Copyrighted material licensed to SYSTRA, for licensee's use only. ‘400198032 25 Sep 03 130-52 FIXED GUIDEWAY TRANSIT AND PASSENGER RAIL SYSTEMS ‘Table G.1.4 Exiting Analysis of Sample Side-Platform Station Egress Flement mm in, p/mm-nin im p/min Inbound platform to concourse (uward) tits (2) 3058 144 0.0516, 1a 185 Escalators (1*) 3219 48, 0.0516 131 62 Emergency stairs (2) 2438 96 0.0516 131 135 375 Phroughface barriers ‘Turnstiles (12) (capacity 300 Service gace (1) 19 48 0.0819 2.08 99 590 Rare barriers to safe aren Stairs (1) 1829) nm 0.0516 Lal 94 Escalator* (0) 0 0 0.0516 131 0 4 ‘Walking Time for Longest Exit Route m ft m/min fpm minutes “Inbound platform On plattors, 7, 503) 165 on 14 Platform to concourse, Ts 55 18 121 40 On concourse, 1 35.1 15 B17 1 Concourse to grade, Ty 79 26 121 40 On grade to safe area, 1, 3.05 lo 377 124 ‘Total walking time, P=, + T+ Ty T+ Element mm p/mm-min im (Outbound playform to concourse (uprord) Stairs (2) 3658 ia 0.0516 131 188 Escalators (1") 1219 48 0.0516 131 62 Emergency stairs (2) 2438 96 0.0516 131 135 375 Throughfare barriers Turnstiles (12) (capacity =25 p/min) 300, Service gate (1) 119. 48 0.0819 2.08; 99 500 ave barriers to safe area Stairs 1829 nR 6.0516 131 4 Escalator 1219 48 0.0516 131 B ‘Walking Time for Longest Exit Route m ft m/min fpm ‘minutes Outbound playform On platform, 7, 182 oo 317 124 a9 Platiorm to concourse, 35 18 121 40 046 On concourse, Th 396 130 30.7 14 1.06 Concourse to grade, 7 79 26 121 40 0166 ‘On grade to safe area, 7, 3.05 10 377, pt 0.09 Total walking time, T= 1) + 1+ Tat Te+ Te 276 “Wort este excalaoranncofservice es (553.322) 2009 Eaton Copyrighted material licensed to SYSTRA, for licensee's use only. Single user license only, copying prohibitedCopyrighted material licensed to SYSTRA. for licensee's use only. 400198032 25 Sep 03, C2 Escalators. ANSI/ASMEAI7.L, which governs the design ‘of escalators, is gencrally recognized as one of the strictest ‘consenisis tanlardls, However, considering the critical operax tional nature of the escalators in rapid transit stations, spe- cially designed units with additional safety features should be provided. ‘The number of flat steps at the upper landings should be inereased in proportion (o the vertical rise ofthe escalator, For a rise up to 6.1 m (20 fi), use the manufacturers’ standard number of lt steps, From 6.1 m (20 f2) to 18.3 m (60 ft) rise use three flat steps; over 18.3 m (60 A) rise, use four lat steps, ‘A remote monitoring panel should be provided in the sta. tion that displays the following for each esealator: (1) Direction of travel (2) Operating spec! {if more than one) (8) Outofservice status (4) Flashing light that indicates the escalator is stopped be- cause of activation of a safety device A remote stopping device should be provided only if the centre escalator is visible from the remote location ora stop is delayed until it is preceded by an appropriate warning, Annex D Suggested Test Procedures for Fire Hazard Assessment This anne isnot apart the muiements ofthis NPPA document ‘hut sine for informational purposes only. D.l_ General. The wo most important features in fire safery design of a fixed guideway transit or passenger ral vehicle are to provide sufficient time for evacuation in the event of a fire belore the vehicle compartment becomes untenable and 10 prevent a self propagating fire. D.L.1 Modeling has the capability of providing an evaluation ‘ofa fire system. A model can predict what effect the use of various combinations of materials will have in preventing fully eveloped Fires in a specific station, D.2 Hazard Load Caleulations. Hazard load calculations pro- vide a way to examine the potential fire hazard of the products used in a transit vehicle interior and of their component ma- terials. Using the example in Table D.2(a), the selection of the seating materials can seriously affect the loading ina vehicle. selkpropagating fire depends on the size of the initiating fire; ‘Table D.2(b) Release Rate Data ANNEX D. 130-33, therelore, the heat flux or exposing fire used to evaluate ma- terials or products at their location in the fire system is impor- tant. Ina critical series of tests on heat release on materials, minimums incident heat flux values of 35 kW/m! were used ‘The value of incident heat flux required for testing different products (or their component materials) should be a function fof the product being assessed, including its Focation in the rail ‘wansportation vehicle, Hazard load valtes are useful in deter mining if « selEpropagating fire is possible. The hazard load analysis is one of the methods that can be used for comparing. release rate information used to determine the level of safety selected. The release rate intormation in Table D.2(b) is based ‘on the $ minute release determined at the exposure identified in Table D.2(b). However, it must be recognized that hazard Toad ealeulations cannot take into account the distribution of products within the rail transportation vehicle, a factor that ‘can critically affect fire hazard, Table D.2(c) and Table D.2(@) show the calculations for best loading and worst loading based fn che information in Table D.2(a) and Table D.2(b). ‘Table D.2(a) Hazard Load Calculations Hazard Load Calculations: Exposed Surface Areas ie n® Seating Padded (bottom and back) 365 339 Hardback (seat backs) 133, 124 ‘windows {(65 ft 7) - 40% -2) 365 339 Lower walls [(65 7A «60% -2] 546 507, Tighe fictre covers 108, 10 [065 fe- 0.88 10 - 2) Floor (65 8-941) 585 543 Ceiling (65 fe 91) 585 543 Note: Inevior volume ofl veel is 4005 0° (1 “Best” 3 Minute Release “Worst” 3 Minute Release Heat Smoke Heat Smoke ‘Transit Vehicle Interior Material @Bus/fE)—(parieles*/e€) (BaF) (particles?) Seating at L0 Wen Padded 0 100 2,400 Harelback 0 300 Windows at 1.5 Wem? 165 1500 Lower walls at 5 Wem? 330 300 Light fixture covers at 1.5 W/em® 25 60 Floor at 10 W/em= 0 7% Ceiling 23.5 Wem o 1,150 "A partic of oanoke ss defined by ASTM E06, Assumed noncombustible aluminum panes £2008 Eaton Copyrighted material licensed to SYSTRA, for licensee's use only. ‘Single user license only, copying prohibited.Copyrighted material licensed to SYSTRA, for licensee's use only. ‘800198032 25 Sep 03 130-54 FIXED ‘Table D.2(c) Hazard Load Caleulations “Best” Loading IDEWAY TRANSIT AND PASSENGER RAIL SYSTEMS Interior Material ‘Heat Hazard Load ‘Smoke Hazard Load Seating Padded 365 Fe 90 Bau/fe = 32,850 Br 365 1 - 2,100 parteles/t® = 766,500 particles Hardback 150 Buus 133 fF - 330 particles/ft® = 43,890 particle Windows 60 Bau te? 5365 fe - 165 particles/ft? = 60,225 particles Lower walls 150 Buu/fe» 81,900 Buu 546 2-930 particles/ft? = 180,180 particles Light fixture covers 85 Buus 108 fe 275 panticles/fe® = 29,700 particles, Floor 585 f= 0 Buu/tet 1585 fe - partiles/ fe = 0 particles Ceiling 585 fe 0 Bru BR fe O particles ft? = 0 particles, Total 165,780 Br * 1,080,495 particles Divided by car volume, " 40 Brut “A005 (0 (65 1-9-7 sed on the October 1076 Phase I Report to the Trans Develo va + of 80 Bu/A" spear i be dhe maxim allowable lading to ensure = 264 pantiles/te* : wd Lon rat aselepropagating fre wil Dot occu with an intaing Gre consiing ofthe equivalent of 1 Tb of newsprint o Bog of lighter Mid” ‘Table D.2(d) Hazard Load Calculations “Worst” Loading ‘Smoke Hazard Load Tnterior Material Heat Havard Load Seating Padded 305 fx 2,400 Btu/fe? = 876,000 Bur Hardback 138 fe > 300 Bu/ te? = 39,900 Bew Windows 365 £8 > 1,500 Bru/fe® = 547,500 Bru Lover walls 546 A? « 300 Buu/ At" = 168,800 Bur Light fixture covers, 108 #1 860 Bru f= 92,800 Bru Floor 585 FE x 75 Bru/ft! = 43,875 Bio Ceiling 55 F< 1150 Buu/te®» 672,750 Buu Total 2,436,705 Buu Di ied by car volume, 4,095 f° (65 fe- 9 fe- 7) = 595 Bu/tt” 365 {tx 10,140 particles /t® = 8,701,100 particles 133 f+ 2,500 partiles/t® = 822,500 particles 365 f¢2» 600 partcles/fe? = 219,000 particles 56 fe x 2,500 partiles/fe® = 1,365,000 particles 108 fe x 230 particles/#t" = 28,760 particles 585 fe! 90 particles/It = 52,650 particles, 85 (tx 30 particles/A® = 17.550 particles "741,560 particles "306 partiles/f Annex E Hazard Analysis Process for Vehicles ‘Phis cones is nota past ofthe repuirements ofthis NEPA dacwnent Inu is ineluded for informational purposes en E.1 Introduction. This annex was prepared to provide ex. panded tinderstanding of the process required 10 conduct a hazard analysis for fixed guideway and passenger rail vehicles beyond that provided in Annex D of this standard. NFPA 101 [1) and other cited references provide more complete infor ‘mation, In particular, Annex A material related to Chapter 3 of NEPA 101 incluces extensive explanatory material related to performance-based hazarel analysis. E.2 Performance-Based Design. The prescriptive based ve. hile fie performance requirements in Chapter 8 ofthis stan- ‘ard are based on individual material tests. With the use of the fire hazard analysis process, it should be possible to ascertain the fire performance of vehicle materials and assemblies in the context of tual use, The result of such a hazard analysis should be a clear understanding of the role of materials, ge- ‘ometry, and other factors in the development of fire in the specific vehicles studied. By identifying when orif specific com tions are reached stich that materials begin to contribute 10 the fire hazard, fixed! guideway transit and passenger rail sy tems vehicle designers and authorities raving jusisdietion will have a better foundation on which to base appropriate vehicle 2000 Eton and system design and the evaluation of the fire performance ‘of such vehicle designs. By showing the relative contribution ‘of a particular design feature or material, itis possible to make a more realistic assessment of the necessity for specific vehicle design requirements to meet fire performance-based objec tives and criteria Chapter 8 inlicates that one method to assess the fire baz. ard of a vehicle is to do a hazard load analysis. provides additional guidance beyond the test taleilations for hazard loading contained in Annex D of this standard. The use of the process described in this annex is intended to provide a framework that considers the results of the hazard load calculations in terms of life safety goals and criteria stated in Section 1.4 ‘While the hazard analysis process described in this annex does contain goals, objectives, and periormance criteria nec: fesary to determine an acceptable level of risk to occupants, it does not describe how to meet the goals, objectives, and per formance criteria. That is up to the vehicle designer, fixed {guideway transit and passenger tail agencies, and authorities Iaving jurisdiction to decide. Vehicle design and fire protec. tion and engineering knowledge and experience are needed to develop solutions that meet the provisions of Annex D and