0 penilaian0% menganggap dokumen ini bermanfaat (0 suara)
11 tayangan4 halaman
Nearly 90 per cent of deaths from fires in buildings occur in dwellings. If we can make the home safe from fire we can also make other homes safe from fire. The dwelling represents 40 per cent of all building property loss from fire.
Nearly 90 per cent of deaths from fires in buildings occur in dwellings. If we can make the home safe from fire we can also make other homes safe from fire. The dwelling represents 40 per cent of all building property loss from fire.
Hak Cipta:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Format Tersedia
Unduh sebagai PDF, TXT atau baca online dari Scribd
Nearly 90 per cent of deaths from fires in buildings occur in dwellings. If we can make the home safe from fire we can also make other homes safe from fire. The dwelling represents 40 per cent of all building property loss from fire.
Hak Cipta:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Format Tersedia
Unduh sebagai PDF, TXT atau baca online dari Scribd
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.