fire safety challenges of ‘green’ systems and features in … · 2014 icc annual conference...

2014 ICC Annual Conference 8/14/2014

(c) Brian Meacham, WPI, 2014 1

Fire Safety Challenges of ‘Green’ Systems and Features in BuildingsBrian J. Meacham, PhD, PE, FSFPE, CEng, FIFireEAssociate Professor, Fire Protection Engineering, WPI

2014 ICC Annual Conference, Education Session

Green Construction and Energy Production’s Potential Impact on Fire and Firefighter Safety30 September 2014

Overview

• Objective─ Provide an overview of potential fire safety issues that could

be associated with the increasing transition to a ‘green’ and sustainable built environment

• Approach─ Overview of 2012 FPRF project that raised issues http://www.nfpa.org/research/fire-protection-research-

foundation/reports-and-proceedings/building-and-life-safety/general-life-safety-issues/fire-safety-challenges-of-green-buildings

─ Brief overview of follow-on work, a 3-year, $1M research effort supported by DHS, Award EMW-2012-FP-01336

Overview

• Part 1: FPRF funded project (2012)─ Green / sustainability objectives─ Research problem aims and objectives─ Potential fire concerns with green buildings─ Overview of information search─ Categorization of green elements and attributes and

potential fire concerns─ Presentation of relative risk/hazard/concern─ Issues with fire and green rating schemes─ Conclusions and recommendations



Green / Sustainable Objectives

• Green / Sustainability Objectives─ Limit impact on environment Limit impact to environment due to toxic releases into air,

water and soil Lower overall carbon emissions Slow pace of climate change Better utilize natural resources

─ Promote new technologies, materials and methods to facilitate the above


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-488982/One-million-terrified-residents-flee-ravaged-Malibu.html


http://www.herts.police.uk/about/buncefield_incident.htm Windsor Building, Madrid, Spain





• Lower carbon footprint─ Construction

materials Structure Façade Interior finish

─ Operational energy usage Lighting Heating, cooling,

ventilation

http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-in-depth/all_reports/buildings

http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-in-depth/all_reports/buildings




FPRF Study: The Concern

• Green buildings are now a global focus. Several green building rating schemes and green building codes exist; however, the extent to which fire safety considerations are addressed within theses systems, and whether potential fire hazards may be created by green building elements and features, has not been systematically studied.

FPRF Study: Aims and Objectives

• Identify documented fire incidents in the built inventory of green buildings,

• Define a specific set of elements in green building design, including configuration and materials, which, without mitigating strategies, increase fire risk, decrease safety or decrease building performance in comparison with conventional construction,

FPRF Study: Aims and Objectives

• Identify and summarize existing best practice case studies in which the risk introduced by specific green building design elements has been explicitly addressed,

• Compile research studies related to incorporating building safety, life safety and fire safety as an explicit element in green building indices, identifying gaps and specific needed research areas. http://projects.bre.co.uk/frsdiv/smokes

hafts/



FPRF Study: Approach

• Global information search – web & surveys─ Incidents, research studies, best practice case studies,

related efforts

• Identify green building elements / attributes• Identify risk / hazard / performance factors• Consider how fire addressed in green building

rating schemes• Present ways to communicate concerns

Examples of IncidentsTable 1. Representative Fire Incidents

Commercial Photovoltaic Panel Fire

383 kW roof PV system fire, Target Store, Bakersfield, CA, April 2009

http://nfpa.typepad.com/files/target‐fire‐report‐09apr29.pdf (last accessed 10/21/12)

PV roof fire, France warehouse, January 2010

http://www.aria.developpement‐durable.gouv.fr/ressources/fd_37736_valdereuil_jfm_en.pdf (last accessed 10/21/12)

Roof PV system in Goch, Germany, April 2012.

http://www.feuerwehr‐goch.de/index.php?id=22&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=596&cHash=982afcd5c431b7299f67de4af397cc43 (last accessed 10/21/12)

1,208kW roof PV system, Mt. Holly, NC, April 2011

http://www.solarabcs.org/about/publications/meeting_presentations_minutes/2011/12/pdfs/Duke‐Webinar‐Dec2011.pdf (last accessed 10/21/12)

PV roof fire, Trenton, NJ, March 2012

http://blog.nj.com/centraljersey_impact/print.html?entry=/2012/03/trenton_firefighters_battle_ro.html (last accessed 10/21/12)

http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2012/03/solar_panels_source_of_fire_at.html (last accessed 10/21/12)