thisannex. The SFPE Engineering Guide to Performanceased Fie Protetion Anais al Design of Buildings (2) provides a trame- Copyrighted material licensed to SYSTRA, for licensee's use only. Single user license only, copying prohibited.Copyrighted material licensed to SYSTRA, for licensee's use only. 00198032 25 Sep 03 ANNEXE ‘work for these assesments, Other useful references include ASTM E 2061 [3)and the APTA RP PS00501 [4]. On May 12, 1999, the Feral Railroad Administration (FRA) issued arule containing passenger rall equipment safety sandards. The Sandards contained in 49 CFR 238.103 require that materials tsed for passenger mil ear and locomotives meet certain fre salty performance criteria and that fire hazard analysis be conducted forall new and existing rail passenger equipment [5 Scenarios are used to assess the adequacy of elesigns consic- exec and ultimately selected. As such tnitating events a reE trenced from the ASTM Rail Standard Guide [6] are specified for study for whieh ensuing outcomes muste satisfactory. Ap- proaches and considerations found in the APTA RP PSA Aleveloped existing vehicles are alo worthy of consideration [Although developed for the analysis of existing equipment, [APTA RP PS-005-01 provides a framework and resourees for the application of fire hazard analsisin vehicles that might be applicable to new or selurbished equipment. Finally, itis important to note tha the fire hazards relating to the vehicleoperating environment must be considered 3s part of any performance based design 1F the outcome predicted by evaluation of the scenarios evaluated is bound hy the performance eviteria stated, then the objectives will have been met, and the ife safety character istics of a proposed vehicle design can be considered to be ‘consistent withthe goals ofthis standard. It must be assumed that if design fails to comply with the hie safety goals and objectives andl associated. performance exteria, it must be ‘hanged and reassessed iteratively until satfactory perfor mance levels are attained. Documentation of assessment parameters, such a those sed with sensation icritcal. The approval and acceptance oF fife safety design is dependent on the quality of the do mentation used in this process. E.3 Overview of Fire Hazard Analysis Process for Vehicles. Thre information in this section is based on a research study sponsored by the FRA. Additional details of the research pro- grams are available [7] ‘The recently published ASTM E 2061 (8) provides resources, and references lor the application of fire hazard analysis tec niques to rail vehicles but is not intended to provide a spe- Cifie prescriptive standard or method. Part of the purpose of NFPA 130 is to provide such a specific method for the pplication of fire hazard analysis tools and the ASTM guide when applied to specific vehicle designs ‘Traditionally fire hazard analysis techniques involve a four- step process for the evalation of a produet oF products in a specific scenario: (2) Define the context. (2) Define the scenario, 3) Caleutate the hazard, (4) Evaluate the consequences [81 For the analysis of vehicles, this process limits the evalua tion to the contribution of specific materials and products ‘without providing an overall assessment of the fire perfor: mance of the entire system, ‘The traditional fourstep evaluation process can be ex tended to better reflect the minimum appropriate perfor mance of the overall vehicle system while maintaining the evaluation of a specific design compared against the required baseline. For this systemsbased analysis, the process is also. condlcted in Four steps! 130-5, (1) Define vehicle performance objectives and design. (2) Calculate vehicle fire performance. (3) Evaluate specific vehicle fire scenarios. (4) Evaluate vehicle car design suitability Steps I and 4 are langely subjective and depend on the expertise of the user. Step 2 can involve hand calculations or some use of computer modeling software, The heart of Step 2 isa sequence of procedures to calculate the development of hazardous conditions over time, to caleulate the time needed by occupants to escape under those conditions, and (0 est rate the resulting effects on the vehicle occupants, based on enability criteria, In addition to evaluating the hazard result- ing from specific materials and components used in the ve hicle design, Step 2 determines the worstcase fre that allows the ‘overall vehicle system to meet chosen design criteria. Step 3 evaluates the specific fires that are likely to oceur: Step 4 com> ppares the results of Steps 2 andl $ andl evaluates the appropriate- ess ofthe calculations performed, as wellas determines whether the proposed design meets the performance objectives and de- sign established in Step l. The procedure in Table F.3 shows each, step in the process tailored for ral vebicle design. E.3.1 Step I: Define Vehicle Performance Objectives and Design. Both the proposed performance objectives and the vehicle design must be defined, Clear goals and objectives With welldefined acceptance criteria quantify the tninimum acceptable performance that must be met in the final vehicle design, These will all be provided by the responsible fixed, guideway transit or passenger railroad system, by the author ties having jurisdiction, and by expert engineering judgment, based on the performance of the existing acceptable vehicle dlesigns and the operating environment. For