See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/373168986

A Primer and Success Stories on Performance-based Fire Design of Structures

Article in Journal of Structural Fire Engineering · August 2023

DOI: 10.1108/JSFE-01-2023-0002

CITATIONS READS
0 96

2 authors, including:

M.Z. Naser
Clemson University
221 PUBLICATIONS 3,974 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by M.Z. Naser on 17 August 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 This is a preprint draft. The published article can be found at: https://doi.org/10.1108/JSFE-01-2023-0002.

Please cite this paper as:

Craig D., Naser M.Z., (2023). “A Primer and Success Stories on Performance-based Fire Design of
Structures.” Journal of Structural Fire Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSFE-01-2023-0002.

1 A Primer and Success Stories on Performance-based Fire Design of Structures

2 Craig D., Naser M.Z.
3 School of Civil and Environmental Engineering & Earth Science (SCEEES), Clemson University,
4 Clemson, SC 29634, USA
5 E-mail: [email protected], E-mail: [email protected], Website: www.mznaser.com

6 Abstract
7 Purpose
8 The extreme nature of fire makes structural fire engineering unique in that the load actions
9 dictating design are intense and not geographically nor seasonally bound. Simply, fire can
10 break out anywhere, at any time, and for any number of reasons. Despite the apparent need,
11 the fire design of structures still relies on expensive fire tests, complex finite element
12 simulations, and outdated procedures with little room for innovation.

13 Design/methodology/approach
14 This primer highlights the latest state of the art in this area with regard to performance-
15 based design in fire structural engineering. In addition, this short review also presents a
16 series of examples of successful implementation of performance-based fire design of
17 structures from around the world.

18 Findings
19 A comparison between global efforts clearly shows the advances put forth by European
20 and Oceanian efforts as opposed to the rest of the world. In addition, it can be clearly seen
21 that most performance-based fire designs are related to steel and composite structures.

22 Originality
23 In one study, this paper presents a concise and global view to performance-based fire
24 design of structures from success stories from around the world.

25 Keywords: Building codes; Performance-based fire design; Structural fire engineering.

26 Introduction
27 Over the past decades, fire statistics have improved, marking a 42% decrease in total deaths
28 from 1980; yet the same statistics continue to show the adverse impact of fire on our
29 communities. For example, according to the National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA), in
30 2021, local fire departments in the United States responded to calls for approximately 1.35
31 million fires [1]. These fires led to 3,800 civilian deaths and 14,700 injuries, not to mention
32 roughly $15.9 billion worth of property damage. Despite only 36% of those fires taking
33 place in structures, they accounted for 79% of civilian deaths and 80% of property damages
34 for the year, a seemingly disproportionate amount.
35 The volatile nature of fire and its dependency upon its surroundings' conditions to
36 determine its key characteristics make fire a challenging medium to predict and quantify
37 [2]. The direct application of experimental fire tests requires creating standard structural
38 tests under elevated temperatures, which in turn requires sophisticated equipment Error!

1
 This is a preprint draft. The published article can be found at: https://doi.org/10.1108/JSFE-01-2023-0002.

Please cite this paper as:

Craig D., Naser M.Z., (2023). “A Primer and Success Stories on Performance-based Fire Design of
Structures.” Journal of Structural Fire Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSFE-01-2023-0002.

39 Reference source not found.. This limits access to such tests, both because they are
40 expensive and because it is specialized. On the other hand, the finite element models used
41 to predict the behavior of fire-exposed structures can get complex, as they require much
42 theoretical knowledge of the software's inner workings to accurately represent the physical
43 systems. Unlike the above, this limitation can be overcome affordably.
44 Regarding codal provisions and procedures, most building codes rely on the more
45 traditional, conservative prescriptive approach to fire resistance design and analysis [3].
46 This approach builds on the results from standardized tests. The more modern approach is
47 the performance-based design approach. This approach allows the engineer some
48 flexibility in design as long as adequate safety can be demonstrated. While progress is
49 being made to shift some of the fire engineering design standards from a prescriptive to a
50 performance-based approach, the latter is slow going and mainly utilized for specific cases
51 rather than uniformity across the board.
52 Before diving into the performance-based fire design approach, it can be helpful to briefly
53 go over the fundamental of structural and structural fire engineering. Structural engineering
54 is the discipline within civil engineering responsible for designing and analyzing structural
55 systems often seen, but not strictly limited to, buildings and bridges. These analyses are
56 typically focused on stability and serviceability requirements. Stability references the
57 strength of the system, while serviceability refers to the deformation, vibration, and other
58 factors that influence how comfortable and safe the occupants feel while in the building.
59 While designing any structure, the final product must be suitable for a number of different
60 conditions. Some conditions are dependent on the expected function and/or use of the
61 building, mainly when considering the magnitude and type of loading that any given
62 element in the building can be expected to encounter, along with a reasonable margin for
63 error to account for material inconsistencies, future adaptability of the structure, and more
64 general uncertainties of design. Other situations depend on extreme events, such as
65 earthquakes, hurricanes, etc.
66 In the case of fire, the prescriptive approach specifies the fire resistance rating for
67 individual structural elements based on a standard fire curve (ASTM E119) [4]. Figure 1
68 depicts the time-temperature curves for the standard fire used in ASTM E119, as well as
69 its European counterpart, ISO 834 [5].

2
 This is a preprint draft. The published article can be found at: https://doi.org/10.1108/JSFE-01-2023-0002.

Please cite this paper as:

Craig D., Naser M.Z., (2023). “A Primer and Success Stories on Performance-based Fire Design of
Structures.” Journal of Structural Fire Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSFE-01-2023-0002.

70
71 Figure 1: Standard fire design curves. (Source: Authors own work)
72 The prescriptive approach starts at the component level. Theoretically, if a building is
73 composed of all elements up to a certain fire resistance rating, the requirement of which is
74 based on the occupancy classification of the structure, then the building as a whole will
75 stand up to that rating. Each element is given a conservative fire resistance rating based on
76 previous broadly applicable research. These ratings are then simplified to hour(s) or
77 fractions of hour(s) [6].
78 Ratings can be categorized into generic ratings, proprietary ratings, and approved
79 calculation methods. Generic ratings refer to the fire resistance of popular construction
80 materials, given mainly in building codes, such as concrete and structural steel. In contrast,
81 proprietary ratings are based on the manufacturers of a building product as obtained from
82 verified fire resistance tests completed to determine the rating used for each individual
83 product. Approved calculation methods are a set of calculations the engineers can run to
84 verify their proposed design work. This method is the least popular of the three, as it
85 requires more labor on the part of the designing engineer.
86 Prescriptive methods, while simple to incorporate into design, can be a bit conservative
87 and inconsistent. The fire rating system was created as a simplified, uniform procedure
88 based on risk probabilities; this means the members' resistance is evaluated with
89 standardized furnace test heating [7,8]. Since fire is such a variable event, the correlation
90 between the behavior of the element under testing and under actual fire conditions it may
91 face is bound to fluctuate wildly. That's not to mention that the entire fire-rating system
92 was originally only supposed to apply to "common" buildings. This makes a bit of a grey
93 area for buildings with unique geometry/features or mixed-use occupancy. Best practices
94 developed over the years have given practicing engineers guidelines to minimize these

3
 This is a preprint draft. The published article can be found at: https://doi.org/10.1108/JSFE-01-2023-0002.

Please cite this paper as:

Craig D., Naser M.Z., (2023). “A Primer and Success Stories on Performance-based Fire Design of
Structures.” Journal of Structural Fire Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSFE-01-2023-0002.