Residential Photovoltaic Panel Fire

PV Fire: Experience and Studies, UL, 2009

http://www.solarabcs.org/about/publications/meeting_presentations_minutes/2011/02/pdfs/Arc‐PV_Fire_sm.pdf (last accessed 10/21/12)

PV fires, FPRF report, 2010 http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/pdf/research/fftacticssolarpower.pdf (last accessed 10/21/12)

PV fire, San Diego, CA, April 2010

http://www.nctimes.com/article_8a32fb03‐9e3f‐58ca‐b860‐9c7fe1e28c7e.html (last accessed 10/21/12)

PV fire, Stittingbourne, UK, March 2012

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kentonline/news/2012/march/30/solar_panels.aspx (last accessed 10/21/12)

Battery Storage and UPS Fire

Battery fire, Data Center, Taiwan, February 2009

http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?sessionId=8&resId=1&materialId=0&confId=45473 (last accessed 10/21/12)

https://solarjuice.com/blog/buildings-and-pv/solar-panels-and-fire/

http://www.coffscoastadvocate.com.au/news/warning-solar-panel-owners/1256986/

Examples of IncidentsTable 1. Representative Fire Incidents

Residential Spray Foam Insulation Fire

Foam insulation home fire, North Falmouth, MA, May 2008

http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080520/NEWS/805200318/‐1/rss01 (last accessed 10/21/12)

http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/blogs/dept/green‐building‐news/three‐massachusetts‐home‐fires‐linked‐spray‐foam‐installation (last accessed 10/21/12)

Foam insulation, Woods Hole, MA, February 2011

http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110211/NEWS/102110323 (last accessed 10/21/12)

Foam insulation fire, Quebec, May 2010

http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/blogs/dept/green‐building‐news/nze‐project‐tragic‐fire‐and‐will‐rebuild (last accessed 10/21/12)

Residential Foil Insulation, Fire / Shock Hazards

Home Insulation Program (Australia)

http://www.climatechange.gov.au/government/initiatives/hisp/key‐statistics.aspx (last accessed 10/21/12)

http://www.productsafety.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/974027/ (last accessed 10/21/12)

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/feb2010/insu‐f22.shtml (last accessed 10/21/12)

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/garretts‐roofing‐fire‐admission/story‐e6frg6n6‐1225829880090 (last accessed 10/21/12)

Sandwich Panels / Structural Integrated Panel (SIP) with Combustible Foam Insulation or Coating

Borgata Casino, Atlantic City, NJ, Façade Fire (2007)

http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/2010/05/modern‐building‐materials‐are‐factors‐in‐atlantic‐city‐fires.html (last accessed 10/21/12)

Apartment Façade Fire, Busan, Korea

http://koreabridge.net/post/haeundae‐highrise‐fire‐busan‐marine‐city‐burns (last accessed 10/21/12)

http://view.koreaherald.com/kh/view.php?ud=20101001000621&cpv=0 (last accessed 10/21/12)

Apartment Façade and Scaffold Fire, Shaghai, China

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/11/shanghai_apartment_fire.html (last accessed 10/21/12)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world‐asia‐pacific‐11760467 (last accessed 10/21/12)

High‐Rise Façade Fires, UAE http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/uae/emergencies/fire‐breaks‐out‐at‐sharjah‐tower‐1.1014750 (last accessed 10/21/12)

http://article.wn.com/view/2012/05/02/Tower_cladding_in_UAE_fuels_fire/ (last accessed 10/21/12)

http://article.wn.com/view/2012/05/01/Experts_shed_light_on_how_fires_spread_in_towers/ (last accessed 10/21/12)

http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/blogs/dept/green-building-news/three-massachusetts-home-fires-linked-spray-foam-installation

http://koreabridge.net/post/haeundae-highrise-fire-busan-marine-city-burns



Examples of Research StudiesTable 2. Fire Safety Concerns in Green Buildings: Selected Resources

Overall Concerns

BRANZ ‐ Building Sustainability and Fire‐Safety Design Interactions (2012)

http://www.branz.co.nz/cms_show_download.php?id=716733515027fe4626188881f674635d51e3cfb0 (last accessed 10/21/12)

