DESCRIPTION H«pk (flrt base to roof) • 14.5 m Fk r ana fik D for rail.an iSMOKE MODEL DESCRIPTION j j % . DD74D. pe. TN19, .>K oD2 Eqn d 2 I I Eqn. 33_ adsrmmnnc pk,me, :.�alli Iii a Samex soume. II Do nor cnanpe to ansymmetne Dome a opmnA I � M<R and modify pMn Mwn Ikme impnpeme� 1 Smoke nmpentue taken as the arenpe IDr Sue yer. I j Riiii bsses I- byer na mc4ded. I I Condualre bsses fnm kyer nor kwbded. I '4PEky to a nfkpti.e'W s Yk1d of smoke pmides 0 025 kAMD %. NTILATI ON PROVISIONS Page D4 Ove Arup & Partners Consulting Engineers PC Draft I May 5, 2001 Town of Vail. Colorado Dobson Ice Arena SLOW GROWTH Heat Release (k" y'T -zAM Vn 1.9 June 2000 eQ�i File V,,­ DeateDxumerit.� Help Convective Fire Model Case Script 540.0 845.6 591.9 152257.5 106500.2 1fi18 570.0 942.2 659.5 179067.0 125346.9 600.0 1044.0 730.8 19. 2DOC 146196.5 6.91 630.0 1151.0 805.7 2417691 169238.8 1580 660.0 1263.2 884.3 2779780 194583.2 690.0 1380.7 966.5 3176273 222339.4 6.56 720.0 1503.4 1052.4 360691.6 252617.1 15.14 750,0 1631.3 1141.9 407894.1 285525.8 780.0 1764.4 1235.1 458821.8 321175.3 6.22 010.0 19027 1331.9 513821.4 359675.0 11.95 840.0 20482 1432.4 5730415 401134.7 - - 870.0 2195.0 1536.5 6366627 115663.9 5.90 6.1 Vents off 810.0 1331.9 11.12 15.05 000 5.75 5.7 Veils Off BI0.0 14321 1/.13 17.34 0.00 5.60 5.3 Vents dl 870.0 15385 13.82 19.75 600 5.45 4.9 VeNS all ,,, kW 111111111111111111111111''1'111 1111111111111111;"'' /'1111111 COMPARTMENT DESCRIPTION 00 11111111111111��..�i11111111111 : RM Fire 111111�!::ii1111111111111111111 00 120 110 240 X0 300 420 410 50 M "D 7W M 84 Vhb� 0 D Heat Release W againstrime (a) File view C FFe •sd : Blifiy i� S1EIDts PI'OCeSa OPIM= I, Fa• R� Smok- e it I 1 Time Heat Release (k" Heat Release (k)) Notes Total Convective S Total SConvectrie 540.0 845.6 591.9 152257.5 106500.2 1fi18 570.0 942.2 659.5 179067.0 125346.9 600.0 1044.0 730.8 2088522 146196.5 6.91 630.0 1151.0 805.7 2417691 169238.8 1580 660.0 1263.2 884.3 2779780 194583.2 690.0 1380.7 966.5 3176273 222339.4 6.56 720.0 1503.4 1052.4 360691.6 252617.1 15.14 750,0 1631.3 1141.9 407894.1 285525.8 780.0 1764.4 1235.1 458821.8 321175.3 6.22 010.0 19027 1331.9 513821.4 359675.0 11.95 840.0 20482 1432.4 5730415 401134.7 - - 870.0 2195.0 1536.5 6366627 115663.9 5.90 III Bate DocumeNa Help Smoke Model Results i BUILDING DESCRIPTION I HYY•M (In Da,< M mot) • 14.5 m Ploor area rk D1a.,W.- SMOK E YODEL DESCRIPTION j Rt<lype: TNt9. Egn.Sz vsw DD74a. Eqi. D]. Aaerrrsletri, pkme. ,mall 4r0< dianwer soum. Do rM <hape to ausYr^^ralric plume Y opernD Oa14ct aM modify IMnle Ikrn<kripr:p<trMr Smok<2mlperatue tW<n ss lM av,r lath i rer Rath.. k,s<, fmm Nye nM -d. CatMa[ire Mzes born kYer rat k i KkKl. "y toanrk,ti s,I, s rkk of :„ak< per ties = D Dn kDhf NTILATION PROVISIONS J !. I, I: I Time (a) Convedlrc F1etY rek:•u Smoke mesa �,, (kB h) Smoke Telrq. ('L7 Vera mess Illlw (kg /5) pes Layer MaYRf (m) Visibility (m) Flolm 570.0 659.5 1fi18 30.22 O.f10 7.69 11.0 Vert•df 60040 730.8 1805 31.75 0.00 6.91 10.0 Vents df 630.0 805.7 1580 33.38 0.00 6.74 9.2 VeNS off 690.0 884.3 1567 35.09 0.00 6.56 . 