95 concerns, but they have come into question in recent years, leading most countries to take
96 on a more holistic approach to structural fire engineering.
97 Performance-based design is specific to each project; it sets specific performance goals for
98 when the structure is exposed to elevated temperatures rather than regulating the
99 construction side of matters. The performance-based approach thus allows for more
100 innovation for the engineers, as it doesn't restrict the design process as long as adequate
101 safety can be demonstrated, equal to that required of the prescriptive approach. When
102 comparing performance metrics like deflection and thermal analysis for designs with each
103 approach, the performance-based designs retained similar load-bearing capabilities to the
104 prescriptive approach when taking into account the required fire-resistance rating [9].
105 While both approaches are theoretically similar in terms of performance metrics, the
106 performance-based design "offers more flexibility and potential cost reductions, owing to
107 the fact that it takes into account system behavior and/or more realistic fire exposure" [10].
108 This makes it desirable to clients, as it can be more efficient should it be completed
109 correctly. Both approaches have their advantages; the performance-based approach can be
110 adapted to unique designs or to cut costs without sacrificing safety, while the prescriptive
111 approach has more conservative results and is typically easier for the engineer to
112 implement.
113 The movement towards a more holistic approach to fire structural engineering can, in part,
114 be attributed to the recent advancements in modeling and machine learning. With these
115 new resources available, performance-based designs can be as efficient in terms of time or
116 labor from the designated engineer as the prescriptive approach. As stated before, fire
117 breakouts are not dependent upon a geographical location or seasonal timeline but very
118 much upon the surrounding environment. The room's geometry, the materials in it, air
119 ventilation, and more contribute to the fire behavior. To get an accurate representation of
120 the effects of fire on a certain structure without the need for complex calculations and
121 specialized education, software is commonly used. Basic software, like OZone, depicted
122 in Figure 2 [11].

4
 This is a preprint draft. The published article can be found at: https://doi.org/10.1108/JSFE-01-2023-0002.

Please cite this paper as:

Craig D., Naser M.Z., (2023). “A Primer and Success Stories on Performance-based Fire Design of
Structures.” Journal of Structural Fire Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSFE-01-2023-0002.

123
124 Figure 2: Sample of previously developed fire-resistance software, Ozone [11]. (Source:
125 Ozone Software)
126 Depending on the sophistication of the modeling software, the models can also take into
127 consideration additional properties such as thermal expansion, material nonlinearity, large
128 deformations, and temperature-dependent properties. Similar software packages include
129 SAFIR and FiRE (Fire, Radiation, and Egress Model).
130 With the complication of the software comes the addition of required knowledge for the
131 engineer. The programs are completely dependent upon the inputs plugged into them –
132 they don't have the judgment of an engineer to decide whether or not an answer seems
133 reasonable, and thus cannot tell if a mistake was made in the creation of the model. For a
134 model to have merit, the handling engineer should have at least a basic understanding of
135 the program's internal workings, how varying each input affects the final results, and what
136 physical phenomenon the input represents, both in magnitude and with appropriate units.
137 Weighing this knowledge against the knowledge used to defend performance-based fire
138 designs without the use of modeling software still makes it a significant improvement, but
139 it needs to be said that the programs alone cannot act as justification for performance-based
140 design; the engineer still bears all responsibility.
141 The current trend is that as more advancements are made in modeling and predictive
142 programming capabilities (with the possible inclusion of machine learning [12]), more
143 countries and their practicing engineers will shift toward performance-based design
144 because of its increased efficiency and adaptability. This trend spills out into periphery
145 topics; as the field begins to incorporate machine learning into its accepted practices, the
146 same is to be expected.

5
 This is a preprint draft. The published article can be found at: https://doi.org/10.1108/JSFE-01-2023-0002.

Please cite this paper as:

Craig D., Naser M.Z., (2023). “A Primer and Success Stories on Performance-based Fire Design of
Structures.” Journal of Structural Fire Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSFE-01-2023-0002.

147 Given the above introduction, this short review hopes to present a primer into the latest
148 state of the art on the front of performance-based design in fire structural engineering to
149 promote the consideration of the latest advancements and success stories in the front of
150 structural fire engineering applications.

151 A general view of the structural fire engineering practice

152 An engineer aims to identify fire risks involved in a project and design safeguards to
153 mitigate the effects of fire, including preserving human life and, to a lesser degree,
154 minimizing economic consequences. This responsibility typically has three goals: to
155 prevent a fire, confine the fire to a certain region of the building (thus preventing spread),
156 and extinguish the fire.
157 The prescriptive approach specifies the fire resistance rating for individual structural
158 elements based on standard fire curves. In contrast, the performance-based design approach
159 sets specific performance goals for when the structure is exposed to elevated temperatures
160 rather than regulating the construction side of matters. Figure draws a comparison between
161 these two approaches, as noted by England et al. [13]. Figure 4 further elaborates on the
162 breakdown of the performance-based design approach.

6
 This is a preprint draft. The published article can be found at: https://doi.org/10.1108/JSFE-01-2023-0002.

Please cite this paper as:

Craig D., Naser M.Z., (2023). “A Primer and Success Stories on Performance-based Fire Design of
Structures.” Journal of Structural Fire Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSFE-01-2023-0002.

163
164 Figure 3: Overview of the structural fire engineering process. Note. Reprinted from
165 Performance-based design and risk assessment in Fire Safe Use of Wood in Buildings,
166 by England et al., 2022, p. 374. Copyright 2022 by CRC Press [13].
167

7
 This is a preprint draft. The published article can be found at: https://doi.org/10.1108/JSFE-01-2023-0002.

Please cite this paper as:

Craig D., Naser M.Z., (2023). “A Primer and Success Stories on Performance-based Fire Design of
Structures.” Journal of Structural Fire Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSFE-01-2023-0002.

168
169 Figure 4: Outline of a performance-based fire engineering design procedure. Note.
170 Reprinted from Fire Engineering for a Performance Based Code, by Andrew H.
171 Buchanan, 1994, p. 6. Copyright 1994 by Elsevier Science Limited [14].
172 As more and more countries around the world make the transition to performance-based
173 fire codes, some of such codes, standards, and guides can be found in Table 1.
174 Table 1: Limited catalog of performance-based design guides and standards.
Global
SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering [15]
ISO standards: 16732-1, 16733-1, 16733-2, & 23932-1 [16–18]
Europe
Eurocode 1 Actions on Structures – Part 1–2: General Actions – Actions on Structures
Exposed to Fire [19]
Fire Safety Engineering – Comparative Method to Verify Fire Safety Design in
Buildings. Inter-Nordic Technical Specification [20]
Fire Safety Engineering – Guide for Probabilistic Analysis for Verifying Fire Safety
Design in Buildings. Inter-Nordic Technical Specification [21]
UK

8
 This is a preprint draft. The published article can be found at: https://doi.org/10.1108/JSFE-01-2023-0002.

Please cite this paper as:

Craig D., Naser M.Z., (2023). “A Primer and Success Stories on Performance-based Fire Design of
Structures.” Journal of Structural Fire Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSFE-01-2023-0002.