BRE – Impact of Fire on the Environment and Building Sustainability (2010)

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/1795639.pdf (last accessed 10/21/12)

Bridging the Gap: Fire Safety and Green Buildings, NASFM 2010

http://firemarshals.org/greenbuilding/bridgingthegap.html (last accessed 10/21/12)

Photovoltaic / Energy systems

Fire Fighter Safety and Emergency Response for Solar Power Systems

http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/pdf/research/fftacticssolarpower.pdf (last accessed 10/21/12)

Firefighter Safety and Photovoltaic Installations Research Project, UL 2011

http://www.ul.com/global/documents/offerings/industries/buildingmaterials/fireservice/PV‐FF_SafetyFinalReport.pdf (last accessed 10/21/12)

Lightweight Wood Structures

Lightweight structure fire, NFPA http://www.nfpa.org/publicJournalDetail.asp?categoryID=1857&itemID=43878&src=NFPAJournal&cookie%5Ftest=1 (last accessed 10/21/12)

Improving Fire Safety by Understanding the Fire Performance of Engineered Floor Systems and Providing the Fire Service with Information for Tactical Decision Making, UL 2012

http://www.ul.com/global/documents/offerings/industries/buildingmaterials/fireservice/basementfires/2009 NIST ARRA Compilation Report.pdf (last accessed 10/21/12)

Architectural

Performance of double‐skin façade http://www.bse.polyu.edu.hk/researchCentre/Fire_Engineering/summary_of_output/journal/IJEPBFC/V6/p.155‐167.pdf (last accessed 10/21/12)

Fire Hazards of Foam Insulation

Toxicity of Flame Retardants in Foam Insulation and Other Products

Brominated flame retardants and health concerns http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1241790/ (last accessed 10/21/12)

Toxicity of flame retardants and impact on fire fighters http://www.nist.gov/el/fire_research/upload/4‐Purser.pdf (last accessed 10/21/12)

http://firemarshals.org/greenbuilding/bridgingthegap.html

http://www.ul.com/global/eng/pages/offerings/industries/buildingmaterials/fire/fireservice/lightweight/

Possible Technology Concerns

• Green / sustainability objectives are driving changes in building design and technology─ Double-skin façade─ New insulation materials, construction, …─ Green roofs, green interior spaces, … ─ Photovoltaic panels, wind turbines, cogeneration, hydrogen

fuel cells, …─ More natural lighting, natural ventilation, …

Double-Skin Facade



Natural Ventilation

• Natural ventilation vs. smoke management─ 1 Bligh Street, Sydney

https://www.asme.org/kb/news---articles/articles/energy-efficiency/down-under-a-highly-sustainable-high-rise

Buoyancy-Driven Ventilation

• Driven by density difference between interior/exterior due to temperature differences

Wind Driven Natural Ventilation

• Forced convection through a compartment

• Highly dependent on external conditions

• Some designs have sensitive control algorithms



Natural Ventilation

http://www.nzsses.auckland.ac.nz/conference/2004/Session5/45%20Potangaroa.pdf

Natural Ventilation

─ Federal Building in SF ─ Uses the thermal

mass of the floors for night cooling

─ Narrow floor plate to allow cross ventilation and a localized double façade shaft on the leeward side of the building

http://www.nzsses.auckland.ac.nz/conference/2004/Session5/45%20Potangaroa.pdf

Exterior Materials / Insulation

• Material properties─ High thermal insulation vs.

flammability New materials as interior

lining, façade, insulation, within sandwich panel and more – increased fuel load, distribution, flame spread, smoke spread…

High thermal insulation vs. effect on compartment temperatures in a fire

http://koreabridge.net/post/haeundae-highrise-fire-busan-marine-city-burns

http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/blogs/dept/green-building-news/three-massachusetts-home-fires-linked-spray-foam-installation




• Combustible exterior insulated panel systems

http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/2010/05/modern-building-materials-are-factors-in-atlantic-city-fires.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yQLIlIetDM


(Z)

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Perc

enta

ge (

%)

Year

Principal Type of Exterior Wall Material of New Single-Family Houses (Unted States)

Brick

Wood

Stucco

Vinyl

Fiber

Other

Exterior Materials / Insulation• Combustible siding and insulation

http://ulfirefightersafety.com/category/projects/study-of-residential-attic-fire-mitigation-tactics-and-exterior-fire-spread-hazards-on-fire-fighter-safety/




