Prescriptive vs. performance based cook-off fire testing.

Abstract

In the fire safety community, the trend is toward implementing performance-based standards in place of existing prescriptive ones. Prescriptive standards can be difficult to adapt to changing design methods, materials, and application situations of systems that ultimately must perform well in unwanted fire situations. In general, this trend has produced positive results and is embraced by the fire protection community. The question arises as to whether this approach could be used to advantage in cook-off testing. Prescribed fuel fire cook-off tests have been instigated because of historical incidents that led to extensive damage to structures and loss of life. They are designed to evaluate the propensity for a violent response. The prescribed protocol has several advantages: it can be defined in terms of controllable parameters (wind speed, fuel type, pool size, etc.); and it may be conservative for a particular scenario. However, fires are inherently variable and prescribed tests are not necessarily representative of a particular accident scenario. Moreover, prescribed protocols are not necessarily adaptable and may not be conservative. We also consider performance-based testing. This requires more knowledge and thought regarding not only the fire environment, but the behavior of the munitions themselves. Sandia uses a performance based approach in assuring the safe behavior of systems of interest that contain energetic materials. Sandia also conducts prescriptive fire testing for the IAEA, NRC and the DOT. Here we comment on the strengths and weakness of both approaches and suggest a path forward should it be desirable to pursue a performance based cook-off standard.