Anda di halaman 1dari 4

When we count up all those who die each year from fires When measuring fire against the

nst the scale of successful


in buildings we find that nearly 90 per cent of the deaths control—then the small building becomes the bigger
occur in dwellings. problem. A bon fire in the middle of an aircraft hangar
may not even warm the rafters. But a similar fire in a
Appalling isn't it! small dwelling can represent almost instantaneous
Now, if we were to go out and take a poll of fire safety disaster. In a mobile home (even smaller rooms) the
specialists, and ask them what specific kind of material growth rate of a fire from incipiency to the deadly level
used in construction represents the greatest fire can be explosively fast.
hazard—probably most would answer, "Plastics". Fire danger measured against human susceptibility to
So what do you think my reaction was when several damage is inversely related to the compartment size.
groups of home builders approached me with their plans When we learn to detect and curb the dwelling fire prior
to build plastic dwellings? to the human danger point we will probably have the
You're wrong! foundation to terminate fire in its incipiency on all
buildings. Thus, ending the threat of a deadly dwelling
I thought it was a great idea. Here's why fire could be a major step toward solving the entire
building fire problem.
AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PROGRESS
THE RESEARCH PLAN
For the moment, let's just assume a home built of
plastics is more dangerous than a normal home. As you Live fire tests were conducted by Patton Fire Protection
will see later this assumption probably is not correct (if & Research, Inc. on July 16 & 17th, 1973.
properly selected fire retardant materials are used) but
for the moment let's assume it's true. This research provided answers to the following
questions.
Well, if it is true that the plastic home is unusually
dangerous—why then if we can find a way to make the 1. Is the interior fire in the combustible contents the
plastic home safe—then most assuredly we can also prime threat to human life? If so, does this threat to
make other homes safe from fire. And if we do this we human life remain relatively constant regardless of
have a solution to 90 per cent of the building* fire variations in dwelling construction materials?
problem as far as human life is concerned. 2. Is long duration fire resistance for the structure (in
Think about that. If we make the home safe from fire we accordance with ASTM 119) relevant if the content fire
solve 90 per cent of the human fire problem in buildings. becomes deadly long before the structure fails?
Staggers your mind a little bit doesn't it? One little 3. Are structures of fire retardant plastics equal to
solution is worth 90 per cent of the problem. conventional construction?
But, don't go away. We're not through yet. Let's take 4. In order to achieve a level of fire safety in
this two steps further. If we solve the human life problem dwellings significantly above levels presently achieved
in dwellings—we also prevent 40 per cent of the through conventional construction it is necessary to
property damage from fire. Yes, the dwelling represents introduce a fire suppression system, or a fire detection
40 per cent of all building property loss from fire. And, system, or both into the dwelling?
finally, if we solve the dwelling fire problem we may just
end up solving all building fire problems for reasons 5. Is a combustible dwelling that this sprinklered,
explained below. and/or fully protected with an alarm system significantly
safer than a non-combustible or fire resistive dwelling
AN INVERSE RATIO that is not sprinklered?
On the surface the fire problem appears to be directly Two fiberglass dwelling modules (rooms) with arched
proportional to building size. Certainly no one can deny roofs were set side by side. The fiberglass modules were
that putting out a fire in a big building (after it is ex- constructed of fire retardant polyurethane three inches
tensively involved) is a lot bigger problem than putting thick with inner and outer surfaces having "skins"
out a fire in a small building (after it becomes extensive). containing 2 114 ounces of fiberglass per square foot.
But, both these situations represent failures of our fire
control system. The open ends of one module were closed with pactitions
of 3/8 inch thick plywood. This plastic module with
If we think in terms of success rather than failure—then plywood end walls was considered the COMBUSTIBLE
the question is not "How big a fire can get"—rather it module.
is, "What is the time frame for control prior to the fire
becoming dangerous." As stated this applies to building fires which exclude
transportation (auto,aircraft), forest, clothing fires, etc.
The second module was coated throughout the interior Based on data published by the Mine Safety Company,
with 3/4" gypsum plaster on wire lath and the end walls and other data, the following table has been prepared for
were sheathed with 5/8" gypsum wallboard. Thus, this a deadly atmosphere containing carbon monoxide.
unit was converted into a FIRE RESISTIVE module.