Installation Types• Batts and Blankets• Loose-Fill

Insulation• Structurally

Insulated Panels• Spray Foam

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

1992 2001 2006 (1)

U.S. Insulation Demand, by Type (Million Pounds) (1)

Fiberglass

Foamed Plastic

Cellulose

Mineral Wool

Other

Indoor Air Quality / Flammability

• Material properties─ Toxicity (IAQ) vs. fire retardant

qualities Chemical additives in foam insulation

and other materials – toxicity under fire and non-fire conditions? o Polystyrene foam insulation used in

building insulation (both XPS, such as Styrofoam, and EPS) is treated with hexabromocyclododecane, (HBCD), a persistent, bioaccumulating, and toxic fire retardant

http://www.noburn.com/intumescent-paints-fire-retardant-coatings

http://www.hoffmaninsulation.com/Products.html

Reduced Material

• Reduced and/or natural material vs. reduced strength or fire protection─ Lightweight

engineered lumber ─ High strength

concrete─ Combustible interior

finishes

http://www.ul.com/global/eng/pages/offerings/industries/buildingmaterials/fire/fireservice/lightweight/

Courtesy MSU

http://www.nhit-shis.org/bamboo-wall-interior-design-by-kengo-kuma-associates/02-great-bamboo-wall-interior-design/



Reduced Material

2”x 4” or2”x 6”

Cross Laminated Timber (CLT)

Engineered Wood I-Joist

Structurally Insulated Panel

Engineered Wood

Structural Failure Time

Experimental Count

Maximum (Min:Sec)

Minimum (Min:Sec)

Average (Min:Sec)

Standard Deviation

Dimensional Lumber 10 20:40 7:04 15:01 4:10

Engineered I-Joist 8 23:10 2:20 8:17 3:54

Castellated I-Joist 3 8:10 6:50 7:23 0:42

Hybrid Trusses 3 6:00 5:30 5:50 0:17

Steel I-Joist 2 10:08 6:11 8:10 2:48

MPC Wood Trusses 2 6:08 3:28 4:48 1:53

Joist without Fire Resistant Protection Failure Time Comparison

Reduced Material

Copyright Underwriters Laboratories

Joists without Fire Resistant Protection Failure Times versus Fire Department Response Times

Reduced Material




Reduced Material

Window Performance

Window Performance

Types of Window Frames• Aluminum or Metal• Composite Frames• Fiberglass Frames• Vinyl Frames• Wood Frames

Types of Window Glazing• Gas Fills• Heat-Absorbing Tints• Insulated• Low-Emissivity Coating• Reflective Coatings• Spectrally Selective

Coatings



0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

1990 1995 2000 2005 2007 2009

Win

dow

Sal

es (

Mill

ions

)

Residential Prime Window Sales, by Frame Type Aluminum (2) Wood (3) Vinyl Other

Window Performance

Window Performance


Living Building

• Green exterior / interiors vs. fuel load

http://directory.leadmaverick.com/Southern-Botanical-Inc/DallasFort-WorthArlington/TX/10/15993/index.aspx



Living Building

• Green exterior vs. fuel load and FF access

http://inhabitat.com/flower-tower-380-potted-plants-line-parisian-apartment-facade/

Green Roof

• Green / alternate energy roof vs. fire fighter access

Photovoltaic Panels

• Green / alternate energy roof vs. fire fighter access



Photovoltaic Panels

• PV panels on roof vs. fire hazard

https://solarjuice.com/blog/buildings-and-pv/solar-panels-and-fire/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aDrmtur6fw

http://www.feuerwehr-goch.de/index.php?id=22&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=596&cHash=982afcd5c431b7299f67de4af397cc43

PV & Combustible Roof/Insulation

• Recent fires with combination PV and combustible insulation on roof decks

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/gallery?section=news/local&id=9226626&photo=1

PV & Combustible Roof/Insulation

• Recent fires with combination PV and combustible insulation on roof decks

Courtesy of NJ State Fire Marshal Office Courtesy of National Fire Protection Association



Lack of Water Supply

• Water conservation vs. fire-fighting water─ Reducing overall water use vs. having sufficient water

capacity when needed Result of global climate change – as regions become drier,

will fire suppression systems design for one level of water supply work as less water is available?