Application of Fire Safety Engineering Principles to the Design of Buildings – Code of

Practice [22]
United States
Performance Code for Buildings and Facilities [23]
NFPA 5000 – Building Construction and Safety Code [24]
Australia
Handbook – Fire Safety Verification Method [25]
Australian Fire Engineering Guidelines [26]
New Zealand
Verification Method C/VM2, Framework for Fire Safety Design [27]
Fire Engineering Design Guide [28]

175 Note. Adapted from Performance-based design and risk assessment in Fire Safe Use of
176 Wood in Buildings, by England et al., 2022, p. 378. Copyright 2022 by CRC Press [13].
177 Notable success stories and case studies
178 Performance-based design in itself is not a new concept. Its origins can be traced back all
179 the way to 2250 BC to the Code of Hammurabi, which states, "a house should not collapse
180 and kill anybody" [29]. The first time it appeared in building code was not until quite a bit
181 later, in the last half of the 20th century. Its most widely accepted definition came from
182 E.J. Gibson, a member of the International Council for Research and Innovation, who said,
183 "the performance approach is the practice of thinking and working in terms of ends rather
184 than means. It is concerned with what a building or building product is required to do, and
185 not with prescribing how it is to be constructed" [30].
186 However, the implementation of performance-based design in the structural fire
187 engineering field is a bit more recent. Most of its early uses in the field concerned
188 evacuation protocols, smoke control, and exit designs. As technology has developed, its
189 applications have broadened to include the structural design side of projects. As stated
190 before, the level to which the performance-based approach is accepted in structural fire
191 design is dependent upon the location both of the designing firm and of the project itself,
192 in addition to the previous experience of the designing engineer. Therefore, this portion of
193 the review will be organized based on the geographical location of the projects and codes
194 that it evaluates.
195 Europe
196 Structural fire design was first incorporated in Eurocode EN 1991-1-2, released in 2002,
197 identifying both prescriptive and performance-based approaches to be used by practicing
198 engineers [19]. In the following years, the Eurocode practices were slowly adopted into
199 national fire codes of European nations, beginning with the UK. These approaches are
200 outlined in Figure .

9
 This is a preprint draft. The published article can be found at: https://doi.org/10.1108/JSFE-01-2023-0002.

Please cite this paper as:

Craig D., Naser M.Z., (2023). “A Primer and Success Stories on Performance-based Fire Design of
Structures.” Journal of Structural Fire Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSFE-01-2023-0002.

Prespective Rules

Member level Analysis of Part of Analysis of Entire

analysis structure structure

Calc. of mechanical Calc. of mechanical Selection of

actions at boundaries actions at boundaries mechanical actions

Simplified methods
Simplified analysis (if
Advanced methods
Project
available)
design

Advanced methods Advanced methods

Tablulated data

201
Performance-based
Code

Selection of simple
or advanced
methods

Member level Analysis of Part of Analysis of Entire

analysis structure structure

Calc. of mechanical Calc. of mechanical Selection of

actions at boundaries actions at boundaries mechanical actions

Simplified methods Advanced methods Advanced methods

Advanced methods

202

203 Figure 5: Alternative design procedure for Structural Fire design. Note. Reprinted from
204 EN 1991-1-1 General actions – Actions on structures exposed to fire, by the European
205 Union, 2001, p. 8. Copyright 2002 by European Committee for Standardization [19].

10
 This is a preprint draft. The published article can be found at: https://doi.org/10.1108/JSFE-01-2023-0002.

Please cite this paper as:

Craig D., Naser M.Z., (2023). “A Primer and Success Stories on Performance-based Fire Design of
Structures.” Journal of Structural Fire Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSFE-01-2023-0002.

206 In one work, Heinisuo and Laasonen presented a case study on the Salmisaari Sports
207 Centre, located in Helsinki, Finland [31]Error! Reference source not found.. At the time
208 of this study, the performance-based design was already included in the national fire codes
209 of the Czech Republic, UK, Finland, Hungary, and Italy. Performance-based fire design
210 was used for the floor and roof trusses, with fire actions considered both for their intended
211 occupancy and for special cases such as plastic-slide fires and stage fires (among five
212 others).

213 Computer modeling was used to incorporate the effects of the rest of the structure, as
214 performance-based design treats the structure as a whole, not as a sum of individual
215 components. The software used was National Institute of Standards and Technology Fire
216 Dynamics Simulator, based on computational fluid dynamics fundamentals to create a
217 three-dimensional rectilinear grid congruent to most other finite element software [32]. The
218 grid size was set with an upper limit of 200 mm in the area with elevated temperatures,
219 based on a previous study by the same author [33]. At the end of the configuration, the
220 simulation created temperature-time graphs for control points in each case of the evaluated
221 fire actions, with an estimated 20% model and technical measurement uncertainty.

222 Petrini et al. conducted another case study on the Duomo of Modena Cathedral in Italy
223 [34]. The cathedral presented a unique case, as it contained an impressive amount of
224 valuable historical content while being quite an important building by itself but was also
225 lacking a fire suppression system due to its historical construction. This case study was
226 split into three sections: fire risk analysis, fire dynamics, and structural behavior. This
227 involved the event-tree method, thermo-fluid dynamics models, and advanced nonlinear
228 thermomechanical finite element models, informed by the guidelines of the Confirmation
229 of Fire Protection Associations Error! Reference source not found.. These models used
230 the same NIST FDS software, summarized in a group temperature-time and displacement-
231 time graphs with the hope that the information they convey could help engineers work in
232 conjunction with fire-fighters to establish a better-informed plan should a relevant incident
233 ever occur.
234 Though more generalized geographically, Vacca et al. had an intriguing spin on the same
235 line of research. Rather than compartment fires that originate in the structure through
236 electrical mishaps or loose cigarettes, their work focused on the concern of wildfires with
237 the increasing intensity of climate change [36]. The growing severity of the wildfires and
238 the enlargement of the wildland-urban interface (WUI) settlements both posed a need for
239 the adaptation of lower-level software to account for relevant variables like wind, inclined
240 group surfaces, etc. Without these parameters taken into consideration, the software failed
241 to accurately simulate and predict the effects of real fire exposure [37]Error! Reference
242 source not found.. Headway was being made to rectify this, most of which again
243 surrounded the NIST FDS, as it had already been heavily verified and accepted as
244 commonplace practice in the area. These researchers offered procedures and considerations
245 for uses of the computational fluid dynamics program to identify fire-vulnerable concern

11
 This is a preprint draft. The published article can be found at: https://doi.org/10.1108/JSFE-01-2023-0002.

Please cite this paper as:

Craig D., Naser M.Z., (2023). “A Primer and Success Stories on Performance-based Fire Design of
Structures.” Journal of Structural Fire Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSFE-01-2023-0002.

246 areas in the glazing systems, roofing, and gutters, and uneven building envelopes, all
247 informed on the qualifiable knowledge gathered throughout the years from others on fires
248 in the wildland-urban interface.
249 Asia
250 Moving on to Asia, Luo et al. put together a rather apt historical review of the role of
251 performance-based fire engineering practices in China, focusing on the last three decades
252 of advancements [38]. The trends in China mimicked that in the UK, discussed earlier in
253 this chapter, rather well, with about a decade delay in governmental policy publication.
254 Hong Kong appeared to be the trendsetter, with its policies influencing the mainland's
255 industry best practices. Within that pattern, the Code of Practice for Fire Safety in
256 Buildings in Hong Kong was released in 2011 [39], while a formal performance-based
257 code still had not been released regarding China at the time of publication.
258 While progress in this specific area of fire engineering lagged a bit in the 1990s with its
259 popularization in other parts of the world, the 2008 Beijing Olympics seemed to put it in
260 overdrive [40]Error! Reference source not found.. While most of this study was focused
261 on evacuation protocols and smoke management, structural components were considered
262 both on an element-by-element basis (prescriptive) and for full-frame verification
263 (performance-based), with respect to the "credible worst fire scenarios rather than the
264 standard fire curve" used when following guidelines like the ISO or ASTM standards.
265 As stated previously, the Hong Kong Code of Practice for Fire Safety in Buildings was
266 released in 2011. Lo et al. offered the unique perspective of engineers before the official
267 addition of performance-based design to their respective governmental building codes
268 [41]Error! Reference source not found.. Moreover, this piece was formed as a conceptual
269 system dynamics model, focusing mainly on the qualitative process of structural fire and
270 fire safety engineering rather than the quantitative modeling that has dominated the field
271 in recent years. While it was helpful in allowing visualization of the relationships between
272 components, it, more importantly, gave practicing engineers a place to start when the code
273 was not yet up to the task, along with a reasonable expectation of how the approach was
274 integrated into then-current building ordinances. After the model was presented, numerous
275 simulation experiments were run to demonstrate how the model worked and to predict the
276 effects on the field of fire engineering in general (in Hong Kong). The simulation produced
277 many results, the most important of which was that the rate of fire-engineered design
278 projects would increase (concerning the total projects approved) – precisely what occurred
279 over the years following the publication of this paper.
280 Unlike other case studies, Rujin et al. attempted to fill a rather large hole in the existing
281 literature by considering elevated temperatures' influence on bridges' structure [42]Error!
282 Reference source not found.. While fire is not the most common method for causing
283 failure in a bridge, vehicle-induced fire is a threat that continues to grow with the ever-
284 increasing amount of transport in the world. Of course, full-scale fire tests are optimal in

12
 This is a preprint draft. The published article can be found at: https://doi.org/10.1108/JSFE-01-2023-0002.

Please cite this paper as:

Craig D., Naser M.Z., (2023). “A Primer and Success Stories on Performance-based Fire Design of
Structures.” Journal of Structural Fire Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSFE-01-2023-0002.