The combustible module was equipped with 4 sprinkler Table II
test lines consisting of one copper (soft solder joints) and DEADLY CONDITIONS
one plastic (PVC) line buried in the ceiling and similar Carbon Monoxide
lines below the ceiling exposed to the fires.
CO Concentration Exposure Time
Both modules were loaded with furniture typical of what ( minutes)
might be found in the living room of a normal dwelling.
The modules were monitored during the tests for 0.02 240 plus
temperature (at ceiling level and at the 5' level), and for 0.05 240 plus
carbon monoxide and hydrogen chloride. 0.1 120
0.2 90
DEADLY CONDITION DEFINED 0.5 20
0.75 10
Where the victim has not been directly exposed to the 1.0 5
flames and has not suffered extensive skin burns fire 1.5 2
deaths in buildings generally have been attributed to
"carbon monoxide poisoning". Some researchers in In analyzing the fire test data as to the creation of
recent years have suggested that other specific more "deadly conditions", we considered the fire deadly
toxic gases may in some instances be the primary cause when either the temperature or the CO concentration
of death. For example, there have been suggestions that became deadly over a time frame as shown in Table I or
hydrogen chloride, hydrogen cyanide, or other gases Table II.
may under some conditions achieve levels of high
toxicity prior to the CO becoming deadly. Usually If the fire became deadly from either condition, then that
"plastics" are cited as the producer of the "other" toxic point was taken as the maximum endurance point of
gases. man. If death would have occurred at a prior time, due
to the synergistic effect of two or more hazardous
Others dispute this, and claim that carbon monoxide is conditions in combination, then this only means that we
indeed the key deadly gas produced by fire, and cite are safe in setting the single factor death point as a
data to support their belief. This counter view tends to maximum survival point.
place plastics in perhaps a more realistic view as being
one class of materials in a broad range of combustibles, THE TESTS
all of which produce deadly gases.
Test I
At this point I will offer a third possibility and suggest that
many so called "carbon monoxide' or "toxic gas" The fire was initiated in the COMBUSTIBLE module with
deaths are not primarily due to gas toxicity but rather are one 135° F rated sprinkler in the exposed (below the
due to the very high temperatures of the combustion ceiling) copper line. It was a plastic wastepaper basket
gases. ignition between a wooden endtable and sofa. A product
of combustion detector operated after 25 seconds. The
The following table has been prepared to indicate deadly fire burned poorly filling the room with smoke, and
conditions due to temperature. operated the sprinkler in 21 minutes. The fire was
Table I promptly extinguished. Carbon monoxide reached the
DEADLY CONDITIONS 0.1°A, level for the last 4 minutes (0.1% CO exposure for
Temperature 2 hours could cause coma). The structure did not
become involved. Temperature reached a maximum of
Exposure Time 160° F at the ceiling and 100° F at the 5 foot level.
Temperature*
(minutes)
Test 2
200° F 15 This was a repeat of Test 1 except the wastepaper
250° F 5 basket was placed directly under a wood desk to in-
300° F 3 1/2 crease the rate of fire progress. With the faster fire a
400° F 2 higher rated (165° F) sprinkler operated at 12 minutes,
500° F 11/2 30 seconds while CO was only 0.02% (Produces slight
600° F 1 headaches in 4 hours). Room conditions were not
750° F 0.5 dangerous and the structure was not involved. The
1000° F 0.1 smoke detector within the module operated at 35
seconds.
*As measured by thermocouple 5' above floor level.