─ Relying on manual suppression to fight large fire vs. employing earlier suppression

http://www.homefiresprinkler.org/images/FM-Global-Environmental-Study.pdf

Unrecognized Sprinkler Benefit

Unrecognized Sprinkler Benefit

http://www.homefiresprinkler.org/images/FM-Global-Environmental-Study.pdf



High Density Building

• High density housing, smaller streets, …

Combination

• Combination of high density housing, LEL systems, combustible insulation, smaller streets, water conservation, …

Competing Objectives?http://firemarshals.org/greenbuilding/bridgingthegap.html



Context

• 80 Green Building Elements / Attributes─ Structural Materials

and Systems (9)─ Exterior Materials and

Systems (13)─ Façade Attributes (4)─ Interior Materials and

Finishes (9)─ Interior Space

Attributes (10)─ Building Systems &

Issues (12)─ Alternative Energy

Systems (9)─ Site Issues (14)

Context• 22 Fire Risk / Hazard

Attributes─ Presents a potential hazard E.g., ignition, electrical shock,

explosion, toxicity─ Hazard attributes E.g., readily ignitable, burns

readily once ignited, contributes more fuel / increased HRR, etc.

─ Failure potential E.g., shorter time to failure,

failure affects burning characteristics or smoke spread or…

─ May impact building FP system or feature E.g., smoke/heat venting,

suppression effectiveness, apparatus access, firefighter access & operations…

Poses potential ignition hazard

Poses potential shock hazard

Poses potential explosion hazard

Poses potential toxicity hazard

Readily ignitable

Burns readily once ignited

Contributes more fuel / increased heat release rate (HRR)

Material affects burning characteristics

Fast(er) fire growth rate

Significant smoke production/hazard

Potential for shorter time to failure

Failure affects burning characteristics

Failure presents smoke spread concern

Failure presents flame spread concern

Material presents flame spread concern

May impact smoke/heat venting

May impact occupant evacuation

May impact fire‐fighter (FF) water availability

May impact suppression effectiveness

May impact fire apparatus access

May impact fire‐fighter (FF) access and operations

May impact containment of runoff

Green Element / Hazard Matrix



Potential explosion hazard


Readily ignitable


Contributes more fuel / increased HRR






Failure presents stability concern


Failure presents flam

e spread concern

Material presents flam

e spread concern

May impact sm

oke/heat venting


May impact FF water availability



May impact FF access and operations


Exterior Materials and Systems

‐ Structura l integrated pane l (SIP)

‐ Exterior insula tion & fini sh (EFIS)

‐ Rigid foam insulation

‐ Spray‐applied foam insulation

‐ Foi l i nsulation systems

‐ High‐performance glazing

‐ Low‐emiss i vi ty & reflecti ve coa ting

‐ Double‐skin façade / cavity wa ll

‐ Bamboo, other ce l lulos ic

‐ Bio‐polymers , FRPs

‐ Vegetati ve roof sys tems

‐ Insulating materia l

‐ Thi cknes s

‐ Type of vegetation

‐ PVC ra inwater catchment

‐ Exterior cable / cable trays

‐ Extended solar roof panel s

‐ Awnings / exterior solar shades

‐ Exterior vegetative covering

Façade Attributes

‐ Area of glazing

‐ Area of combustible materia l Copyright FPRF, 2012



Green Element / Hazard Matrix



Potential explosion hazard


Readily ignitable


Contributes more fuel / increased HRR






Failure presents stability concern


Failure presents flam

e spread concern

Material presents flam

e spread concern

May impact smoke/heat venting


May impact FF water availability



May impact FF access and operations


Relative risk level


‐ Structural i ntegrated panel (SIP)

‐ Exterior insulation & finish (EFIS)

‐ Rigid foam i nsulation

‐ Spray‐appl ied foam i nsulation

‐ Foi l i nsulation sys tems


‐ Low‐emiss ivi ty & reflective coating

‐ Double‐skin façade / cavity wal l

‐ Bamboo, other cel lulosi c

‐ Bio‐polymers , FRPs

‐ Vegetative roof sys tems

‐ Insulating materia l

‐ Thickness

‐ Type of vegetation

‐ PVC ra inwater catchment

‐ Exterior cable / cable trays

‐ Extended solar roof panels

‐ Exterior solar shades / awning

‐ Exterior vegatati ve covering

Façade Attributes

‐ Area of glazing

‐ Area of combustible materia l

Risk Ranking Key

Low or N/A Presents a low risk when unmitigated or is not applicable to the listed attributes

Moderate Presents a moderate risk when unmitigated.