285 terms of learning applicable information, but they are extremely expensive and not to
286 mention imperfect regarding environmental/safety concerns.
287 For more practical methods, Rujin et al. went back to the FDS, commonly referred to in
288 Northern European industry, to stitch together previous, more narrowly focused research
289 projects involved in solving this issue. After outlining a proposed method design
290 framework using this software, they then went on to walk through a case study, assumed
291 to be fictional as its location was not given, step-by-step to verify it provided all the
292 information necessary for any practicing engineer. As a whole, the process seemed to be
293 an adequate solution to bridge fire analysis.
294 Oceania
295 Turning the spotlight to Oceania, New Zealand first introduced performance-based
296 structural fire design in their 1992 Building Regulations, where Clause C6 detailed the
297 functional and performance requirements for structural stability [43]. These requirements
298 dealt with the direct effects of the fire on the structural members and any effects resulting
299 from the prevention/aftermath of the fires (weight of sprinkler systems, safe access for fire-
300 fighters, etc.).
301 Buchanan introduced these new code developments and discussed the reactions to the
302 changes directly after their implementation [14]. Buchanan stated, "[a] holistic
303 performance-based code require[s] a probabilistic performance statement for the whole
304 building, including all aspects of the fire safety system," which is reflected very
305 prominently in the organization of the new fire code. Once the changes in the code had
306 been discussed, as well as any background information necessary to understand its purpose,
307 he then created a design guide for executing the new requirements. This guide covered fire
308 safety and structural fire engineering, just like the code it is based upon, in the same order
309 for ease of comprehension.
310 All calculations necessary were listed, as were recommendations on the resources with
311 which to find them. As this was before the computational programs were created, these
312 resources mainly consisted of well-known textbooks and handbooks written by fire
313 engineering organizations. To go further, they also advocated for further education for
314 design professionals on the matter, pointing to workshops and seminars from institutions
315 all over the country. This researcher later developed a textbook about the same subject,
316 aptly titled Fire Engineering Design Guide, around a decade later, once the performance-
317 based design code was a bit more established [44]. This version included peer reviews,
318 computer modeling, updates to the code (again), and more.
319 Akin to the FDS tool in Europe, New Zealand has its own tool titled B-RISK [45].
320 According to its official website, it was created to "allow fire simulation results to be
321 presented in a probabilistic form and allows the variability and uncertainty associated with
322 the predictions of the fire environment to be quantified" [46]Error! Reference source not
323 found.. In preparation for its development, Baker et al. compared multiple user-input
324 options for the design fire used in the software [47]. It was found that the design fire

13
 This is a preprint draft. The published article can be found at: https://doi.org/10.1108/JSFE-01-2023-0002.

Please cite this paper as:

Craig D., Naser M.Z., (2023). “A Primer and Success Stories on Performance-based Fire Design of
Structures.” Journal of Structural Fire Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSFE-01-2023-0002.

325 generator (created with B-RISK) and parametric heat release rate (calculated using
326 statistics) curves were found to have similar results regarding the growth phase and fully
327 developed phase with a few minor variations. Other details regarding the fire growth rate
328 and location of burning objects were discussed, with the conclusion that the results
329 gathered from the B-RISK simulation were very conservative when compared to the VM2
330 Verification Method in the 2012 New Zealand Building Code [27] and international
331 research.
332 Pau et al. presented a case study analogous to the one described by Petrini et al. It contained
333 the same considerations for heritage buildings, though this paper referred to the McDougall
334 house in New Zealand rather than a church in Italy [48]. The building underwent multiple
335 earthquakes in 2010 and 2011, leading to damage to the chimney and fireplace. The fire
336 engineering design method used was taken from the same VM2 Verification Method in the
337 2012 New Zealand Building Code as the literature previously touched upon [27]Error!
338 Reference source not found.. It also had an added layer of objectives, as the goal of the
339 project was to conserve as much of the building's historical/heritage value as possible while
340 still ensuring the safety of its occupants. This paper followed the same pattern of addressing
341 fire safety engineering concerns (evacuation and ventilation) before moving on to the
342 structural/construction side of matters (material choices, member repair). The approach
343 used appeared to be a mixture of performance-based and prescriptive methods, as
344 performance-based methods were used to qualitatively identify areas of concern, and
345 prescriptive methods were used in the restoration of the fire resistance of the structural
346 elements. The case study concluded with a table detailing the updates of all the fire
347 protection systems; for structural elements, this included 30-minute rated plasterboard on
348 the floors, ceilings, and walls. All structural steel was enclosed in the same material,
349 achieving the same fire rating, which was found to be in compliance with New Zealand
350 Building Code and thus acceptable to the engineers.
351 Before his work on the McDougall house case study, Fleishmann wrote his own piece,
352 years prior, on the impact of the engineers' discretion in interpreting the qualitative
353 guidance of performance-based design criteria [49]Error! Reference source not found..
354 Differences in these interpretations could lead to widely varying results and safety levels
355 for structures that, on the outside, look like they should be fairly similar. While variation
356 in the product itself was not necessarily bad, it could lead to some issues should careful
357 consideration not be taken place.
358 In terms of safety, one of the more important conditions was that the available safe egress
359 time (ASET) be larger than the required safe egress time (RSET) by a reasonable margin
360 of error. The ASET was determined by computer modeling based on the performance
361 criteria, predicting how the structure will behave, while the RSET was an estimate of how
362 long people have to evacuate before the building is unsafe, therefore predicting how its
363 occupants will behave. The issue was that these calculations relied on parameters that were
364 not necessarily constant and/or provided, such as the design fire scenarios, design fires,
365 and acceptance criteria. The researchers then concluded their remarks with a call for more

14
 This is a preprint draft. The published article can be found at: https://doi.org/10.1108/JSFE-01-2023-0002.

Please cite this paper as:

Craig D., Naser M.Z., (2023). “A Primer and Success Stories on Performance-based Fire Design of
Structures.” Journal of Structural Fire Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSFE-01-2023-0002.

