Imagine a house fire without fire. You better read this article energy misers!
Take the time today to read, study, and learn as much as you can about today’s modern building construction, the impact of ventilation on residential structures, and many of the other topics available through UL-FSRI. Be prepared to change, alter, or adapt your tactics when necessary.
This home and scenario represented an incident with which we were not familiar. We were unaware that the level of construction going into this home would directly affect our tactics. These incident-highlighted residential buildings are the enemy. This scenario also showed us that we must do a better job of getting in and out of all residential buildings during construction. Without the knowledge of what is occurring in our districts, we will increase the chances of making poor tactical decisions and not tapping into the tactical considerations in our toolbox being supplied by the research that has and continues to have a positive impact on the fire service.
http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/2014/11/the-residential-building-our-enemy.html
GBA Detail Library
A collection of one thousand construction details organized by climate and house part
Replies
Sorry Richard but the author needs to get out more. We have fought lots of "limited ventilation" fires in old leaky houses where the entire interior was charred without any visible flames. Fire is voracious and quickly uses up the available oxygen in any building without an opening to the exterior. The approach to fighting these is well known and the sort of firefighting 101 stuff I'm surprised he seems unfamiliar with. Construction methods continually change. Firefighters adapt. The whole Houses Are Our Enemy thing I found a bit odd too.
Richard,
You wrote, "You better read this article, energy misers!"
So what are you proposing: that we build deliberately leaky houses, so that firefighters can see the fire from a block away when they are driving their trucks to the fire?
Just how leaky do you propose that we should build our houses? Should we be just a little sloppy -- or maybe extremely sloppy?
Martin and Malcolm,
A real life scenario dismissed as a fireman with no experience, is that being responsible as a building adviser? Apparently the credentials of the author were ignored by you both. Imagine if your family lived in that home.
Martin this played out already with the Madonna Badger fire, Christmas 2011 here in Fairfield, CT. She wasn't so fortunate now was she? Now this fire plays out in Connecticut with documented evidence by another fire expert and building industry "Experts" just say bah humbug. Amazing! I expected more from at least Martin.
Maybe this would've been the more responsible thing to say.... "codes are not designed to accommodate this scenario in homes", "codes need immediate reviewing", "sprinklers should be mandatory in tight homes" or maybe require "2- layers of 5/8" drywall"? After all, tight home's now perform like a furnace which heats your home. What are your chances of escape while you sleep inside your furnace with no protection other than a smoke detector which may or may not work when needed most? This is my opinion.
About the author......
P.J. NORWOOD is a deputy chief training officer for the East Haven (CT) Fire Department and has served four years with the Connecticut Army National Guard. He has authored Dispatch, Handling the Mayday (Fire Engineering, 2012); coauthored "Tactical Perspectives of Ventilation" and "Mayday" DVDs (2011, 2012); and was a key contributor to the "Tactical Perspectives" DVD series. He is a Fire Engineering University faculty member, co-creator of Fire Engineering's weekly video blog "The Job," and host of a Fire Engineering Blog Talk Radio show. He is certified to the instructor II, officer III, and paramedic levels.
"Dismissed as a fireman with no experience."
Richard, Unless I'm mistaken you are the one with no firefighting or fire design experience in this discussion.
As I have already explained, the difference between none ventilated fires in tight and leaky homes is negligible because the amount of oxygen needed to sustain flames is so high.
How do you fight these fires? You certainly don't breach or enter the structure. You cut a hole at the highest practical point to exhaust the heat without providing oxygen to ignite any materials.
With all due respect to Mr. Norwood, he seems completely astonished by common construction techniques.
Admonishing Martin and I for not seconding you knee-jerk reaction to an article that with all respect you are not knowledgable enough to assess and to recommend smoke detectors and code changes as a result seems a bit rich to me.