High Presents a high risk when unmitigated.

Copyright FPRF, 2012

Element/Concern/MitigationMaterial / System / Attribute Hazard Concern Level Potential Mitigation Stratgies


‐ Structura l i ntegrated panel (SIP)

I f fa i l , i nsulation can contribute to fl ame

spread, smoke production and fuel l oad. High

Approved / l i s ted materi a ls . As sure proper sea l ing

of panels . Take care during i nsta l lation, including

retrofits , rel ative to potentia l sources of ignition.

‐ Exterior insulation & fini sh (EFIS)

I f fa i l , i nsulation can contribute to fl ame

spread, smoke production and fuel l oad. High

Approved / l i s ted materi a ls . As sure proper sea l ing

of panels . Take care during i nsta l lation, including

retrofits , rel ative to potentia l sources of ignition.

‐ Rigid foam i nsulation

Can contribute to flame spread, smoke and

toxi c product development and fuel l oad. High

Fire res is tive barri er (e.g., fire rated gypsum).

Approved / l i s ted materi a ls . Flame retardants .

Sprinklers .

‐ Spray‐appl ied foam i nsulation

Can contribute to flame spread, smoke and

toxi c product development and fuel l oad. High


Approved / l i s ted materi a ls . Flame retardants .

Sprinklers .

‐ Foi l insulation sys tems

Can contribute to shock hazard for i nsta l lers .

Can contribute to flame spread and fuel load. High


Approved / l i s ted materi a ls . Sprinklers .


Can change thermal characteri s ti cs of

compartment for burning. Can impact FF

access .

Moderate

Sprinklers . Assure adequate FD access . Assure

mechanism for FD smoke/heat venting. Approved /

l i s ted materi a ls .

‐ Low‐emiss ivity & refl ective coating



access .

Moderate

Sprinklers . Assure adequate FD access . Assure



‐ Double‐skin façade



access . Can present 'chimney' for vertica l

smoke and flame spread i f not properly fi re

s topped.

Moderate

Appropriate fire stop between fl oors . Sprinklers may

have some benefi t (sprinklered bui lding). Assure



‐ Bamboo, other cel lulos icCan contribute to flame spread, smoke

development and fuel load.Moderate

Approved / l i s ted materi a ls . Flame retardant

treatments . Sprinklers .

‐ Bio‐polymers , FRPsCan contribute to flame spread, smoke

development and fuel load.Low

Approved / l i s ted materi a ls . Flame retardant

treatments . Sprinklers .

‐ Vegetati ve roof systems

Can contribute to fire l oad, spread of fi re,

impact FF operations , impact smoke and heat

venting, contribute to stabi l i ty i s sues .Moderate

Manage fire ri sk of vegetation. As sure use of fire

tested components . Provide adequate area for FD

acces , smoke/heat venting, and other

operations .Approved / l i s ted materi a ls .

‐ PVC ra inwater catchment Can contribute additiona l fuel l oad. Low Limi t volume.

‐ Exterior cable / cable trays Can contribute additiona l fuel l oad. Low Limi t volume.Approved / l is ted materia l s .

Façade Attributes

‐ Area of glazing

Can present more opportunity for breakage

and subsequent fire spread and/or barri er to

FF access depending on type.

Moderate

‐ Area of combustible materi a lLarger area (volume) provides increased fuel

l oad.High

Limi t volume.

‐ Awnings Impacts FF access . Low

‐ Exterior vegetative coveringCan impact FF access and present WUI is s ue.

LowLimi t volume.

Copyright FPRF, 2012

Review of Rating Schemes

• More than 2 dozen schemes and codes available world-wide─ Primarily voluntary

• Looked at subset─ LEED (homes, retail)─ BREEAM (new buildings)─ GREEN MARK (residential, non-residential)─ IgCC




• Do green building rating schemes include fire safety objectives?

• Are there benefits for green points which could result in fire concern?

• How best to illustrate outcomes for a wide ranging audience?