example, an ob- jective might be to provide life safety for passengers in the event of a fire or t minimize damage to property. Perfor. ‘mance criteria are more specific and might include limits on temperature of materials, gas temperatures, smoke concentra ‘or ebscuration levels, concentration of toxic gases, oF ra heat flux levels, to allow for sufficient time to evacuate ‘occupants to a point of safety The analysis requites a detailed understanding of the ge- ometry (€.g,, configuration) of the system being considered, including construction materials, sizes, and connections for all compartments, typical Furnishings, and other design pa rameters that might aflect the fire. Such parameters might inelude fire detection or suppression systems, ventilation sj tems, ancl emergency exits and procedures. E.3.2 Step 2: Caleulate Vehicle Fire Performance. The second, step determines the response of the vehicle system to a range ‘of chosen design fires, This response can be expressed in the form of one or more fire performance graph(s), which present the calculated design criterion asa function of the size fof the fire, In addition, the minimum acceptable performance criteria are determined by caleulation or specification. For ex ample, a fire performance graph might show the available ‘egress time as function of the fire size in a vehicle, and the minimum acceptable performance criteria might be the time necessary for passengers to safely evacuate the vehicle. These criteria can be specilied by the fixed guideway transit oF pas. senger railroad system, by authorities having jurisdiction, oF by expert engineering judgment based on the performance of the existing acceptable designs. 2000 Eaton Copyrighted material licensed to SYSTRA, for licensee's use ony ‘Single user license only, copying pro!Copyrighted material licensed to SYSTRA, for licensee's use only. ‘400198032 25 Sep 03, 130-56 ‘Table E.3 System of Vehicle Fire Hazard Analysis Steps Step Define vehicle ) Clearly define fire performance objectives, performance objectives (b) Determine the geometry of ‘and design. the vehicle, (6) Include other design parameters that might have an Impaet on a possible fir, such asa tunnel operating environment, terial controls, fire detection nd suppression, or other systern procedttes, Step 2: {a) Determine minima Calculate vehicle ‘acceptable performance criteria fire performance. basse on the vehicle design (b) Establish standard design fires. (€) Use predictive ealeulaion sand /or model ealeations, to dletermine the fire performance of the proposed design for a range of design fires, {Gd Create a Bre performance ee Step 3: 8) Examine relevant fre incident Evaluate specifievehiele experience with same/sinilar fire scenarios. applications. (b) Identify the fkely role/involvement of application contents in fire () Ask which fires are most common likely? Most challenging? {a) Quantity the burning behavior or chosen scenatios from ivailable fire test data or appropriate small- and largescale Step # (a) Estimate through expert Fvaluate Jnedgment, regulatory gu suitability of ‘and, when needed, vehicle design. ‘complementary small-and Tangescale texts the eects of tunknowns not acconnted for in fire performance graph to known inputs .ppropriate design (@) Determine the acceptability of the design ‘Once the detailed problem has been defined, this informa: tion can be used as input to a hand ealeulation or computer fire model to predict conditions within each compartment of the vehicle asa funetion of time, For this analysis, these cond- tions include temperature, hot gas layer position (typically termed interface height), visibility, and toxie gas concentrations throughout the car. These conditions are used to calculate tenabilty within the ear. Conditions are considered untenable when there is a threat to passenger life safety, evaluated as an | elevated temperature, products of combustion exposure, or a FIXED GUIDEWAY TRANSIT AND PASSENGER RAIL SYSTE combination of the two. The time at which conditions within the vehicle become untenable for each design fire are plotted asa function of the size of the design fire to produce a fire performance graph for each application, ‘The calculation of minimum necessary egress time, whether from a building oF a vehicle, involves many assump tions. Several models can be used to increase the confidence in the egress time calculation. It is important to. remember hat the minimum necessary egress time does not include panic, scattered nggage in a posterash vehicle, or bodily in- jury t occupants prior to evacuation commencement. An ap- propriate design margin applied to the model time should account for such Tinitations. Typically, factor of 2 is used as a design margin [9] £.3.3 Step 3: Evaluate Specific Vehicle Fire Scenarios. Step 3 exaluates possible vehicle fire scenarios in order to place the fire performance curves in context and to allow the designer toadopt reasonable design margins in the final vehicle design ‘evaluation in Step 4. Asignificant amount of information rel- ‘evant to scenario definition can be obtained from historical fire incident experience (e.g.. see references 10 and 11 in ad), Databases such as the National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS) contain relevant vehicle data, normally segre= gated into specific categories (11) Representative fire scenarios include the following: (2) Ignition under a seat by a small source (crumpled news: paper) (2) Ignition source on top of a vandalized seat (crumpled newspaper) (8) Overheated equipment (electrical, HVAC) ‘The location of the train must be also considered in the analysis. For example, the fire risk to occupants is greater if the train is located between stations or within a tunnel Relevant data describing specific fies appropriate for the ‘chicle application are defined and sed as input to the same re model used in Step 2. The results of these model caleula- tions can be compared to the design fires used in Step 2 10, define appropriate design margins for analysis. E.3.4 Evaluate Suitability of Vehicle Design. Taking into ac- ‘count the results of the caleulations and using engineering. judgment, experience, and the requirements of dhe author ties having jurisdiction, an appropriate design margin is de- iced upon and applied to the minimum acceptable criteria If the worst-case vehicle fire scenarios are all less hazardous ‘han the minimum criteria muliplied by the design margin, ‘then the vehicle design i said to be acceptable. Finally, the results of any analysis should be challenged by the user's common sense and experience. Results that violate these should be questioned and resolved, Comparisons shonld be made to data from similar experiments or actual passenger train fires wherever possible. Ifsuch data are not smailable, it might be advisable to conduct verifying tests in Smations where public safety at risk ‘The outcome of the fite hazard analysis will bea statement of whether the vehicle design under consideration constiuces a threat above acceptable limits. Further analysis can ascertain ‘whether compartmentation, detection and suppression sys- tems, and other intervention strategies can further minimize the fire hazard. Copyrighted material licensed to SYSTRA, for licensee's use only. Single user license only, copying prohibited.Copyrighted material licensed to SYSTRA, for licensee's use only. ‘400198032 25 Sep 03, ANNEX G. 130-57 ‘Table E.1 Minimum Creepage Distance for Transit Vehicles ‘Ordinary (Enelosed Environment with Underfloor Exposed Highly Exposed (No Chass Low Energy Breathing) Environment External Protection) ‘Third Rail Shoe Beams Control and Power and Current Collection Electronic and Devices Mounted in Power Resistors Open Devices Protected Electrical ‘Control Group Disconnect Devices (Short Circuit Devices Enclosures ‘Mounted Outside Unlimited by Onboard Application (ramp where max.) (Short Cireuit Limits) __ Protective Enclosures Devices) Nominal Voltage Surface mm in. mm in. mm in. mm in, 38 Horizontal = 6 Ya 32 Ye 191 % N/A N/A Vertical 16 Ye 32 % 127 % N/A N/A 280 Horizontal = 8.3 a 159 % 762 3 4 Vertical 83 % 159 m 508 2 mM 600 Horizontal 19.1 % 18, 1M 178 7 10 Vertical 19.1 ¥ 318 Mm 17 5 6 Eel References. The following references are cited in this annex, (1) NERA 101%, Life Safty Cole, Quiney, MA: NFPA, 2003, (2) SEPE Engineering Guide to Pesformance-Based Fie Protection “Analssis and Design of Buildings, Bethesda, MD: Society of Fire Protection Engineers, 2000, (3) ASTM E 2061, Guide for Fire Hazard Assesment of Rail ‘Transpurtatiom Vehicles, West Conshohocken, PA: Ameri ‘ean Society for Testing Materials, 2000. (A) APTARPPS.005401, Recommended Practice for Fire Soy Analy- 195 of Exising Passenger Rail Ezuspment, Washington, DC [American Public Transportation Association, Angust 2000 (8) Federal Railroad Administration, 49 CHR, Transportation, Paris 216, 223, 220, 231, 252, and 238, “Passenger Equip- mene Safety Standards: Final Rule.” Federal Register, Vol. 4, No. 91, May 12, 1989, 25540-95705 (Washington, DC: Na- | Gional Archives and Records Administration), (6) ASTM Rail Standard Guide. (7) Peacock, R.D., eta. Fie Safty of Passenger Trains, Phas I, Application of Bae Hazard Analysis Techniques, Prepared for Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), US. Depart ment of Transportation (USDOT). National Institute of tandards and Technology (NIST) Interim Report, Re~ port No, DOT/FRA/ORD and NISTIR 6525, June 2001. (8) Bukowski, R.W, etal. ire Hazard Assessment Method, NIST Handbook 146, Gaithersburg, MD: NIST, 1989, J. Ma, “Code Officials View of Performance: Based Codes,” Resarch and Practice: Bridging the Gap, Pro- ceedings, Fire Suppression and Detection Research Ap- plication Symposium, NEPA. Research Foundation, Orlando, FL, Febrvary 12-14, 1997, pp. 234-251, 1997. (20) Gross, D. “The Use of Fire Statistics in Assessing the Fire Risk of Products,” nea 1985 Confaence Workbook, No 26-28, Mareh 1985, pp. 11-18. (QD) Karter, Mf, Jr "Fire Loss in the United States During, 1984," Fir Journal, Vol, 79, No, 3: 67-70, 73, 75-76, Sep- ember 19h (12) Aherns, ML, US. While Fe Trend anel Pattems for Ratt “Transport Vehicle Bes: US. Rail Passenger or Diner Car Pies 1986-1997. Quincy, MA: NEPA, 1999. @ Annex F Creepage Distance This annex is mol a part ofthe epuinements ofthis NEPA document duis includ for informational frrposes only EA Table Fi lists the minimum ereepage distance for transit, vehicles, Annex G Informational References G.1 Referenced Publications. The following documents or portions thereof are refereneed within this standard for infor ‘national purposes only and are thus not part of the require- ments of this document unless also listed th, Chapter 2 G.l.1_ NFPA Publications. National Fire Protection Associa tion, 1 Batterymarch