Good afternoon to all of you. Thank you for posting and taking the time to read and comment on my blog. I am a little concerned however at the comments. I am curious (and will probably not find the real answer) the motivation to discredit me and the information presented. I am also perplexed by the fire experts here who honestly do not have any knowledge of how todays modern enviorment and how the building industry effects my profession. The fiefighting tactics presented here by those who feel they understand are not in-tune with the training and education of todays fire service. Can vent limited fires occur in a old leaky legacy constructed home? Yes, it can but it is dependent on the fuel package and heat release rates of the contents and how rapidly the fire grows. I would encourage each of you to http://ulfirefightersafety.com/ and brush up on your fire bahavior knowledge before discrediting me or the tactics deplyed on fires in homes constructed with todays practices. Am I advocating to forgo todays construction practices? No not at all. Am I advocating we need to better educate firefighters on proper tactics? yes. We can not apply old outdated firefighting tatics to todays homes. I would also make a personal recommendation to ""Dismissed as a fireman with no experience." Do yourself a favor study up bewae of who you are discrediting with out educating yourself first. If you are a firefighter lets talk. You need some training and education on todays firefighting practices. Your tactics are not the best practices being applied by the fire service of today.
P.J. Norwood,
There are two possible responses to your blog: one by firefighters and one by builders. My remarks were not directed at firefighters.
My response was directed to Richard Beyer, who wrote, "You better read this article, energy misers!" I was (and still am) uncertain concerning what Richard thinks "energy misers" should do in response to your concerns.
Smooth Martin. I did not post to offend which seems to be your stance. I posted this link to show what happens in the real world. It's apparent your not interested in real world hazards as the author illustrates and can be prevented.
Richard,
So what do you propose that "energy misers" should do?
I posted my thoughts above. If a modern home is going to behave like a furnace it's time to make sprinklers mandatory or certain flammable materials which behave like fuel need restrictions or additional plaster depth per code. Energy saving recommendations are using theory on families with building science. The author showed you what happens during a modern fire. Your the building expert Martin, what do you think should change?
While no one here can question Mr Norwood's firefighting credentials, he has made statements that lack support
He has criticized an entire method of house construction based on a fire that he does not mention the cause of.
while the house is much more heavily damaged than one would expect from the outside, he offers no evidence that it is more damaged than a standard construction house would have been. It seems entirely likely that a standard construction house would have sustained just as much damage, but in a different fashion
There apparently was no loss of life. A firefighters job is primarily to save lives. Second it is to save my neighbors house. I do not know about you, but I do not want a firefighter injured or killed saving my empty damn house. It's a house. It's insured. If it is on fire, one way or another it is my fault. I was the one frying chicken, or doing my own wiring, or shooting off fireworks next to the Christmas tree, in March.
Really, this is an insurance issue. Absent evidence that this house caused a fire, the only remainin question is if the damage was more expensive than some other construction method.
Mr Norwood offers little insight on any of this.
Do you want to reduce house fire related deaths? Hardwired smokes in all existing dwellings.
Sprinklers save buildings, detectors save lives.
I've jut reread the article and nowhere that I can see does Officer Norwood suggest changes to building codes and practices. He is a fire service training officer and apart from the modest speculation that the vented rain screen cavity might possibly contribute to fire spread the article seems to focus entirely on updating fire service practice to deal with new standards in construction. Implied slurs on 'energy misers' are entirely coming from Mr. Beyer, not from the fire service professional.
i'm not trying to discredit Mr. Norwood. What I find odd is that he seems to see this "new" type of construction as being different in kind as opposed to in degree from what he sees every day. He obviously knows how to fight these fires and has probably done so dozens of times - as our department has. I simply don't see any threats that this type of construction poses that would make him label them as "the enemy" or justify any changes in either codes or builder behaviour.
Those are minor differences of opinion. What occasioned my comments were Richard's extrapolations from the article, which make no sense.
If this argument somehow boils down to credentials, I am the president of our department's governing Fire Society. I designed our fire station, including a recent addition to post disaster standards. Our chief and training officer are accredited to the equivalent standards that Mr. Norwood holds.
What an huge waste of time.
My question is how "P.J. Norwood" found out about this blog?
I assume he was tipped-off by Richard Beyer. Too much of coincidence.