• None of the schemes or IgCC were found to have explicit fire safety objectives─ Schemes voluntary: assume fire safety addressed by

mandatory code requirements

• Two schemes with some fire objectives─ Fire protection benefit in German Sustainable Building

Council (DGNB) (http://www.dgnb-system.de/dgnb-system/en/system/criteria/)

─ Fire risk reduction attributes in BREEAM-in-USE (http://www.breeam.org/page.jsp?id=373)

Conclusions – FPRF Effort

• There are currently no fire incident reporting systems in the United States or other countries surveyed which specifically collect and track data on fire incidents in green buildings or on items labeled as green building elements or features. Unless changes are made to reporting systems such as NFIRS, it will be difficult to track such fire incident data.




• Fires associated with photovoltaic (PV) panels and roof materials, fire and safety hazards attributed to increased energy efficiency aims in residential buildings (primarily insulation related), fire involving insulating materials, fires associated with exterior cladding that contains combustible insulation materials or coatings, and fire performance of timber frame buildings with lightweight engineered lumber (LEL).


• None of the schemes reviewed were found to have explicit fire safety objectives

• Two schemes with some fire objectives─ Fire protection benefit in German Sustainable Building

Council (DGNB) (http://www.dgnb-system.de/dgnb-system/en/system/criteria/)

─ Fire risk reduction attributes in BREEAM-in-USE (http://www.breeam.org/page.jsp?id=373)

Outcomes – FPRF Effort

• Moving toward a risk analysis approach─ A comprehensive list of green building site and design

features / elements / attributes has been compiled─ A list of fire-related hazards and risk factors, associated

with green building elements, has been compiled─ A set of matrices relating green attributes and potential fire

risks / hazards was developed─ An approach for illustrating the relative fire risk or hazard,

or decreased fire performance, associated with green building elements, was developed

─ Potential mitigation strategies for addressing the relative increase in fire risk or hazard associated with the green building elements and features have been identified



Recommendations

• To address the lack of reported fire experience with green buildings and green building elements, especially in buildings which have a green rating or certification, a modification is required to fire incident data reporting systems as NFIRS.

• To address the lack of analysis on fire ‘risk’ associated with green building elements, it is suggested that a more extensive research project is needed to review existing studies and reports on fire performance of green building elements, even if not explicitly identified as such (e.g., LEL).

Recommendations

• To explore the extent to which current standard test methods are appropriate for evaluating both green and fire safety criteria, and result in adequate mitigation of fire risk / hazard concerns, investigation into level of fire performance delivered by current standard test methods and into the in situ fire performance of green building elements is recommended.

• To address the lack of studies which have investigated incorporating building safety, life safety and fire safety as explicit elements in green building indices, joint research efforts between the FPRF and the USGBC could be explored.

Recommendations

• To address the lack of published case studies in which increased fire risk or hazards associated with green building elements have been specifically addressed, groups such as SFPE, NFPA, AIA and the USGBC can be encouraged to hold symposia on these topics and encourage publication of case studies.

• To facilitate better collection of relevant data on fire safety challenges with green buildings in the future, a fire & green building data repository could be set up. This could build on an existing effort (e.g., http://www.firemarshals.org/programs/greenbuildingsandfiresafetyprojects.html) or be supported by others.



Overview – DHS Effort

• Follow-on work ─ Research effort supported by grant from the US

Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Assistance to Firefighters Grant program, award EMW-2012-FP-01336

─ Program overview Scope and objectives Project team 3-year research plan

Research Plan – DHS Effort

• The goal of this effort is to reduce firefighter injuries and deaths associated with unknown or unanticipated fire environments and structural responses associated with green building elements.


• The goal of this effort is to reduce firefighter injuries and deaths associated with unknown or unanticipated fire environments and structural responses associated with green building elements.

• Our objectives are to understand, quantify and address fire performance challenges of green building elements as they might impact firefighter safety during fire ground operations.




• We aim to fulfill these objectives by:─ Beginning to quantify fire impacts of green building

features through research into fire loss history, conducting fire experiments, and performing fire and smoke simulations

─ Developing a screening tool to aid in identifying risk-significant green building features and suitable mitigation options

─ Investigating appropriate tactics for fighting fires in buildings with green elements


• Team─Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) Brian Meacham, PI and Nicholas Dembsey, Co-I Matt Yin, Drew Martin, Young-Geun You, Student RAs

─ University of Maryland (UMD) Michael Gollner, Co-I and Andre Marshall, Co-I

─ Fire Protection Research Foundation (FPRF) Casey Grant / Project Technical Panel

─ National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Dr. Rita Fahy, Marty Ahrens, and Dr. John Hall Jr.