Test 3
The above table was prepared based on a variety of data
some conflicting, including the Fire Gas Research The COMBUSTIBLE model was empty except for two
Report developed by Arthur D. Little, Inc., published in wood cribs which were placed in the corner of the
the January 1952, NFPA Quarterly. combustible module exposing both the plywood wall and
fiberglass wall. The smoke detector operated at 2
This table may be overstating man's ability to sustain seconds, and a Star "Quickie" sprinkler head operate,—
high temperatures especially if the hot gases are humid, at 3 minutes, but this was a "dummy" head (no water).
but if so Table I will be on the conservative side as The charged spinkler (165° F conventional rated)
related to the test program. operated at 6 minutes. Smoke was modest and CO was
nil. The fire was promptly controlled and there was slight
charring of the fiberglass wall. The exposed PVC were in the room they would probably have been already
sprinkler pipe deflected. It is believed the 'Quickie" dead at this point.
head operated prior to the pipe damage. 5. In the two burnout tests (No'. 4 & 5) temperatures
Test 4 became deadly before carbon monoxide levels became
critical. The CO readings in turn, reached significant
This was a "burnout" of the FIRERESISTIVE module. levels before the HCL concentrations did.
The room was filled with furniture of a normal living room
variety and quantity and fire was started in a wood crib 6. The soft solder (50-50 tin lead) joined cooper tube
adjoining an end table. At 11 minutes visibility was good, pipe and ordinary PVC pipe imbedded in the ceiling
the ceiling temperature was at 260° F (a sprinkler, if survived during the burnout test far beyond the time
installed, would have already operated) and the CO was frame for sprinkler operation. This suggests either piping
0.02 c/0 (not serious). The HCL was nil but the 5 foot high system is satisfactory for sprinklers when physically
thermocouple was approaching 260° F. The structure separated from direct fire exposure. The failure of the
was not involved in the fire. exposed PVC pipe during the third test, after surviving
the first two suggests that a higher temperature resistant
A 5 foot high temperature of 260° F is bordering on plastic pipe system (for exposed piping) such as CPCV
"deadly conditions". The first "deadly condition" that may solve the problem. Also, the fact that the PVC pipe
evolved in this room was temperature. failed after a quick operating (but dummy) sprinkler head
At 17 minutes with fire still involving furniture in only one opened leads us to believe that speeding up sprinkler
corner of the room CO rose to 0 1% (can produce coma operation may be an important key to the use of exposed
with 2 hours exposure). piping systems of limited temperature resistance.
Fire intensity increased rapidly at 22 minutes and then CONCLUSIONS
thick black smoke appeared at 23 minutes indicating
structural involvement. (It is believed that the interior The following conclusions were reached as a result of
plaster coating began to fall away from the polyurethane these tests.
shell). At this time room temperature (5' level) was 1. The combustible content fire can kill prior to
700° F (instantly deadly). CO was 0.1% which can structural involvement
cause a headache in one hour (window was open). HCL
also was 0.1%. The fire was extinguished by the fire 2. The fuel loading (combustible contents) in a
department at 34 minutes. normal dwelling is more than sufficient to kill regardless
of construction.
Test 5
3. In a flaming fire untenable conditions due to
Essentially, this was a repeat of Test 4 (which was in the temperature may develop prior to the creation of toxic
FIRERESISTIVE MODULE) except that Test 5 was in the gases in lethal concentrations.
COMBUSTIBLE module. The sprinkler system was not
used but the lines (both exposed and imbedded) were 4. The fiberglass modules tested were not an
water filled. Again a room furnished as a living room was unacceptable fire risk when measured against the
ignited with a small wood crib near a sofa simulating a presently accepted risks associated with the com-
flaming (non smoldering type) fire. A sprinkler, if in- bustible contents normal to a dwelling, existing wood
stalled would have operated probably by 2 minutes construction, and combustible paneling and ceiling tiles.
(ceiling temperature 400° F). Between 6 and 14 5. A product of combusion detector, when located in
minutes the 5' high temperature fluctuated between the room of fire origin, will operate during a very early
300° F to 425° F (which is too hot too long for stage of the fire and maximize escape time.
humans). Heavy white smoke appeared at 15 minutes
indicated structural involvement. Even at 16 :30 minutes 6. A content fire can produce deadly conditions as
CO and HCL were reading only 0.1°/0 (there was window rapidly, or nearly as rapidly, in a fire resistive structure
ventilation). It took 53 minutes for the structure to be as in a combustible structure.
destroyed. At 18 minutes the PVC imbedded sprinkler
pipe burst and at 47 minutes the imbedded copper pipe 7. A sprinkler will open before room temperatures
burst (from over pressure due to check valve). become deadly.