8./ VeNs off 690.0 969.5 15.14 3869 0.00 6.39 7.7 Vents off 720.0 10524 15.20 38.78 0.00 6.22 7.1 Vents off 750.0 1141.9 11.95 /0.77 Q00 6.06 6.6 Vents df - 780.0 1235.1 1 /.W /2.86 0.00 5.90 6.1 Vents off 810.0 1331.9 11.12 15.05 000 5.75 5.7 Veils Off BI0.0 14321 1/.13 17.34 0.00 5.60 5.3 Vents dl 870.0 15385 13.82 19.75 600 5.45 4.9 VeNS all _ B x I Case Script - - -- Dm :en wa,a crta[<d by a�a.. N<d•es on Tkasd<1'. aa<e<r 19.2000 j Ya. Gowp Pke FIRE DESCRIPTION I FIr4 CoMaNs jCenvtwiv< fnaion • ro i 1" rtlu,e 1e•11D4W /ma iln lead Dens<y • 0 MI / m i CalaYfk wake of fuN - IS 141 /kf � Fn tpA. T - Sprar<A ! fke MY oupul • OD010 a [ � kYl' COMPARTMENT DESCRIPTION YNdm•DDm Hei•M • OD m Oepte • 0D m ! wlneoa .am • oA m '. YNndw MYM • OA m i YVmdo. ease aeove Iba keel • OD m floor arts -pDm/ ndw arts • D.D m I I C4mpanm<M suriao< arts = 0.0 m % .DDo i wkeny MpM • OA m lrcany dpN • DO m ChmeYZq urten .:dm = 0 0 m j BUILDING DESCRIPTION llaipt (fart ease to mol) = 14.5 m P1oor arts f4' O to nil n I iSMOKE MODEL DESCRIPTION nNltMtyp<: TA19. EOTt. 32 � e DD740, E4i� 31 Altlsvmmenc pMM. smart Iw•. eamNa soum.. � De tw[ cMrge [o aakvmmeno plume a opain0 ID.tea and mo3ry pk,nthen nam< •reero<m <r i fmoke trarp<mN<tak4n as tM average ratM Yer. I RaelNrt<k,,., Iran bv.r:at aakre.a. I Iron: nr<r na InekMM. .. Y to a relkcllre slpl. s, yk+d o1 make paeoks • 0 D15 M•M• J C: \WINDOWS \TEMP \0002APPENDIX C -SMOKE ANALYSIS.DOC Page DS Ove Arup &Part ners Consulting Engineers PC Draft 1 May 5, 2001 D15 M•M• J C: \WINDOWS \TEMP \0002APPENDIX C -SMOKE ANALYSIS.DOC Page DS Ove Arup &Part ners Consulting Engineers PC Draft 1 May 5, 2001 Aruphre Appendix D Trial Designs Town of Vail, Colorado CONTENTS D -1. TRIAL DESIGN 1 - CONTROL MAXIMUM HEAT RELEASE RATE D -2. TRIAL DESIGN 2 - SMOKE MANAGEMENT Dobson Ice Arena F:\ GGOODELL \1CCPERF\DOBSON \0002APPENDIX D - TRIAL DESIGNS.DOC Ove Arup & Partners Consulting Engineers PC Draft 1 May 5, 2001 Town of Vail. Colorado Dobson Ice Arena D -1. TRIAL DESIGN 1 - CONTROL MAXIMUM HEAT RELEASE RATE In order to increase flexibility in use of the space, it may be possible to limit the heat release rate of the fuel, for fuels having a high fire growth rate. The following two figures illustrate that by limiting heat release rates to l MW and 0.75 MW for fast and ultra -fast growth rate fires respectively, that this should delay the descent of the upper layer to 8 feet above the mezzanine level to times that may be associated with that calculated for egress, including detection and pre- movement times. F:\ GGOODELL \ICCPERF\DOBSON\0002APPENDIX D - TRIAL DESIGNS. DOC Page D I Ove Arup & Partners Consulting Engineers PC Draft 1 May 5, 2001 Town of Vail, Colorado �<Xr.aw V« 2.1 U .ry 2W Re DescrWtron BWdmg Detaes