366 quantitative guidance for the aforementioned criteria, which was shortly answered with the
367 VM2 Verification Method in hopes of providing the engineers in New Zealand with a more
368 clear and more efficient method for performance-based structural fire design.
369 United States
370 Just because the performance-based design approach is not the most popular route for
371 structural fire engineers in the United States does not mean that it's never done. The
372 American Society of Civil Engineers first incorporated performance-based structural fire
373 design into their code in 2016 [50] and established enough for the subsequent literature to
374 have a decent amount of practical experience behind it [51]. Most of the literature focuses
375 on concrete and steel structures, wherein steel tends to be a fairly uniform and predictable
376 material.
377 Fischer et al. focused on compartment fires in medium-sized ten-story steel construction
378 office buildings [9]. These buildings had their structural fire protection designed using the
379 prescriptive method but then were analyzed with performance-based methods to see if any
380 improvements could be made (and they could). The buildings were analyzed using
381 nonlinear inelastic three-dimensional finite element models, with two phases: the first of
382 which evaluated the heat transfer due to the emergence of the compartment fire and the
383 second of which detailed the structural response following that heat transfer. These finite
384 element models were developed through the ABAQUS software. The results from these
385 models indicated that changing the elements that the fire protection was attached to
386 increased the fire resistance of the buildings while improving their efficiency.
387 Alasiri et al. presented a very structure to the above researchers [52]. It was also a ten-story
388 office building made with steel perimeter moment frames. This building, though, had the
389 added concern of being in a high seismic region; therefore, the authors chose a very niche
390 topic: assessing the impact of the damage caused by previous earthquakes on the behavior
391 and stability of the structure during a fire. The simulated building was designed up to
392 American standards, with the required fire resistance determined by the International
393 Building Code [53]. The researchers then created performance-based parametric studies
394 using ABAQUS of the simulated building being exposed to fire after having previously
395 undergone eleven earthquakes. These parametric studies "indicate[d] that partial or full
396 collapse of the building structure [could] be prevented by sufficiently increasing the
397 structural design (size) or fire protection (fireproofing thickness) of the critical gravity
398 columns," thus providing multiple practical options for the designated engineers.
399 While, as stated before, most of the established literature regarding performance-based
400 design in the United States involved steel structures, there appears to be the beginning of a
401 shift, or rather an expansion of subjects. Khorassani et al. completed a parametric study
402 regarding performance-based structural fire design of composite floor systems [54]. This
403 nine-story office building (with steel moment frames) was used to investigate the influence
404 of many of the structural engineers' decisions regarding fire engineering, including
405 "modeling approach, fire curves, applied gravity loads, and hazard scenarios (fire-only vs.

15
 This is a preprint draft. The published article can be found at: https://doi.org/10.1108/JSFE-01-2023-0002.

Please cite this paper as:

Craig D., Naser M.Z., (2023). “A Primer and Success Stories on Performance-based Fire Design of
Structures.” Journal of Structural Fire Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSFE-01-2023-0002.

406 post-blast fire)." To do so, the MACS+ tool was utilized to simulate the composite slab
407 under an ISO standard fire [55]. The performance-based design of the slab was found to be
408 acceptable, able to temporarily withstand losing a column, allowing for complete
409 evacuation of the building.
410 Comparisons of alternatives
411 While this paper provides a literature review and argument for the popularization of the
412 performance-based design approach in structural fire engineering, it would be remiss not
413 to recognize the alternative. More precisely, the next section of this review will cover
414 comparisons between the performance-based design and prescriptive fire resistance
415 methods.
416 Khorassani et al. composed a comparative study prior to the publication of the parametric
417 composite floor analysis listed above [10]. In such a study, the same nine-story office
418 building was used in this comparative study, though this paper was equally focused on
419 evaluating both methods rather than trying to prove one is better. Thus, the same building
420 was designed in two different ways: one following current prescriptive guidelines to get as
421 close as possible to a real-life design in the US (spray fireproofing with each individual
422 element acting alone [53]) and one that employed performance-based design to adjust
423 reinforcement in the slab such that it achieves tensile membrane action.
424 The two structures were then modeled with a non-linear finite element program, SAFIR,
425 which allowed for thermal analysis and subsequent transient structural analysis of building
426 members at elevated temperatures [56]. These models were exposed to the standard ASTM
427 E119 fire curve and a two-zone CFAST model that provided more adaptive and realistic
428 results [57]. Both methods were found to be adequate when exposed to both kinds of fire,
429 which showed that the performance-based approach was an acceptable alternative. Though,
430 the labor and resources required to prove this fact call into question whether or not it is
431 worth it for the practicing engineer to take it into consideration until performance-based
432 design has more thorough guidelines and best practices available that are integrated into
433 the national codes.
434 Sanctis et al. had a slightly different approach to comparing prescriptive and performance-
435 based design; they compared them by proposing a method of quantifying the level of safety
436 that each design would achieve [58]. This methodology could also be used to verify what
437 is "equivalent" between the two design approaches. Mathematical models were created for
438 each step of the methodology, describing anything from the limit state on the temperature
439 domain to the influence of the fire brigade intervention. The level of safety for each method
440 was found through a reliability analysis of these models, which was outlined in terms of
441 fire ignition, the effect of the fire on the structure, and finally, structural failure. The
442 reliability analysis found that the probability of failure using the prescriptive design
443 approach depended on building properties, which makes sense as those are not considered
444 in the guidelines themselves. The probability of failure when following the performance-
445 based indicated it is more removed from building-specific properties.

16
 This is a preprint draft. The published article can be found at: https://doi.org/10.1108/JSFE-01-2023-0002.

Please cite this paper as:

Craig D., Naser M.Z., (2023). “A Primer and Success Stories on Performance-based Fire Design of
Structures.” Journal of Structural Fire Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSFE-01-2023-0002.

446 While some of the literature discussed here attempts to be objective about the methods
447 adopted by each nation, others make their opinion very clear. Such is the case with
448 O'Loughlin and Lay [59]. Their problem lay in the 15-minute increments that the fire
449 resistance of any given product is normally categorized as. As with any other procedure,
450 the accuracy of the final results is only as strong as the accuracy of each step within the
451 process. More eloquently put by Elms, "the choice of level of detail in any part of an
452 engineering procedure must to some extent be governed by the crudest part of that
453 procedure" Error! Reference source not found..
454 As the field of engineering rapidly develops, as structural fire engineering has in the past
455 few decades, the progress might not be uniform across the field, causing a weak link in the
456 chain. Figure shows a rough interpretation by O'Loughlin and Lay [59] of the relative
457 progression of different aspects involved in structural fire design.

458
459 Figure 6: Relative progression of various facets involved in structural fire design. Note.
460 Reprinted from Structural fire resistance: Rating system manifests crude, inconsistent
461 design, by O'Loughlin and Lay, 2015, p. 39. Copyright 2019 by Elsevier Ltd [59].
462 Tavares attempted to do just that: influence code at a national level. This was done through
463 a comparison of the two methods, done both in terms of objective economic impact and
464 through a cultural lens specific to Brazil [60]. The first objective was completed fairly
465 easily, with the advantages and disadvantages of both systems easily presented in charts.
466 Based on the information, the prescriptive codes were nice in the way that fire safety
467 engineers with high qualifications were not required, but there was a lack of flexibility and
468 innovation to help reduce costs.

17
 This is a preprint draft. The published article can be found at: https://doi.org/10.1108/JSFE-01-2023-0002.

Please cite this paper as:

Craig D., Naser M.Z., (2023). “A Primer and Success Stories on Performance-based Fire Design of
Structures.” Journal of Structural Fire Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSFE-01-2023-0002.

