Fire Protection - Balanced Approach

Balanced Approach

Passive fire protection (PFP) in the form of compartmentalisation was developed prior to the invention of or widespread use of active fire protection (AFP), mainly in the form of automatic fire sprinkler systems. During this time, PFP was the dominant mode of protection provided in facility designs. With the widespread installation of fire sprinklers in the past 50 years, the reliance on PFP as the only approach was reduced. Lobby groups are typically divided into two camps favouring active or passive fire protection. Each camp tries to garner more business for itself through its influence in establishing or changing local and national building and fire codes. At present, the camp favouring AFP appears to be leading, because of the factors mentioned above.

The relatively recent inclusion of performance based or objective based codes, which have a greater emphasis on life safety than property protection, tend to support AFP initiatives, and can lead to the justification for a lesser degree of fire resistant rated construction. At times it works the other way around, as firewalls that protrude through the roof structure are used to "sub-divide" buildings such that the separated parts are of smaller area and contain smaller fire hazards, and do not necessarily require sprinklers.

The decision to favour AFP versus PFP in the design of a new building may be affected by the lifecycle costs. Lifecycle costs can be shifted from capital to operational budgets and vice versa.