Andrew, "new" to some may not always be "new" to you. This is very similiar to the "new" firefighting tactics in this type of constructon that you are obviously not educated to. If you go back and read the article you will realize James Morgans comments are dead on accurate. Credentials have nothing to do with this conversation with the exception of you trying to discredit and manipulate the intent of the article. If you would like to make it about credentails as a diversionary tactic to your assumptions and mis-informaton we can do that also. To the rest of you I appreciate you understanding the intent and realize I am not bashing or critizing anything that was designed, constructed or built. As mentioned I am strictly trying to educate the national fire service in an issue that effects the tacticall considerations to those that are willing to put their life in danger for those in their community. I appreciate your input and for those that support residential sprinklers and education, thank you! I would also encourage you to read my most recent published article "From The Shipyard To Your Backyard". This article surronds the usage of ISBU as private dwellngs. Again a new construction pactice in my area which may not be new to some. However it is only available to subscribers. But, it will be a open document in the next week or so on fireengineering.com. Here is the digital link but again I do not believe you will be able to read it if you are a non-subscriber. http://digital.fireengineering.com/fireengineering/201411?folio=61#pg64. Malcom Taylor you should probably subscribe to update youself on todays tactics so you can continue to be an agressive but safe firefighter so you can safely return to your family. Which is the goal of all of my articles to help educate so all firefighters can retun safly to their family including yself. Stay tuned I also have one in Query on the dangers of SPF and how it impacts firefighting tactics. But I am sure this is not new to you!
Peter L, there are many social media tools that will alert you to key words. In my profession and job responsibilties it is important for me to keep up to date on the fire service, building trade, my blogs and articles. I can easily see whenever my blogs or articles are shared or posted. The easiest to utilize is google alerts. Its a free service with many benefits. I am not sure your interests or hobbies but its a great service to keep track of specific items. have a great weekend everyone!
Richard Beyer,
Q. "You're the building expert, Martin. What do you think should change?"
A. I believe in fire safety, and I'm a strong advocate for evidence-based improvements in construction methods to reduce the chance of fire and losses of life. Since P.J. Norwood's article did not explain the cause of the fire in question, it's hard to know what conclusions to draw from his anecdote. We don't know whether the house had sprinklers. The house was under construction; we don't even know if the house was connected to water service. Perhaps the designer of the house included sprinklers, but the sprinklers weren't yet hooked up. Since we don't know the cause of the fire, we don't even know whether sprinklers might have helped.
Similarly, it's hard to know whether your recommendation that codes call for "additional plaster depth" would have made any difference in this fire.
Let's say that we were researchers with a $2 million budget. Let's say that we knew the cause of this fire. In that case, it would be interesting to build two houses side by side -- one that was leaky, as you propose, and one that was close to airtight. We could then simultaneously start a fire in each house, according to the presumed mechanism of the fire that happened in the house in Norwood's anecdote. We could watch which fire was most devastating.
I'm not convinced that the fire in the leaky house would have a better outcome than the fire in the airtight house. But at least if we were conducting research, we would know more than we do now.
Martin,
Have you done any research with the Monolithic Dome Home Institute lately? They already performed the testing your carrying on about. They are the ones who found the best practice when using spray foam as insulation is very thick plaster walls @2" thick. Their buildings are the most fire resistant homes I've ever read about and they are only constructed from steel rebar, Closed Cell polyurethane foam insulation and plaster. Have you ever seen a Cobb home burn like the one illustrated? Do you have any fire reports on this?
Chat later after my son's Superbowl game! ;)
Richard,
Data are always better than anecdotes. If you have a link to a study conducted by the Monolithic Dome Home Institute -- which sounds like it might be a front for a for-profit company rather than a real institute, but we'll leave that issue aside for the moment -- then I'd be interested in reading the report.
It's not too surprising to hear that 2-inch-thick plaster walls do a better job of preventing foam from catching fire when compared to 1/2-inch-thick plaster walls. The question then becomes whether a fire scenario that requires 2-inch-thick plaster walls is common enough to justify the expense.
One-hour fire barriers (1/2-inch drywall) have been standard in residential construction for a long time. These fire barriers save lives. How many more lives per year would be saved by a switch from 1/2-inch drywall to 2-inch-thick plaster? If one life is saved every 10 years, would it be worth the cost of making 2-inch-thick plaster a minimum code requirement?
Another safety nazi
Richard, I love yaa... but I have to get you to try hang gliding and sky diving and scuba diving. Then you can spend millions of hours explaining better safety in my other fun persuits.
All this off topic safety yap... is boring.
And not the main point of GBA... for me anyway.