469 Performance-based design was shown to have that flexibility and potential for economic
470 efficiency, but it was difficult to quantify the criteria or validate the methodologies. After
471 addressing how other countries shifted from prescriptive to performance-based codes, the
472 focus shifted towards potential problems specific to Brazil, mainly the fear that the then-
473 current fire codes were not well known or efficiently applied; therefore, how could any
474 new ones be? Culturally, not much stock was put into fire risks, so while the long-term
475 goals might've been to shift to performance-based design, there was much groundwork that
476 needed to be laid before the country was ready for that. Perhaps this has changed in the
477 years since the article was written, or perhaps not.
478 Meacham went one step beyond just comparing prescriptive regulations with performance-
479 based; he added market-based into the mix [61]. Another unique note is that this paper was
480 geared towards the influences of different types of regulations on buildings formed with
481 modern methods of construction (MMC). This was in reference to buildings that are
482 comprised of components prefabricated off-site, which makes construction move very
483 quickly once the pieces have all been transported to their final location. This created issues
484 specific to MMC, like the fact that the components are closed from view when inspected
485 on-site, limiting what information can be gathered about their condition. Market-based
486 regulations are similar to performance-based codes in that they are very objective based;
487 the only difference is that the responsibility lies with the owner and/or developer rather
488 than the involvement of any governing body. In the case of MMC, none of the three
489 approaches were deemed to be admissible without caveats. Any objective-based code
490 needed entire "systems" testing to be worthwhile, while the prescriptive design was based
491 on standard fire tests that were not always applicable to the finished assemblies. Therefore,
492 all methods are needed to find a way to adapt to complex systems as our industry and
493 technology advance.
494 As one can imagine, there are numerous design parameters to be assessed for performance
495 under various fire scenarios. One critical factor in performance-based fire design is the
496 deflection limits of structural elements like horizontal members (i.e., slabs). In the event of
497 a fire, extreme heat can cause the material of the slabs to deform, which can significantly
498 affect the structure's stability and integrity. Thus, the performance of such members is to
499 satisfy deflection limits (a measure that indicates how much a member can deform before
500 it fails or becomes unsafe). Factors such as member thickness, material type, reinforcement
501 ratio, and fire resistance rating are considered to determine the deflection limit.
502 Another crucial performance measure is the temperature within the member (i.e.,
503 reinforcement) during a fire. The temperature influences the properties such as strength,
504 modulus of elasticity, and the overall ductility of the structure. High temperatures can
505 degrade these properties and potentially cause structural failure. Further, the rate at which
506 the temperature rises depends on factors like fire severity, the insulation/material cover
507 thickness, and the properties of materials. The performance-based fire design aims to
508 ensure that the rise in temperature does not reach the critical level where the strength is

18
 This is a preprint draft. The published article can be found at: https://doi.org/10.1108/JSFE-01-2023-0002.

Please cite this paper as:

Craig D., Naser M.Z., (2023). “A Primer and Success Stories on Performance-based Fire Design of
Structures.” Journal of Structural Fire Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSFE-01-2023-0002.

509 significantly reduced. Maintaining the temperature below this critical level helps preserve
510 structural integrity and prevents the structure from collapsing under fire conditions.
511 Various building codes maintain limits that need to be satisfied to ensure proper fire
512 performance. Such limits are a function of the construction material, element type, etc.
513 While such limits were not included herein for brevity, we encourage interested readers
514 and engineers to get acquainted with such limits based on the building codes/provisions
515 they subscribe to.
516 Recent innovations and a look into the future
517 As all prevalent methods of structural fire design have been addressed, with a clear
518 preference towards performance-based design, this section will focus on literature
519 published within the last couple of years that have particularly inspired and innovative
520 additions to research regarding performance-based structural fire design. This will provide
521 a sense of where the application's current extent and where its future potential lies.
522 Gernay and Khorasani presented a very thorough archetype for computational analysis with
523 their study of a steel-framed building with composite floor slabs [62]. The paper was
524 similar to that with one of the same authors discussed before, namely the piece by
525 Khorassani et al., with the exception of the multiple different models with increasingly
526 larger scales and the iterative design process based on their analysis, which was the main
527 draw of the paper. Their analysis began with an in-depth performance-based analysis of
528 the structure after being exposed to elevated temperatures using computational modeling.
529 Then, three different models were created: single slab, single slab with restraint, and full
530 building. Each of the models was designed with the performance-based approach, as they
531 "adopted a set of performance objectives for the structure based on a rigorous definition of
532 fire hazard scenarios informed by probabilistic considerations…iteratively by acting on
533 several design parameters affecting the thermal and structural response of the building."
534 These designs were verified by the nonlinear finite element analysis, including scenarios
535 of single- and multi-compartment fires and if a fire should break out following column
536 loss. This analysis concluded that the full building model was most optimal, as it was the
537 most realistic to be used in the case of extreme events like multi-compartment fires.
538 Danzi et al. recently released a new parametric method titled Fire Risk Assessment Method
539 for Enterprises (FLAME) [63]. This risk assessment, or rather risk index, method combined
540 the strategies from several established methods, including the Gretener method, the Fire
541 Risk Assessment Method for Engineering (FRAME), the Building Fire Safety Evaluation
542 Method (BFSEM), and the Dow Fire and Explosion Index [64]. This method was meant to
543 be used as an alternative to complex computational fluid dynamics models briefly touched
544 on before; performance-based design is not necessarily synonymous with simulated design,
545 and this method intended to prove that. It went back to the fundamentals, basing its property
546 risk evaluation tree structure on the NFPA Standard 550 Fire Safety Concept Tree [65].
547 Rather than organize the results in reference to time periods, in this method, "the fire risk
548 [could] be described by a number of key attributes while considering the fire strategy in

19
 This is a preprint draft. The published article can be found at: https://doi.org/10.1108/JSFE-01-2023-0002.

Please cite this paper as:

Craig D., Naser M.Z., (2023). “A Primer and Success Stories on Performance-based Fire Design of
Structures.” Journal of Structural Fire Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSFE-01-2023-0002.

549 place and the facility conditions." The semi-quantitative parametric method was used in
550 several case studies involving healthcare facilities, which found the method comparable to
551 the Italian Fire Code prescriptive measures.
552 Siddiqui et al. had a different spin on integrating computer modeling into fire engineering,
553 or rather the other way around [66]. As part of an international collaboration with BIM
554 Standards Organization building SMART, a strategy was developed to incorporate fire
555 safety engineering-specific information into the exchange of data involved in building
556 information modeling (BIM). BIM creates virtual or simulated buildings with a
557 combination of objects and information about those objects. Development of any given
558 aspect of that information is given a level based on what information is available in the
559 model and in what format it is given. The format controls what can be done with the
560 information without the need for a third party or manual recreation of data by the engineer.
561 The goal was to eventually get this information into a cloud-based environment where data
562 could be called upon by any of the participants and easily integrated into other relevant
563 programs. This paper outlined a three-step strategy to get to that goal, namely enhancing
564 Industry Foundation Classes modeling specifications for fire safety engineering,
565 implementing those specifications, then improving fire and evacuation modeling tools to
566 support BIM [67,68] and machine learning [69,70] based.
567 Conclusions
568 The debate between prescriptive and performance-based approaches to structural fire
569 design is intense. Prescriptive methods are easy to understand and implement, but they are
570 restrictive in their uses and overly conservative in accounting for the variability in
571 parameters that they do not take into consideration in their process. Performance-based
572 methods allow for more flexibility and experimentation on the part of the engineer,
573 permitting them to increase efficiency and minimize costs where possible, so long as it is
574 verified that the safety of the occupants is not being sacrificed. That verification, however,
575 tends to involve computational software capable of running complex calculations or
576 professionals with specialized education, should the governmental codes not be sufficiently
577 streamlined. These codes can often be left up to interpretation, as there can be qualitative
578 benchmarks depending on the code's origin.
579 Despite the complications in the process, performance-based design has many benefits over
580 the prescriptive approach, which will only continue to grow as the field evolves. This is
581 evident in the way computational modeling and building information modeling (BIM), and
582 machine learning (ML) has been integrated into structural fire analysis already. Such tools
583 certainly widen the possibilities for the project, allowing for all sorts of material and
584 geometrical configurations to be included.
585 Acknowledgment
586 We are grateful for the support of the National Concrete Masonry Association,
587 Grant/Award Number: 2020.010, and the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE)
588 Educational & Scientific Foundation.

20
 This is a preprint draft. The published article can be found at: https://doi.org/10.1108/JSFE-01-2023-0002.

Please cite this paper as:

Craig D., Naser M.Z., (2023). “A Primer and Success Stories on Performance-based Fire Design of
Structures.” Journal of Structural Fire Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSFE-01-2023-0002.