Park, P.O. Box 9101, Quiney, MA 02269- 9101, Bie Protcetion Handbook, 19th edition, 2008. NFPA 101°, Life Sojety Gote®, 2008 edition. NFPA 130, Standard for Faved Guideway Transit and Passenger Rail Systems, 2008 edition, [NFPA 204, Standart for Smoke and Heat Venting 2002 edition, [NFPA.253, Sundard Method of Test for Critical Radiant Flux of oor Covering Syslems Using Raatiana Heal Energy Source, 2000 ‘edition NEPA 2638, Standard Meth of Tet for Heat and Visible Smoke Release Rats for Materials and Products, 1994 edition NFPA2TL, Standard Method of Test for Heat and Visible Smoke Release Rates jor Materas and Products Using an Oxygen Grnsump tion Calorimeter, 2001 edition. G12 Other Publications. G.1.2.1 ANSI Publication. American National Standards Inst tate, in, 11 West 42nd Street, 13th Floor, New York, NY 10036. ANSI/ASME AI7.1, Safety Onde for Elevators and Escalators, 1993, 2009 Edlion Copyrighted material licensed to SYSTRA, for licensee's use only. Si \gle user license only, copying prohibited,Copyrighted material licensed to SYSTRA, for licensee's use only. ‘400198032 25 Sep 03, 130-58 6.1.2.2 ASHRAE Publications. American Society of Heating, Reffigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers, ne., 1791 Tu lie Circle, N-E., Adanta, GA 30329-5305, ASHRAE Handbook Series. ASHRAE Handieok Fusdamentals, 1 rections — 1096, Additions and Cor G.1.2.3. ASTM Publications. American Society for Testingand ‘Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshocken, PA 19428 2959. ASTM E 119, Rev: B92, Suandant Test Method for Fie Tests of Building Construction and Materials, 1988, ASTME 603, Standard Guide for Room Fie Experiments, 2001 ASTM E 648, Stonslert Test Method for Griical Radian Hux of Flo-Ciroering Stems Using a Radiant Heat Energy Souree, 1994 ASTM E 906, Slandlard Tist Method of Heat and Visible Smoke Release Rats for Meter Prt, 1999. ASTME 1354, Sueuland Test Method for Heat and Visible Smoke Release Rats for Mecerials and Products Using an Oxygen Consunp ion Calorimeter, 1999 ASTM E 1955, Standart Guide for Evaluating the Predictive Capability of Pre Modes ASTM E 1472, Stanudar Guide for Documenting Computer Soft ‘we for Fie Models, 1998. ASTM E 1537, Standavd Test Method for Bie Testing of Uphol- std Furniture, 2002. ASTM E 1590, Stondard Test Method for Fie Testing of Mat. ese, 2002. [ASTM E 2061, Guide for Hive Hazard Assessment of Rail Trans portation Vehicles, 2002. G.1.24 FAA Publication. U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, US. Government Printing Olfice, Washington, DC 20402, USA. FAR 25,853(c), Oil Busmer Test for Seat Cushions 6.1.2.5 SEPE Publications. Society of Fire Protection Engi- nicers, 7315 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 129SW, Bethesda, MD 20814, SIPE Engineering Cide to Peformance Based ire Protection Analysis and Design of Buildings, 200. SEPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, 2000. 6.1.2.6 TDG Publications. Transit Development Corpora. tion, Inc, 1201 NewYork Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20005. ‘Smith, Edwin E., Phase 1 Report, Transit elicle Material Specification Using Release Rate Tes for Pamanability and Smoke, October 1976. Subway Enuinonmental Deign Handbook Vo. 1, Principles and Applications, 2nd edition, 1976. Associated Engineers: A joint venture by’ Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc: Deleu, Cather and Company; and Kaiser Engineers under the direction of TDG, tne. G.L2.7 Aherns, M., US. While Fie Trnds ana Patterns for Rit ‘Transport Nelle Bres: U.S. Rail Passenger or Diner Car Fives 1986 1997. Quiney, MA: NEPA, 1999, G.128 Bukowski, R.W,, et al. Fie Hazard Assessment Method, NIST Handbook 146, Gaithersburg, MD: NIST, 1989. 12008 Eaton FIXED GUIDEWAY TRANSIT AND PASSENGER RAIL SYSTEMS G.1.2.9 Federal Railroad Administration, 49 CER, Transpor- tation, Parts 216, 223, 299, 231, 282, and 298, “Passenger Equipment Safety Standards: Final Rule.” Fedaral Register, Vol. 64, No. 01, May 12, 1999, 25540-25705 (Washington, DC: National Archives and Recortls Administration) G.1.2.10 Fleming. J. M, "Code Officials View of Performance- Based Codes,” Resets and Practice: Bridging the Gap, Proceedings, Fire Suppression and Detection Research Application Sympo- siumn, NFPA Research Foundation, Orlando, FL, February 12-14, 1997, pp. 234-251, G.1.2.11 Friedman, R. “An Intemational Survey of Computer Moclels for Fire and Smoke,” SEPE Journal of Fire Protection n= gineering, 4(3), 1992, pp. 81-9 GAL212_ Gros, D. "The Use of Fire Statistics in Assessing the Fire Risk of Products,” Interflam 1985 Conference Workbook, ‘No, 26-28, March 1985, pp. 11-18, G.1.2.13 Hirsebler, M. M.,"A New Mattress Fie Test for Use In Detention Environments,” Business Communications Compa Eighth Annual Conference on Recent Advances in Flame Retat= ancy of Polyinerie Materials, Stamford, CT, June 2-4, 1907 G.12.14 Karter, M.J, Jr. "Fire Loss in the United States Du inng 1984,” Fire Journal, Vol. 79, No. 3: 67-70, 73, 75-76, Septem ber 1985. GL215 Peacock, R.D., et al. Fire Safety of Passenger Trains, Phase Il, Application of Fire Hazard Analysis Techniques, Prepared for Federal Railroad Administation (FRA), U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Interim Report, Report No. DOT/ FRA/ORD and NISTIR 6525, June 2001 G.1.2.16 APIARP PS00501, Recommend Pradice for Fe Safty Analysis of Exiting Pasenger Rail Ezuipment, Washington, DC: Ametican Public Transportation Association, August 2000. G22 Informational References. (Reserved) G3 References for Extracts. The following documents are listed here to provide reference information, inchiding title and edition, for extracts given throughout this standard as indicated by a reference in brackets [ ] following a section oF paragraph. These documents are not a part of the require. ments of this document unless also listed in Chapter 2 for other reasons. NEPA 72°, National Fire Alarm Gad, 2002 edition, NEPA), Standatfor Fie Doors and Fire Windus, 1999 edition, NFPA 271, Slandard Method of Test for Heat and Visible Smoke Release Rates for Materiats and Products Using an Oxygen Gonsump- sion Calorimeter, 2001 edition, NFPA. 402, Guide for Aireraft Rescue and Fire Fighting, Opera sions, 2002 edition NFPAA72, Stand for Pressionat Competence of Responders to Heszardons Matenals incidents, 2002 edition, NFPA 502, Siandard for Road Tunnels, Brides, anc Other Lime lod Access Highways, 2001 edition. NEPA 21, Guide for Fire ed Explosion Investigations, 2001 edition, Copyrighted material licensed to SYSTRA, for licensee's use only. ‘Single user license only, copying prohibited,Copyrighted material licensed to SYSTRA, for licensee's use only. 800198032 25 Sep 03, INDEX Index: (© 2008 National Fire Protection Associaton, All Rights Reserved, 130-59 “The copyright in thisindes is veparate nel sknet fom the copyright inthe document tha iLindexes. The licensing provisions set forth for the document ave not applicable 40 this index. This index may not be reproduced in whole or im part by any means without the express wHtien permission of NFPA A Det 5a, 6284 Emergency communication with 3 7286), 1063 w 108. Sation ve 5732 Blue lhe stvons 14a Traction power, removal of 1o.iz et ering 543 Nehicles 892 Surface walnwesys 635 Emergency ventilation stem contwol/opersion ---72.2(8), 76.1 Vehicle storage snd isintenanee areas 932 Fre protection signal asia to 57.13, 607.11 Agencies, partepating ber Participating agencies Public address stem access, 1162 Air clearance, electrical citcuits R5218522A8522 Cleaning, vehicle 953,954 Alarms, fre ‘Glearanee sor clearance Stations 5711 05715,572 Combustible components, underground tainways 629 Vehicle storage and maintenance areas AUS,942 Combustible liquids Alternate central supervising station VWF ola Centra Tnursion, atidensa cue vo spills 28 ‘pervsing ston (CSS) Vehicle storage and maintenance areas = 9444, 95.3,95.4, Definition 8361 9561,9562 Ancillary area spaces Application of standard 13 Relationship with central supervising station ue Atmospheric tanks, aboveground 6284 address system; Radio systems; Telephone systems Audiohailers: na Blue light stations = G14 AGLAL ‘Authority having jvsdicion (AH) (definition) SSDAR22 Central apenising sation (C38) te Cental Supervising station ‘Auciliary cenit, vehicle 8583 ‘Gommand post to participating agencies, 1084 ea es ious ioaitoa mun ost Se ce a oe 7210) haintensnce areas 4 Batteries, vehicle "Sations 547,548 Emergency lighting S852 Underground tramways 62.8.7, 6.2.38 Instn ener faaecenta S5ZA8522 Gm mom a ee Samant Bie ight stains SLA SARA LAA ARI aL CRS xing ation (55) Buildings (definition) 8.3.5; see abo Structures: mene yt coca a pass Scere aces poe eae pep ious eas eee Se eecrrtars ae eee eae ala aarieaid | don acl a Copyrighted material licensed to SYSTRA, for licensee's use only, Single user license only, copying prohibited.Copyrighted material licensed to SYSTRA, for licensee's use only. ‘400198032 25 Sep 03. ee Pen a et se ‘Design fire scenarios, or vehicles BILAABILII, E26 Enclosed stations sav also Stations Detection stems Taso) Definition . S3441 “Central superssing station (CSS) 106.10,A.10.6.10 Emergency ventilation systems 53,712.20), 71240), Fire emergencies, wining exercises, and drills records of... 101 Derformsnceebaved design BLM, AST, ASTI Doors and openings ire soe Fre doors Stations 52335236 Platform edge doors 556 Width of doors Bassa Underground trsinwsyaytems oa \ehiele doors, unauthorized opening of... 923, Draft control, station BA Draft stops, vehlele storage and maintenance areas 9.39, A981 Drainage systems, vehicle storage and E Effective fire load (definition) 3318 Egress Sec Means of rest Electrical systems, structural eee Wing Electrical stems, vehicle S581192, 48522 AR5251 Batteries See Baeries Fire safety requirements SH ABS23,A852.01 Heaters Maintenance Overtoad protection ing requirements levated structures (definition) Elevated trainways Emergency access see Access, emergency Emergency communications oe Consents Emergency lighting ‘Seine 36 “Trina gress points 6263, 6362, 8462 Unidergrond 6237, 6238 6247, 6262 462475 Vehicles = RBSARSS Wiring 545,347,348, 6237,6258 TEovergency poocedures Gap. 10; se aio Cente sperising Station (CSS): Command post Participating agencies ryeney management tos Plin Toute 104, 10411081, 1083, 1088, 10122, peer Desiniion sau Records Sout Traction power, remenig an restoring tous Training exereses rly and ctiques ro10 Types al emergencies 103, Emergency esponse personnel 7148.11.10. sa aio Emergency Drocedrex Partcipaing agencies Emergency telephone (ETEL) .... 