Smoke NorMl I Verd#ztion OPtiorrs i Process Options I a Fire Type 7;? O x Fire and Fuel Con! 000 4w Convective fraction: Heat release rate: Fuel load. Calorific value for fuel 0004w Combustion efficiency Steady State Fire Compartment fire I o4w User defined: o w em W no M Heat Release (IA1Q against Time (s) Steady state after Steady state post fl Time HeatRelease(kW) HeatRelease2 "ate: Filt> -- File name: Figure D -1- Fast Fire With Maximum Heat Release Rate limited to 1 MW Dobson lee Arena _ 61i xl Figure D -2 - Smoke Level - Fast Fire With Maximum Heat Release Rate limited to 1 MW. F:\ GGOODELL \ICCPERF\DOBSON \0002APPENDIX D - TRIAL DESIGNS.DOC Page D2 Ove Arup & Partners Consulting Engineers PC Draft 1 May 5, 2001 Town of Vail, Colorado Fke Desorption ; gril" Doaas Smoke Model 1 Ventilation Option Process Ol#lons Fire Type iT- Squ, - Fire and Fuel Con Convective fraction: Heat release rate Fuel load Calon fi c value for fuel: Combustion efficiency Steady State Fire * Compartment fire: r Userdefined Steady state after: r Steady state post f File name Dobson Ice Arena _1011 XI Figure D -3 - Ultra Fast Fire With Maximum Heat Release Rate limited to 750 KW ,+.*' Tsaw Vera+ M"MV 20" sly! xJ F.. Description I BUINI g Detass I Smoke Me" I VenWm— 0O ns I Process Opfksu I Fire Type IT - 8qua x Fire and Fuel Con Convective fracti on. Heat release rate: Fuel load Calorific value for fuel Combustion efficiency Steady State Fire" Compartment fire Userdefined: f Steady state after. r Steady state post t ,;1 , F;;c Firc _ File name Figure D-4 — Smoke Layer for Fast Fire With Maximum Heat Release Rate limited to at 750 KW. F:\ GGOODELL \ICCPERF\DOBSON\0002APPENDIX D - TRIAL DESIGNS.DOC Page Dj Ove Arup & Partners Consulting Engineers PC Draft 1 May 5, 2001 Town of Vail, Colorado D -2. TRIAL DESIGN 2 - SMOKE MANAGEMENT El Dobson Ice Arena 1 Another means that could be used to increase the flexibility of the arena if it is desired to have fuel loads of fast/ultra -fast growth rates would be to provide a smoke management system. The following graph indicates the effect of 100,000 CFM of extract for a fast growth rate fire and its resultant delay in the descent of the upper layer. Figure D -5 Effect of Smoke Management System on Upper Layer Descent III 1< fie View CmMBD. -Rams H* - - -... _Smoke Model Results __ Case Script - -- - - i Fft Wm - �.. Bsdq J Fee I ' I MDI CnaN BY w PP IMGw. m wP4B WPINN, - moo IBIS' C.II..NF.. fan OP- Fn FIRE DESCRIPTION Nn CBrM.rb Cm..aM haNMm • TB S Nul slew Ike . NO YW /m4 in lmt D.INBY • O CaMi AN N hN - • 1. IB W W /YO Fr 1)p.. T 5pgrat Fln Mr. 0,IFQH5'tjkW / S.w N %UNMY _. NNS - U 0 000W COIPMTIENT DESCRIPTION n.oDm Dead, .ODm . }N •ODm MBB'O.Om Bawd.•. Ibd N.tl •ODm ikalana•DDma •ODm I � C.mP�BIwN w1sB /wa • BD m .911MIe � -- -- - NlBmy NNya • OD m Bak ,dSm, •" P CnnwtlNN sawn M!n -CAR, Tyne (s) c011VeLT"e HeM'ebsse (WY) ��IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII� 6mDke T-W CC) Vero - lbw (kg k) CbW LerW Heist (m) VISb41Y Im) Niles 930.0 7000.0 46.25 120.65 3754 696 2.4 !...