589 References
590 [1] S. Hall, B. Evarts, Fire Loss in the United States During 2021, 2021.
591 https://www.nfpa.org/~/media/fd0144a044c84fc5baf90c05c04890b7.ashx.
592 [2] V.K.R. Kodur, M. Garlock, N. Iwankiw, Structures in Fire: State-of-the-Art,
593 Research and Training Needs, Fire Technol. 48 (2012) 825–39.
594 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-011-0247-4.
595 [3] B. Meacham, R. Bowen, J. Traw, A. Moore, Performance-based building
596 regulation: Current situation and future needs, Build. Res. Inf. (2005).
597 https://doi.org/10.1080/0961321042000322780.
598 [4] ASTM E119, Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and
599 Materials, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, ASTM Int. West
600 Conshohocken, PA. 552 (2016) 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1520/E0119-20.These.
601 [5] ISO 834-1999, Fire resistance tests — Elements of building construction, ISO, Int.
602 Org. Stand., 1999.
603 [6] A.H. Buchanan, A.K. Abu, Fire Safety in Buildings, 2016.
604 https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118700402.ch2.
605 [7] V. Kodur, M.Z. Naser, Structural Fire Engineering, 1st ed., McGraw Hill
606 Professional, 2020.
607 [8] Z. Xiao, T.C. Ling, C.S. Poon, S.C. Kou, Q. Wang, R. Huang, Properties of
608 partition wall blocks prepared with high percentages of recycled clay brick after
609 exposure to elevated temperatures, Constr. Build. Mater. 49 (2013) 56–61.
610 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.08.004.
611 [9] E.C. Fischer, A.H. Varma, A. Agarwal, Performance-Based Structural Fire
612 Engineering of Steel Building Structures: Design-Basis Compartment Fires, J.
613 Struct. Eng. (2019). https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)st.1943-541x.0002370.
614 [10] N. Elhami-Khorasani, C. Fang, T. Gernay, Comparative fire analysis of steel-
615 concrete composite buildings designed following performance-based and US
616 prescriptive approaches, in: Appl. Fire Eng. - Proc. Int. Conf. Appl. Struct. Fire
617 Eng. ASFE 2017, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315107202-15.
618 [11] ArcelorMittal, Ozone (Version 3.0.4), 2018.
619 [12] M.Z. Naser, Mechanistically Informed Machine Learning and Artificial
620 Intelligence in Fire Engineering and Sciences, Fire Technol. (2021) 1–44.
621 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-020-01069-8.
622 [13] P. England, D. Barber, D. Brandon, C. Dagenais, G. De Sanctis, M. Klippel, D.
623 Pau, C. Wade, Performance-based design and risk assessment, in: Fire Safe Use
624 Wood Build., CRC Press, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003190318-11.

21
 This is a preprint draft. The published article can be found at: https://doi.org/10.1108/JSFE-01-2023-0002.

Please cite this paper as:

Craig D., Naser M.Z., (2023). “A Primer and Success Stories on Performance-based Fire Design of
Structures.” Journal of Structural Fire Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSFE-01-2023-0002.

625 [14] A.H. Buchanan, Fire engineering for a performance based code, Fire Saf. J. 23
626 (1994) 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/0379-7112(94)90058-2.
627 [15] M.J. Hurley, D. Gottuk, J.R. Hall, K. Harada, E. Kuligowski, M. Puchovsky, J.
628 Torero, Jj.M. Watts, C. Wieczorek, SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering,
629 fifth edition, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2565-0.
630 [16] ISO International Standardization Organization, ISO - ISO 23932-1:2018 - Fire
631 safety engineering — General principles — Part 1: General, ISO Int. Stand. Organ.
632 (2018). https://www.iso.org/standard/63933.html (accessed January 2, 2023).
633 [17] International Standardization Organization, ISO - ISO/TS 16733-2:2021 - Fire
634 safety engineering — Selection of design fire scenarios and design fires — Part 2:
635 Design fires, ISO - ISO/TS 16733-22021 . (2021).
636 https://www.iso.org/standard/63142.html (accessed January 2, 2023).
637 [18] International Standardization Organization, ISO - ISO 16732-1:2012 - Fire safety
638 engineering — Fire risk assessment — Part 1: General, ISO 16732-1. (2012).
639 https://www.iso.org/standard/54789.html (accessed January 2, 2023).
640 [19] CEN, Eurocode 1: Actions on Structures–Part 1–2: General Actions–Actions on
641 Structures Exposed to Fire, 2002.
642 [20] Nordic INSTA (InterNordicSTAndards) Technical Specification, INSTA 950
643 INSTA 950 INSTA 950 INSTA 950 Fire Safety Engineering-Comparative method
644 to verify fire safety design in buildings, 2014.
645 [21] Nordic INSTA (InterNordicSTAndards) Standard, INSTA/TR 951:2019 Standard -
646 Fire safety engineering - Guide for probabilistic analysis for verifying fire safety
647 design in buildings SIS-INSTA/TR 951:2019 - Swedish Institute for Standards,
648 SIS, 2019. https://www.sis.se/en/produkter/environment-health-protection-
649 safety/protection-against-fire/general/ss-ss-insta-9512019/ (accessed January 2,
650 2023).
651 [22] BSI British Standards Institution, BS 7974:2019 Application of Fire Safety
652 Engineering Principles to the Design of Buildings: Code of Practice, 2019.
653 https://knowledge.bsigroup.com/products/application-of-fire-safety-engineering-
654 principles-to-the-design-of-buildings-code-of-practice/standard (accessed January
655 2, 2023).
656 [23] ICC, Performance Code for Buildings and Facilities, ICC International Building
657 Code Council, 2019.
658 [24] NFPA, NFPA 5000 Building construction and safety code, NFPA: National Fire
659 Protection Association, 2018.
660 [25] ABCB, Handbook: Fire Safety Verification Method, Australian Building Codes

22
 This is a preprint draft. The published article can be found at: https://doi.org/10.1108/JSFE-01-2023-0002.

Please cite this paper as:

Craig D., Naser M.Z., (2023). “A Primer and Success Stories on Performance-based Fire Design of
Structures.” Journal of Structural Fire Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSFE-01-2023-0002.

661 Board, 2021.

662 [26] BCB, Australian Fire Engineering Guidelines, Australian Building Codes Board,
663 2021.
664 [27] MBIE, C/VM2 verification method. In Framework for Fire Safety Design for New
665 Zealand Building Code Clauses C1–C6 Protection from Fire (Including
666 Amendment 6). Compliance Document, The Ministry of Business, Innovation and
667 Employment, Wellington., 2020.
668 [28] M. Spearpoint, Fire Engineering Design Guide (3rd Edition), 2008.
669 [29] R. Harper, The Code of Hammurabi, University of Chicago Press, 1904.
670 [30] PBFPE, What is Performance-Based Design | Performance Based Fire, (2022).
671 https://www.pbfpe.com/post/what-is-performance-based-design (accessed January
672 2, 2023).
673 [31] M. Heinisuo, M. Lassonen, J. Outinen, Fire resistance, Technical sheets, Urban
674 habitat constructions under catastrophic events, in: Fire Des. Eur., Czech Technical
675 University Press, 2010.
676 [32] K. McGrattan, S. Hostikka, R. McDermott, J. Floyd, C. Weinschenk, K. Overholt,
677 Fire Dynamics Simulator technical reference guide, NIST Spec. Publ. 1018-1. US
678 Dep. Commer. Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. Gaithersburg, MD. (2016).
679 [33] H. M., L. M., H. T., B. T., Product Modeling in Fire Safety Concept, Effects of
680 Grid Sizes and Obstacles to Steel Temperatures, in: IABSE Conference
681 Information and Communication Technology (ICT) for Bridges, Buildings and
682 Construction Practice, 2008.
683 [34] F. Petrini, A. Aguinagalde, F. Bontempi, Structural Fire Risk for Heritage
684 Buildings by the Performance-Based Engineering Format, Int. J. Archit. Herit.
685 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2021.2022249.
686 [35] C.-E. (confederation of fire protection associations in Europe), Guideline No 30:
687 Managing fire safety in historical buildings, (2013).
688 [36] P. Vacca, D. Caballero, E. Pastor, E. Planas, WUI fire risk mitigation in Europe: A
689 performance-based design approach at home-owner level, J. Saf. Sci. Resil.
690 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnlssr.2020.08.001.
691 [37] S.L. Manzello, R. Blanchi, M.J. Gollner, D. Gorham, S. McAllister, E. Pastor, E.
692 Planas, P. Reszka, S. Suzuki, Summary of workshop large outdoor fires and the
693 built environment, in: Fire Saf. J., 2018.
694 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2018.07.002.
695 [38] M. Luo, X. Sun, S. Li, A Historical Review of Fire Engineering Practice and