114.1; s afi Telephone systems Emergency tunnel evacuation carts (ETECS) “hos Emergency venlaion sytem =. Chop. 3 1048) (0, 10404) “Compatity wth nonemergcncywenason ‘annex Gontrl/ operations B70, 76 Design 3 Devices 74 Pane 73 Nonmcchanicl cn Hine ‘Definition aso Paver ning S493 2009 Eon Pertormancedased design, fixed guideway transit and ppasenger vehicles; Tess vehicle Equivalency to standard 14 Escalators S291, 554ASSAT), C2 Emergency lighting 362 Sprinkler systems 5781 Stopped SASSR SSS Evacuation WA 489/5524, n4@y Stations S521, 5584, 5531, 859245598.21, Annex C Trainways bie Elevated aoetaT a Surface ba6 Underground 6218634 626 Aen4 Vehicles SHIRAI RAIS. IS 8429 8435.58, SS Ass4,ASA1S2, D1 Excursion operation (definition) 83.50 Exits 10-408) (e) er also Escalator: Means of ees Stats Stations BBS ASSASEICL Underground systems 624 A624 Exterior fire propagation vesistance, vehicle 42 Extinguishers, portable fre ‘Olices and storerooms 94s Stations CIN 5I5, Underground tains cree Wehictes sos Vehicle storage and maintenance areas oasoae Fans Emergency vena ce Nonemengency, shutdown of 38 “Train contrl and communications roome .. 786-1, 10.610 Fire alarms. we Alsen ire Fire command center 576576 Delinition 33.16 Fire doors Sations 5233, 5236 Underground tainays 624320), Fire dil, emergency procedures plan 10.10 Fire emergency (definition). 117; se alo Emergency procedes Fire growth rate Detnition Fire hazard analysis assessment ‘er Engincering amass {lie bazar Tie risk assessment) Fire propagation resistance a4 Exterior of whicles 42 Interior of vehicles BAL Fire protection io.) ‘Central supervising sation (C88) 1046.40,A.106.10 Stations BTLABT Trainways B27 Vehicles Ba, 81191As MOL Vehicle storage and maint 93,94 Fie resistivity, vehicles Be eiL92—) Fire safety (Characteristics of 4 lecrieal, vehicles SR ASS2 ASSIA1 ire separation, stations. son B23,A52351 Fire smoke releave rate. D.2 se alto Smoke emision/ generation elinition . S819 Copyrighted material licensed to SYSTRA, for licensee's use only. ‘Single user license only, copying prohibited,Copyrighted material licensed to SYSTRA, for licensee's use only. ‘A00198032 25 Sep 03 INDEX Fire souree, assumption of single 44 Fre sippresion systems = uy Fulinguishers, portable fire; Sprinkler systems; Stancpipe and hose stems Fixed guideway rast nd paacnge al while Chap. 8 wea Tce gues, voile Combustible load " 72.2(1) Detinion au Campane pions a Camron SURETARSLARR22 Delmon 30 Bec ve ey ice eee A RSE, eth Emergency eges facies Ssasse Scr afangement agSnee Fire propagation resistance ‘31, Annex D, Annex E Maintenance vs 8962, 811.7, 082, 95.8, A811, A922 Overhead power, root design for i SOB Penewations ce SAIS sos Performincedased desig ‘823,811,481, AnnexE Placement in storage ares 05.1 Protection syiems Bo. Revotit a1 Deciniion pars Streit integrity ajetve 432 Support and guidance systems Bio R192 Tew 8961 Venton, deacsvation of 87 Welling 953 Fixed guideway transit ayers "Anermated sa22 Definition ‘S352 Definition oo 33521 Flaming dripping sans fi 3321 415. S522 Flammable liquids Tirusion, ecient, dive w spills. 628 Vehicle storage and maintenance areas 9326, 9444,958, 954936.1,9562 Floors, vehicle storage and maintenance areas 938 Fuel, storage and handling 9501,9502 Fase protection, vehicle S582 G Gates SSSI, 553845594 ‘access 635.6. Fare collection 55334, 535 Goals of standard 438119, Aai12 Guideways (definition) $393 Hatches, ext oot hatches, vebide [Underground taney 88.11, 884, A884 245, A624 Hazard load D2,B2 Hazardous areas, portable fire extinguishers for creel Headway S591), 55.282 Definition 3824 Heater protection, vehicles ROS reat release rate (RR) ‘erage heat release rate (HRI) (detinition) Definition Fire heat release vate For vention caleulasons Definition Historie operation (definition) Incidental occupancies in stations 532 Definition S327 Condvctor eal Emergency sentilaion stem wiring ‘Overhead contact stem Staton wiring ‘Traine wiring Vehicle wiring 8571 Interior fire propagation esitance, vehide 84.1, AS415, D2. L Labeled (definition) sas Liaison, participating agencies 107, 1083 “Lighting, emergency Sor Emengency lighting jghining protection, vehicles 8a Line breaker, vehiele Baal Liquids ‘ee Combustible liquids; Flammable liquids sted (definition) 323,A323 Load sor ao Passenger toad ‘Combuasie load of «vehicle 7230) Tre baad (lofniion) Baia Hazard loud D2,E2 Ocenpant load, stations S52A5528 C1 ‘Toul fee load (definition) 3349 Local controls 7812 Definition 5.328 LPGae, storage and handling 0551 Me Maintenance 43 Vehicles, maintenance of 88.62, 8.1.7,952, 953,A8117, A522 Vehicle storage and maintenance areas Chap. 9 Maintenance pit areas 986 Marking and sige se aio Emengeney lighting ‘Command post 10.85, 1086, 1085 Trains ‘Access gates, sure uinwags é. Disectional signs, undengvound uainvay 624K ACIS Emergency acces, elevated tralnway 454, 6455 sii, undenground wainweay 8247462484,462455 “Traction pomer, warning signs for Vehicles, operation of means of egress for 63455,6246,62473, 618,625.12, 643.1 Means of ress 10.4(8) (ese ats Exits Gates ‘Stations 55, 721(1),A35, Annex C Trainsns 7210) Bievated 46 Surtace 636 Undergronnd 2a 626.A024 Vehicles BSASSA Vehicle storage and insintenance areas 9512 ‘Measurement, units of 15 Messenger service ios Motor control, vehicles S185 Motors, propulsion B85, “Malevel platform stations, egress fom 5526,5744, ABALLCLS x Noncombustble (definition) [Nonmechanical emergency ventilation systems TTA Definition 5330 Nontransit occupancy 2a5 Definition 3331 2008 Eston Copyrighted material licensed to SYSTRA, for licensee's use only. Single user license only, copying prohibited.