THE PATTON REPORT
I am going to propose a fire protection
concept in this Patton Report that is un-
doubtedly going to be rejected out of
hand by the vast majority of those who
have a responsibility for fire safety. It
will be rejected because it is too revolu-
tionary at this time. It runs counter to
too much tradition.
But new ideas, like new shoes, become
more comfortable with time. After the
idea has been stepped on and kicked
around for a while, it will become more
tolerable.
THE IDEA IS THAT STAIRWELLS CAN
BE COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY ELI—
MINATED IN BUILDINGS.
Now, of course, I realize that this is
fire protection heresy, that an enclosed
stairway as an exitway is the heart of
our fire safety plan for buildings, that
it is deeply built into the fabric of the
NFPA Life Safety Code (which is often
referred to as the "NFPA Exit Code"),
and that all other building codes in this
country and thruout the world as well
are founded on a plan of exiting based
on stairways. When people think of fire
safety-primarily they think of fire exits-
and in the minds of most people "stair-
way" and "exit" are synonomous.
Nevertheless I believe many of us who
are around today will *see buildings sans
stairways constructed in our lifetime.
But before that day comes we must first
achieve an intermediary goal, and that is
to reduce the number of stairways re-
quired in certain buildings to no more
than two.
STAIRWAYS OFTEN MAKE POOR EXIT—
WAYS
I will begin this analysis by pointing
out that stairways are, after all, very
poor exits in high rise buildings and certain
other buildings.
All exit codes determine the number of
stairways on the basis of floor area and
/or population, and travel distance TO
the enclosed stairway. Once the stairway
enclosure is entered downward travel
distance to ground level is not counted.
Therefore, stairways serving the second
floor also serve all floors above. This
means that a 102 story building will
have the same number of stairwells as a
2 story building. Tests have shown, how-
ever, that if everyone in a tall building
tried to use the stairwells simultaneously,
there would be a fantastic tieup.
In very tall structures a stairway becomes
a very difficult exit path even when it is
not jammed to capacity. For one thing,
little old ladies just do not like to walk
down 40 flights. For another, stairways
are most difficult paths for the crippled
and the sick. A stairway as an exit in
a hospital is bordering on the ridiculous.
Yet, the codes generally ci..11 for MORE
stairways in hospitals than in other build-
ings.
When a fire occurs on a lower floor and
occupants above use the stairways for
exit (as they are instructed to do by pre-
sent fire regulations), if the door on the
fire involved floor becomes propped open
(say a fire hose is laid out from a stair-
way hose rack to the fire), then those
who have entered from above can find
themselves in a very dangerous situa-
tion. As they move down the smoke and
heat will be coming up. If the stairway
doors have locked behind them as they
entered (not unusual) they are in real
trouble.
So, my first concern with stairways is that
when the chips are down, when fire
strikes, stairwells are by no means the
certain path to safety they are claimed
to be.
STAIRWAYS ARE EXORBITANTLY COST -
LY
Aside from frequently being poor exit-
ways, stairways may well be the highest
cost useless item installed in high rise
buildings. The only thing that might be able
to challenge the stairway on a "cost and
uselessness" basis is the excessive fire-
proofing put on the steel - fireproofing
beyond that needed to cope with the fire
loading of the building.
Let us look at the cost factor of stair-
wells in a tall building. Let us assume four
enclosed stairwells in a 50 story structure
at $5,000.00 per stairway per floor cost.
The going in cost is $1,000,000.00 But
let's not lose track of the reduced floor
area and reduced rental income. At an
average of say $10.00 per square foot
per year the annual lost rental income
will be approximately $2,000.00 per stair-
well per floor. This adds up to $400,000.00
per year.
Now suppose the building has a 50 year
life. The lost rental income continues for
50 years. Also, the initial cost is lost
as an investment over the life of the
building. What is total lifetime cost?
To determine this we must compound
the money lost on say a 6% annual basis.
But we must also recognize that there
will be taxes on extra earnings each
year. Accordingly, to figure the future
growth of the extra monies available
thru elimination of stairways I will com-
pound the money on a 3% annual interest
basis which represents a corporation with
a 50% tax base.