23
 This is a preprint draft. The published article can be found at: https://doi.org/10.1108/JSFE-01-2023-0002.

Please cite this paper as:

Craig D., Naser M.Z., (2023). “A Primer and Success Stories on Performance-based Fire Design of
Structures.” Journal of Structural Fire Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSFE-01-2023-0002.

696 Advances in China, Fire Technol. (2022) 1–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10694-

697 022-01300-8/TABLES/4.
698 [39] B. Department, Code of Practice for Fire Safety in Buildings, Hong Kong SAR
699 China, 2011.
700 [40] M. Luo, Fire Engineering Concepts, Arup J. 40 (2009).
701 [41] S.M. Lo, C.M. Zhao, M. Liu, A. Coping, A simulation model for studying the
702 implementation of performance-based fire safety design in buildings, Autom.
703 Constr. (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2008.02.014.
704 [42] R. Ma, C. Cui, M. Ma, A. Chen, Performance-based design of bridge structures
705 under vehicle-induced fire accidents: Basic framework and a case study, Eng.
706 Struct. (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.109390.
707 [43] N.Z. Government, The Building Regulations, New Zealand, n.d.
708 [44] A.H. Buchanan, Fire Engineering Design Guide, University of Canterbury, n.d.
709 [45] Branz, B-RISK (Version 2019.03), (2019).
710 [46] C. Wade, G. Baker, K. Frank, R. Harrison, M. Spearpoint, B-RISK 2016 User
711 Guide and Technical Manual, (2016).
712 [47] G. Baker, C. Wade, M. Spearpoint, C. Fleischmann, Developing probabilistic
713 design fires for performance-based fire safety engineering, in: Procedia Eng.,
714 2013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2013.08.109.
715 [48] D. Pau, C. Duncan, C. Fleischmann, Performance-based fire engineering design of
716 a heritage building: McDougall house case study, Safety. (2019).
717 https://doi.org/10.3390/safety5030045.
718 [49] C.M. Fleischmann, Is prescription the future of performance-based design?, in:
719 Fire Saf. Sci., 2011. https://doi.org/10.3801/IAFSS.FSS.10-77.
720 [50] ASCE, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE/SEI 7-
721 16), 2016.
722 [51] K.J. LaMalva, Structural Fire Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers,
723 2018. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784415047.
724 [52] M.R. Alasiri, R. Chicchi, A.H. Varma, Post-earthquake fire behavior and
725 performance-based fire design of steel moment frame buildings, J. Constr. Steel
726 Res. (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2020.106442.
727 [53] IBC, International Building Code, 2018.
728 https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/IBC2018?site_type=public.

24
 This is a preprint draft. The published article can be found at: https://doi.org/10.1108/JSFE-01-2023-0002.

Please cite this paper as:

Craig D., Naser M.Z., (2023). “A Primer and Success Stories on Performance-based Fire Design of
Structures.” Journal of Structural Fire Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSFE-01-2023-0002.

729 [54] N. Elhami Khorasani, T. Gernay, C. Fang, Parametric Study for Performance-
730 Based Fire Design of US Prototype Composite Floor Systems, J. Struct. Eng.
731 (United States). (2019). https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)st.1943-541x.0002315.
732 [55] O. Vassart, B. Zhao., MACS+ for membrane action of composite structures in case
733 of fire. Design guide, (2012).
734 [56] J.J.M. Franssen, SAFIR: A thermal/structural program for modeling structures
735 under fire, 2005.
736 [57] NIST, CFAST - Consolidated Model of Fire Growth and Smoke Transport
737 (Version 7), (2016).
738 [58] G. De Sanctis, M.H. Faber, M. Fontana, Assessing the level of safety for
739 performance based and prescriptive structural fire design of steel structures, in:
740 Fire Saf. Sci., 2014. https://doi.org/10.3801/IAFSS.FSS.11-996.
741 [59] E. O’Loughlin, S. Lay, Structural fire resistance: Rating system manifests crude,
742 inconsistent design, Case Stud. Fire Saf. (2015).
743 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csfs.2015.03.001.
744 [60] R.M. Tavares, An analysis of the fire safety codes in Brazil: Is the performance-
745 based approach the best practice?, Fire Saf. J. (2009).
746 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2009.03.005.
747 [61] B.J. Meacham, Fire performance and regulatory considerations with modern
748 methods of construction, Build. Cities. 3 (2022) 464–487.
749 https://doi.org/10.5334/BC.201/METRICS/.
750 [62] T. Gernay, N.E. Khorasani, Recommendations for performance-based fire design
751 of composite steel buildings using computational analysis, J. Constr. Steel Res.
752 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2019.105906.
753 [63] E. Danzi, L. Fiorentini, L. Marmo, A parametric fire risk assessment method
754 supporting performance based approaches - Application to health-care facilities in
755 northern Italy, Chem. Eng. Trans. (2017). https://doi.org/10.3303/CET1757051.
756 [64] Dow’s Fire & Explosion Index Hazard Classification Guide, 1994.
757 https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470938195.
758 [65] N.F.P. Association, NPFA 550 Guide to the Fire Safety Concepts, 2007.
759 [66] A.A. Siddiqui, J.A. Ewer, P.J. Lawrence, E.R. Galea, I.R. Frost, Building
760 Information Modelling for performance-based Fire Safety Engineering analysis –
761 A strategy for data sharing, J. Build. Eng. (2021).
762 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102794.
763 [67] A. Davidson, J. Gales, BIM and Fire Safety Engineering – Overview of State of

25
 This is a preprint draft. The published article can be found at: https://doi.org/10.1108/JSFE-01-2023-0002.

Please cite this paper as:

Craig D., Naser M.Z., (2023). “A Primer and Success Stories on Performance-based Fire Design of
Structures.” Journal of Structural Fire Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSFE-01-2023-0002.

764 The Art, Int. J. High-Rise Build. (2021).

765 https://doi.org/10.21022/IJHRB.2021.10.4.251.
766 [68] Q. Sun, Y. Turkan, A BIM-based simulation framework for fire safety
767 management and investigation of the critical factors affecting human evacuation
768 performance, Adv. Eng. Informatics. (2020).
769 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2020.101093.
770 [69] X.Y. Zhao, J.X. Chen, B. Wu, An interpretable ensemble-learning-based open
771 source model for evaluating the fire resistance of concrete-filled steel tubular
772 columns, Eng. Struct. 270 (2022) 114886.
773 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENGSTRUCT.2022.114886.
774 [70] M.Z. Naser, CLEMSON: An Automated Machine Learning (AutoML) Virtual
775 Assistant for Accelerated, Simulation-free, Transparent, Reduced-order and
776 Inference-based Reconstruction of Fire Response of Structural Members, ASCE
777 Jounral Struct. Eng. (2022). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-
778 541X.0003399.

26

View publication stats