PERTINENT TEST DATA AND ANALYSIS 8. Temperatures will be approaching the dangerous
levels when a sprinkler operates. The sprinkler may well
The tests produce the following information. be the last clear chance to intercept and stop the fire
before it does become deadly.
1. When sprinklers were in use (Test 1, 2, and 3) they
operated to control the fire before deadly conditions 9. Fire resistant construction is no guarantee of fire
developed. safety:
2. When a smoke detector was in use (Tests 1, 2 and 10. If a significant improvement in the fire safety of a
3) it operated within the first minute of the fire while the dwelling is desired a fire detection or suppression
fire was quite small. system (or both) is necessary.
3. During the burnout of the FIRERESISTIVE module FURTHER OBSERVATIONS
(Test 4) the content fire produced conditions considered AND RELATED OPINIONS
"deadly" in less than 15 minutes but the structure did Here I depart from strict test data interpretation and
not become involved in the fire until sometime after 20 offer related opinions based on a general knowledge of
minutes when the plaster interior coating dropped away fire.
from the plastic shell.
During all tests the window was open, and sometimes
4. During the burnout of the COMBUSTIBLE module the door was also partially opened. Fresh air was en-
(Test 5) heavy smoke indicated the contents fire ignited tering the window and hot gases were exiting at the top
the fiberglass structure at 15 minutes. But if occupants of the window.
When the door was closed the amount of fresh air If the smoke detector is not in the room of origin
entering through the window sometimes fell below that (possibly it is in the hallway) the time between detector
level needed to sustain full combustion. The fire would operation and the creation of untenable conditions that
drop in intensity, the room would become smoky, and in could block escape may be extremely short (Se
several instances ceiling temperature fell. "Operation School Burning" published by NFPA]
Thus, it would seem, that the question of which con- On the other hand, there is a potential for a smoldering
dition would become deadly first; toxic smoke or fire to produce deadly concentrations of carbon
temperature, is related to the ventilation of the room as monoxide or other toxic gases before ceiling tem-
well as the type of material burning. In a fully closed perature activates a sprinkler.
room the fire may soon go into a suppressed stage
where heat generation may be low and smoke and CO A full sprinkler system (covering every room) plus spot
production high. smoke detection would appear to be very good
protection because if the fire is of the flaming type (with
On the other hand, with a clean burning fire that is well a potential for very rapid spread) it will activate the
ventilated high temperature may well be the major sprinkler. If the fire is of the smoldering type the buildup
hazard, especially since the hot fire can go into the of the toxic gases should be slow. Even though the
flashover stage and then spread extremely rapidly. smoke detector is not in the immediate vicinity of the fire
The elimination or reduction of combustible materials is it is likely to operate in time for escape because of the
a theoretical solution to fire. However, in tests 4 and 5 very slow manner in which a smoldering fire evolves.
the quantity of material that actually burned prior to In summation, here are the important conclusions:
developing deadly conditions was quite small in com-
parison to the total fuel loading. The reduction of 1. Most deadly fires involve dwellings.
combustible furnishings to a point where there is in- 2. Fire resistance ratings do not guarantee safety.
sufficient fuel to produce a deadly fire is therefore
considered to be an "unrealistic solution". 3. The flaming fire is particularly dangerous because
it can grow rapidly and prevent escape. The sprinkler
The data suggests that neither the sprinkler (tem- system is the solution to the hot fire.
perature operated) nor the smoke detector alone is the
total answer to the fire problem in a dwelling. 4. The poorly ventilated, slow smoky fire is insidious,
but there is much more time to react. Spot smoke
The smoke detector will operate quickly (if in the room of detectors will probably give warnings in sufficient time.
fire origin), but in some instances the time for escape
may be short. Unattended children, the elderly, the sick, 5. If a dwelling is properly protected with both
and babies could fall victim to a rapid spreading fire spinklers and spot smoke detectors the character of the
even though an alarm has been sounded. basic construction is irrelevant to fire safety.

PATTON FIRE PROTECTION


6075 Cleveland Avenue
Columbus, Ohio 43229

Anda mungkin juga menyukai