Over the life of the building the total
cost of the stairways is-
a) One million dollars compounded
annually at 3% equals $4,383,000.00
at the end of 50 years. (No allow-
ance was made for maintenance
costs on the potential added floor
space income because the cost of
maintenance of floor area probably
will not exceed the cost of main-
taining the stairwell and en-
closures.)
b) Annual deposits of $200,000.00 (one
half of the $400,000.00 is annually
lost in taxes) compounded annually
at 3% adds up to $22,558,000.00.
The combined total cost to the owner of
the building is $26,941,000.00 (which aver -
ages out to be more than one half million
per year).
Now there are two observations that can be
made with regard to these costs.
First, it is apparent that loss of rental
area represents the major portion of the
lost income. Thus, other fire protection
expenditures to make the elevators safe
as exitways, or to improve overall safety
in the building, will make a great deal
of sense economically, especially if the
total additional cost is less than the going
in cost of the stairways.
Secondly, the creation of new fire safety
concepts that will permit the reduction
or elimination of stairways should be of
interest to all governments that impose
taxes on corporate profits. In fact, the
lion's share of the money earned thru
eliminating stairways actually would go
into taxes. If a similar analysis were
made of the future total value of all
the tax payments, assuming government
normally borrows at 6% or more, we would
find the total dollar benefit to these taxing
bodies would be near 100 million over the
50 year period.
ARE STAIRWELLS WORTH THE COST?
People have to move up and down in a
multi - story building. They can move vertu -
cally by stairway, elevator, or escalator;
but for the purpose of this discussion
let's consider the escalator to be a form
of elevator, and compare elevators to
stairways,
Now, if stairways are performing a useful
purpose, if they contribute to the normal
flow of vertical traffic, then they have real
worth. They perform a daily functional
purpose. But, as building height increases,
the traffic flow will shift from stairways to
elevators. When stairway doors are locked
for security reasons and a person may
enter but not leave the shaft (except
to exit at street level), then the daily
functional value of the stairwell is dead.
At that point, I feel the stairway ceases
to be justifiable. If the non-functional
stairwell is subjected to a rational cost
vs value test, rather than an emotional
test. I do not believe it would pass.
FIRE SAFETY RELIABILITY IS POOR
There are two reasons why the fire safety
value of a stairwell is overrated.
 First, it is a centuries old traditional
fire safety feature of buildings. The fire
protection engineer will look at a building
without stairways as he would look at a
bald-headed wife or an elephant without a
, trunk. He will feel that something vital
is missing.
Secondly, a stairway has the aura of great
reliability because of its permanence.
What can be more solid, more substantial,
more reliable than a masoney enclosed
stairwell built right into the structure?
Maybe it will be called on to be used
only once in 50 years, but when it is needed
it WILL BE THERE. It's not like a
sprinkler system that could be out of
service when needed-IT'S THERE.
Well, the troubla with reasoning of this
kind is it doesn't go far enough. Sure,
the stairwell is "there" when needed,
but the question is can you get to it.
If a hotel is on fire, the stairway may be
"there", and it may be free of smoke,
but how does the guest get from his
room to the stairwell if the CORRIDOR
is blocked by smoke. There has been
many a life lost on the way to a stair-
way. If we consider a stairway to be
but one portion of a total "fire safety
system" (an exitway), then we must deter -
mine the probability that the guest in the
hotel room (or office worker, etc.) will
be able to use the total exit system when
fire strikes. On this basis, with the stair-
well considered to be only a part of a
total exit system, I believe the fire
record will support my contention that
"exit" is a rather unreliable life saving
"system" under the conditions of a major
fire.
Summarizing, a stairwell in high rise
buildings, many hospitals, and certain
other buildings has these characteristics:
a) It is extremely expensive over the
life of the building.
b) It is probable that it will never
be needed during the life of the
building.
c) If the rare fire of great concern
does occur during the lifetime of the
structure, there is a strong possi-
bility that building occupants will be
unable to reach it and use it.