�illll 960.0 7000.0 45.38 . IIII������IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII��B 6.75 24 Vents m Mleclive 9900 7000.0 44.57 125.99 37.45 665 23 ,��i��lllllllllll 1020.0 7000.0 4383 12848 37.22 6.56 IIIIIIIII Verism leffeCt a 10500 III���IIII��IIII 4314 130.90 36.99 647 !4e�111111111111111111111 Vents m e0ective 10800 7000.0 42.50 133.28 36.78 6.39 , Vents m eBectiYe Illlllllllllllllllr 7030 0 41.91 135.6D 36.57 632 ..��IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Vents On effectwe 1U0.0 7300.0 41.35 137.87 36.37 6.N 2.2 Verism eNective 1170.0 70000 IIIIIIIIIIIIIII��IIIIIIII���� 140.10 36.17 618 22 Verttm IeBective 1200.0 7000.0 4036 ...!����1111111111111 35.98 6.11 2.1 Vents m lellxllve 12300 70000 3990 IIIIIIIIIIIle11111111111111111111111111111111111� 35.80 6.05 2.1 Verism (e-t- 1260.0 7000.0 39.48 146.48 35.62 6.00 2.1 1111111!, illllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll . ����111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 CnaN BY w PP IMGw. m wP4B WPINN, - moo IBIS' C.II..NF.. fan OP- Fn FIRE DESCRIPTION Nn CBrM.rb Cm..aM haNMm • TB S Nul slew Ike . NO YW /m4 in lmt D.INBY • O CaMi AN N hN - • 1. IB W W /YO Fr 1)p.. T 5pgrat Fln Mr. 0,IFQH5'tjkW / S.w N %UNMY _. NNS - U 0 000W COIPMTIENT DESCRIPTION n.oDm Dead, .ODm . }N •ODm MBB'O.Om Bawd.•. Ibd N.tl •ODm ikalana•DDma •ODm I � C.mP�BIwN w1sB /wa • BD m .911MIe � -- -- - NlBmy NNya • OD m Bak ,dSm, •" P CnnwtlNN sawn M!n -CAR, Tyne (s) c011VeLT"e HeM'ebsse (WY) Smoke C e Ilow (kg h) 6mDke T-W CC) Vero - lbw (kg k) CbW LerW Heist (m) VISb41Y Im) Niles 930.0 7000.0 46.25 120.65 3754 696 2.4 Vert, m 1aHmW.1 960.0 7000.0 45.38 123.15 37.69 6.75 24 Vents m Mleclive 9900 7000.0 44.57 125.99 37.45 665 23 VenNm ellecI- 1020.0 7000.0 4383 12848 37.22 6.56 2.3 Verism leffeCt a 10500 7000.0 4314 130.90 36.99 647 203 Vents m e0ective 10800 7000.0 42.50 133.28 36.78 6.39 22 Vents m eBectiYe 1110.01 7030 0 41.91 135.6D 36.57 632 2.2 Vents On effectwe 1U0.0 7300.0 41.35 137.87 36.37 6.N 2.2 Verism eNective 1170.0 70000 40.84 140.10 36.17 618 22 Verttm IeBective 1200.0 7000.0 4036 142.27 35.98 6.11 2.1 Vents m lellxllve 12300 70000 3990 WAG 35.80 6.05 2.1 Verism (e-t- 1260.0 7000.0 39.48 146.48 35.62 6.00 2.1 Was effective BUILDING DESCRIPTION N.iBN On Ss» I. Iv ,) • 14.6 m FYwra •m00.a ma SMOKE YODEL DESCRIPTION Pnmwt,e._ NFPAWB. Em. 14 NxI -ivew 1MIB Fgn.61 / DOMB. Eqs. 3J IWrrmwllk WnE MY I.. aBw. 11NBYN nei N - FPMxM- atarrlwek 0- a _N A.qN. De.w MNI Away PY . a1I. Yrengm.r Rata N. base hwn brw Iw LwN4aE. c«rlm.. rn.. N.m Ny.r nw n..•tat. rn anaaNe Elm. a yNMI el Fm W. BneMF • DAN Yp�p With Ventilation (100,000 cfm) NTILATDNrRDVSIDNf _j F:\ GGOODELL \ICCPERF\DOBSON\0002APPENDIX D- TRIAL DESIGNS. DOC Page D4 Ove Arup & Partners Consulting Engineers PC Draft 1 May 5, 2001 r