I like learning how to go to net zero. And I love PEX. And copper. And single good looking firewomen.
Richard if we meet someday we should have a PEX sword fight for fun. One blue one red... I'll take the blue, my company color. We won't sharpen the ends... though I would love to. Then we would know the only danger PEX could have. I'm thinking 1/2"... maybe 3/4" your choice.
On topic... house fires suck.... really. My experience. I just built not one but two outside fire pits. First fire and half the neighbors stopped in to chat. Nice gathering, 10 adirondack chairs... so built my back yard pit and it is awesome. I have several huge boulders, two are tables, and one monster is the back drop for the flames.
GBA we need a blog on building great firepits.
I will post pics of mine if any interest.
Gonna start a fire today... single firewoman welcome...
You know what's fun around here for the fire folks is we get to burn a home down that is due for demo... great fun and training exercise as you fire folks probably know. Lets burn one today at 4:20.
To be safe from fire... perfectly... Richard... how about a nice cave and no fire pit allowed. Still if one of your fellow cave dwellers spontaneously combusts all bets are off.
I guess there is always a degree of safety no matter how one builds 1/2" gypsum to twenty feet of rock. Can we agree on that Richard?
There's gotta be a chat site dedicated to safety other than GBA. Anyone have a few to point Richard to?
Richard I love yaa...
I think the invitation to panic about building "tight" houses is a bit incendiary. Sorry, I couldn't help myself. My parents had a cabin up in a remote area of the mountains, since sold, that caught fire. I was there with them when we all discovered it. As we approached the door we smelled smoke but no smoke or fire was visible. We went in and it was apparent that a limited fire had started from an electric blanket and spread. There was visible superficial charring in various places in the cabin but the most damage was smoke damage. It reeked. The cabin still stands without any major structural alterations.
We soon figured out that the reason the fire did not spread and become a conflagration was because there had been a recent snow that not only covered the roof but also the grate on the chimney. This house, that was built well before tight houses were encouraged, was apparently very tight anyway, and much more so because of the recent snow. The initial fire consumed all the air in the house and the fire went out by itself.
Rather than panic and come to overly broad conclusions by the house referenced in the article maybe we should think about this idea. Maybe that house in the article was a statistical anomaly? Perhaps the initial fire was close enough to a ventable area that it created its own air source before the initial house oxygen was consumed? That seems like the most likely cause for all the fire damage and the non visibility of the fire. Most likely the limited fire caused vent created a limited fire.
Maybe instead of fleeing like mice in panic we should consider that it was just bad luck that the limited oxygen in the house was still sufficient to create it own "hole" to exterior air. You'll have to convince me that in general houses are not safer when airtight because statistically they are more likely to put themselves out before creating their own oxygen hole. Just like my parents cabin.
Eric, that's an interesting way of looking at it.
Statistically the real differentiation in terms of risk is between new and old structures. New houses are remarkably safe and not prone to burning down. This is important to remember when suggesting code changes such as mandating sprinklers, or more stringent standards for non-combustable materials, as while these might save a lot of damage or lives if retrofitted into older existing structures, the effect on new housing stock would be exponentially less.
I agree. Just have standard gypsum drywall and no wood paneling or exposed wood ceilings. If you have a house under 1 or 2 ACH 50 then most likely the house will contain the fire and burn itself out before creating a vent that brings in more oxygen. I don't think you'd even have to limit wood furnishings. People just love to panic. I guess it comes from the lizard brains that we all evolved from and is still with us to varying degrees. I hope at least that we at GBA are evolved enough for that statement not to set off any fundamentalist religious rants. ha ha
The linked article concerns the firefighting aspects of tight houses--from what I understand, they tend to be ventilation-limited, so lots of smoke and heat, low visibility, but no open flames--the house slowly carbonizes to charcoal. While this presents unique firefighting challenges, I don't see how these challenges make a tight house any more "dangerous" to live in than a leaky one. It may just be my poor sense of temperature and acute sense of smell, but a ventilation-limited smoky fire in my house would be far more obvious to me than a vigorous and clean-burning one. A freely ventilating fire also consumes its fuel much faster, helped along by the stack effect in a leaky house, giving me and my family less time to escape. If anything leaky houses are far more dangerous to live in when it comes to fire.