A SHIFT TO ELEVATORS
From an economic viewpoint it just does
not make sense to put in a very high cost
system of vertical transportation for
everyday use (elevators) and then duplicate
this system with another system (stair-
ways) on the basis that the stairways
MAY be needed perhaps once or twice
in the lifetime of the structure. It cer-
tainly doesn't make sense to do this
provided it is possible to accomplish th,e
intent of the stairways in a less costly
and more reliable manner.
So, it seems to me, the two basic questions
that must be asked are:
a) Is there a less costly alternate to
that stairway?
b) Is there a more reliable alternate
to the stairway?
If both of these questions can be answer-
ed "yes" in connection with a single
system, then it is possible to make a
change with both improved safety and
i mproved economy resulting.
Let us now look at the elevator and see
if it can qualify on both counts. The
economy, of course, is easy because an
elevator will cost less than an elevator
plus a stairway, especially when one con-
siders the lost rental area due to the
stairway. On the safety question, we must
recognize that there are several specific
fire safety "faults" with elevators at the
moment. Probably the three most prom-
inent are:
a) It is claimed that call buttons
can be activated by a fire so that
the car is called to the floor on
fire.
b) When the car doors open and smoke
interrupts the electric eye, the
doors may not close, thus occu-
pants could be trapped and directly
exposed by the fire and smoke.
c) Fire or water may knock out the
electrical system or elevator con-
trols, thus stranding the cars in
the burning building.
These technical problems, however, are
really not that difficult to solve. But,
there is no incentive to make the eleva-
tor a safe exitway so long as it is
official policy to take the elevators out
of service when there is a fire emer-
gency, and so long as the codes give
elevators no credit as exits.
 IN MY OPINION, THE POLICY OF TAK-
ING THE ELEVATOR OUT OF SERVICE
WHEN THERE IS A FIRE EMERGENCY
'MAKES JUST AS MUCH SENSE ASCHOPP-
ING A HOLE IN THE LIFEBOAT WHEN
THE SHIP IS SINKING.
HORIZONTAL FIRE ZONES
The key to improved exitways in the
high rise building is horizontal fire sub-
division. It is a relatively easy thing to
build a one hour partition into the nor-
mal floor partitioning in such a manner
that each floor is divided into two fire
zones. With passenger elevators in one
zone, and additional ones or large freight
elevators in the other, building occupants
could go to the non involved zone and
leisurely exit. This also would give the
fire department a safe base on the in-
volved floor from which the fire in the
other zone could be attacked.
THE TWO STAIRWAY BUILDING
Despite the logic of the arguments Pre-
sented here, I know this country is not
yet ready to accept stairwayless build-
ings. However, with each floor separated
into two zones, and with improvements
made in elevator design to make them safe
under fire conditions, I believe it would
be reasonable to move toward a "two
stairway" building, with one emergency
stairway in each zone. In many buildings
this will reduce stairways by 50% or
more.
PATTON FIRE PROTECTION AND
RESEARCH, INC.
647 Colts Neck Road
Freehold, New Jersey 07728
(201) 431-2752
A POSITIVE SOLUTION TO FIRE
In conclusion, I want to make one final
point, and this is perhaps the most im-
portant point of the entire report. It is
that we must begin to seriously ques-
tion the wisdom of considering 'ESCAPE"
as the primary solution to the fire pro-
blem. "ESCAPE" is by no means a really
reliable answer to fire.
We must stop thitiking negative and begin
thinking POSITIVE. When fire strikes, is
running for the street really the best
solution? I think not. There are too many
people who can't run, and there are too
many possibilities that even the fleet
foot will be intercepted by disaster
in the way to safety. In the 20th century
we should have something better than a
chance to run when fire strikes.
It is time to think positive, to think of
attacking and controlling the fire, rather
than running. It is time to move auto-
matic fire detection and suppression into
the PRIMARY role in our fire safety
plans. It is time to think of providing
people with "in place - stay where you
are" fire safety.
"STAY WHERE YOU ARE FIRE SAFETY"
-IS THE FIRE SAFETY SOLUTION OF
THE FUTURE.
Dated: February, 1972