-
Will the present waiver mechanism
be abolished with the introduction of the performance-based
system?
The current waiver mechanism will still be available for cases
of fire safety design that deviate from the prescriptive requirements
which would not require a fire safety engineering approach to
address the deviation. However, the Waiver Committee can, in
its waiver decision, warrant a performance-based study to evaluate
the feasibility of the waiver application.
- How will I know if a building
has some performance-based design elements?
The SCDF file references associated with the building can give
an indication as to whether the building has performance-based
design elements. Performance-based submission plans will be
given references with the 3rd letter as a capital F e.g. RBF/xxxxxxxxx/04,
CBF/xxxxxxxxx/04, DBF/xxxxxxxxx/04, RFF/xxxxxxxxx/04, CFF/xxxxxxxxx/04,
DFF/xxxxxxxxx/04. Apart from the file reference, the approved
submission plans would also have declaration endorsements from
both the QP and the FSE.
- Who is responsible to engage
the FSE, Peer Reviewer, RI?
The building owner is responsible to engage the FSE, Peer Reviewer,
RI.
- Is it mandatory to engage a Registered
Inspector who is an FSE for performance-based submissions?
Yes, it is mandatory to engage a Registered Inspector who is
an FSE for inspection of performance-based submissions. These
RIs are qualified fire safety engineers are in a better position
to highlight any irregularities in the fire safety engineering
works that is being implemented on-site for a building.
- At which stage does the FSE,
Peer Reviewer and the RI come into the picture for plan submission?
The Building Owner should engage the FSE on the onset of building
project involving performance-based works, at the conceptual
design stage, and not as a remedial solution to resolve deadlocks
in the approval process.
The Building Owner is to engage the Peer Reviewer only after
the FSE has completed his Fire Safety Engineering Report (FSER),
detailed specifications and drawings, Building Operations and
Maintenance manual (O&M). It is important that the Peer
Reviewer does not participate or interfere with the design process
prior to this stage. The Peer Reviewer will make his comments
in his Peer Reviewer's Report. In the event that the Peer Reviewer
has disagreeable comments on the documents reviewed, the FSE
and the Peer Reviewer will need to discuss objectively to resolve
the outstanding issues.
The Project QP is responsible to submit all the mentioned documents
to SCDF for final plan approval.
The Building Owner will need to engage an RI who is an FSE
to inspect the performance-based aspects of the project. The
RI may also inspect prescriptive aspects related to his professional
discipline. E.g. A RI(M&E) who is also an FSE can inspect
works relating to the performance-based solution for both building
plan and M&E aspects as well as the prescriptive M&E
works. The owner will still need to engage an RI(Architectural)
for inspection of building works constructed based on prescriptive
requirements.
- Will it be necessary to engage
a Fire Safety Engineer to re-evaluate addition & alteration
works to a performance-based designed building?
The building management can refer to O&M manual as stipulated
by the original FSE. The O&M manual spells out the extent
of the performance-based solution in the building. Based on
the information provided in the O&M manual, the building
management has the responsibility in determining whether to
engage an FSE for subsequent additions and alteration works.
- Can a building be entirely designed
to performance-based requirements?
Theoretically, it is possible to design a building entirely
to performance-based requirements. Practically, most performance-based
submissions will be a hybrid of performance-based and prescriptive
requirements.
-
What is the rationale of allowing
developers/QPs to choose the type of approach (i.e. prescriptive
or performance-based) to fire safety design?
The introduction of a performance-based approach to fire safety
design offers building designers greater flexibility in design
and possible cost optimisation. The prescriptive approach is
more restrictive in the sense that the building designers have
to adhere strictly to the requirements stipulated in the fire
codes. The performance-based approach, however, provides a platform
for customised building designs so long as fire safety standards
are maintained.
- Is the performance-based approach
less stringent as compared to the prescriptive approach?
The performance-based approach should not be viewed as less
stringent, but it is definitely less restrictive. The use of
the performance-based approach to complement the prescriptive
approach is widely accepted in many countries, such as Australia,
New Zealand, UK, USA, Sweden and Japan. Hong Kong is also moving
towards this direction, thus attesting to its growing acceptance.
In Singapore, there are several buildings where the performance-based
approach has been successfully used, such as the Changi International
Airport, the Esplanade and the Singapore Expo.
- Between the prescriptive and
the performance-based approach, how would people know which to
choose?
Only registered FSEs are qualified to assess a performance-based
design approach. It is a norm in the industry that the prescriptive
approach is used for standard-design buildings whereas the performance-based
approach is for more complex buildings. This is not new. The
SCDF already receives building plans where the fire safety design
is based on the performance approach (e.g. Singapore Expo and
the Esplanade). If there are cost savings to be reaped, or design
constraints faced when using the prescriptive method, the decision
may then be made to use the performance approach. Ultimately,
it is a decision to be made by the stakeholders.
- Who administers the registration
of FSEs and what are the criteria?
The registration of FSE is administered by the SCDF. To be
qualified as a FSE, the applicant needs to have a Bachelor or
Masters degree in Fire Safety Engineering, have at least five
years of practical experience in the field of fire safety design
(may be prescriptive or performance-based fire safety engineering
designs or both), and also pass an interview conducted by the
FSE Selection Panel. The panel is chaired by the Director of
Fire Safety & Shelter Department (FSSD), two other SCDF
senior officers and an appointed representative from each of
the professional institutions (SIA, IES and ACES).
It should be noted that the requirement of five-year practical
experience in the field of fire safety design will only be applicable
during the initial registration period. This requirement will
be changed to 3-5 years of practical experience in the field
of performance-based fire safety engineering once it becomes
more established and there is a ready pool of such expertise.
-
There is no peer reviewer in the current
system. Would it not raise costs if this is now mandatory under
the performance-based system?
The current system of complying with prescriptive requirements
is relatively straightforward compared to performance requirements.
The QP just have to follow stipulated rules in the fire codes,
so having a third-party check on prescriptive requirements is
not necessary as it will inflate costs. However, fire safety
engineering is a relatively new discipline and besides applying
engineering principles, design of fire safety works based on
this approach usually require a certain degree of sound engineering
judgement. Hence, it is necessary to have a peer review for
such works as a counter-check. The Peer Reviewer scheme is akin
to the Accredited Checker scheme for the submission of structural
plans to the BCA. Though engaging a peer reviewer would increase
cost, it offers building designers greater design flexibility
and the increased cost may be offset by cost optimisation from
the performance-based design