─ Massachusetts Department of Fire Services (DFS) Timothy Rodrique


• Project Areas─ Increase fire incident data capture for domestic fires

involving green building features and elements─ Quantify fire hazards and risks associated with green

building features─ Develop hazard and risk assessment framework and tools ─ Develop recommended changes to tactics, training, codes

and standards




• Key Year 1 Objectives─ Establish review panel and stakeholder groups─Review NFIRS/MFIRS/NIOSH data/reports,

extract relevant fire data, assess how data reporting could change to capture more

─Review reports on fire tests of green elements to benchmark and set experimental parameters

─Select structure for risk / hazard screening tool and conduct risk characterization exercises with stakeholder groups

─Scope Year 2 physical and modeling experiments


• Key Year 2 Objectives─Undertake fire experiments on targeted building

assemblies / configurations─Undertake physical and numerical smoke

movement simulation for naturally ventilated configurations and double-skin façade configurations

─Develop hazard/risk assessment screening tool─ Identify tactical issues associated with fires in

buildings with green features and elements


• Key Year 3 Objectives─Analyze impact of studied issues on firefighter

safety and tactics─Refine risk/hazard assessment tool─Apply / test risk/hazard assessment tool─Assess current tactical responses and suggest

changes where needed─Develop education and training materials for

fire service on green building issues─Recommend changes to codes and standard

where warranted



Historical and Experimental Data

Fire Incidents DataSequence in Locating Target Incidents

Green Building Features & Structural Collapses & Residential Fires

Property Use E.g. Code: 419 1-or 2-family dwelling; 429 Multi family dwelling

Green Building Features & Structural CollapsesFire Suppression

Factors E.g. Code: 112 Roof collapse; 141 Floor Collapse

Green Building FeaturesFire Suppression

FactorsE.g. Code: 182 Composite plywood I-beam

construction

NFIRS (2007-2011)

Fire Suppression Factor Code

Factor Related to Green Building Features

Factor Raw Data in NFIRS

Factor National Estimates Not in NFIRS

Total Target Incidents

182 Composite plywood I-beam construction

19 100 42

183 Composite roof/floor sheathing construction

32 149 N/A

185 Wood truss construction

267 1333 N/A

186 Metal truss construction

3 20 N/A

• NFIRS Incidents Data Collection Summery Table X. NFIRS Data Collection based on both Raw Data and National Estimates



MFIRS (2001-2013)• Sequences in Locating Target Incidents

Green Building Features & Structural Collapses & Residential Fires

Property Use E.g. Code: 419 1-or 2-family dwelling; 429 Multi family dwelling

Green Building Features & Structural Collapses

Fire Suppression Factors

E.g. Code: 112 Roof collapse; 115 Holes or openings in walls or ceilings

Green Building Features

Fire Suppression Factors E.g. Code: 115 Solar Panels

Figure X. MFIRS “Green” Residential fires with Structural Collapse Collecting Approach

MFIRS (2001-2013)

Fire Suppression Factor Code

Factor related to Green Building Features

Incidents having this Factor

Incidents also having Structural Collapse

Incidents are also Residential Property

Total Target Incidents

115 Solar Panels 0 0 0 0182 Composite

plywood I-beam construction

6 2 1 1

183 Composite roof/floor sheathing construction

21 1 0 0

185 Wood truss construction

40 8 3 3

186 Metal truss construction

6 1 0 0

Total 73 12 4 4

FIDO (2003-2013)

Residential Fires with Structural Collapses having Green Building Features

Extracting Green Building Features

NFPA Fire Report Form, News Clips, Fire Service Report

Residential Fires & Structural Collapses

Incident list for each year starting from 2013 to 2003

• Sequences in Locating Target Incidents

Figure X. FIDO “Green” Residential fires with Structural Collapse Collecting Approach



FIDO (2003-2013)

Year Residential Collapse Fires Identified Green Fires Suspected Green Fires

2013 28 1 2

2012 48 1 6

2011 50 3 8

2010 46 1 9

2009 52 3 4

2008 58 1 6

2007 41 2 5

2006 34 3 4

2005 19 0 3

2004 20 0 4

2003 15 0 3

Total 411 15 54

Table X. FIDO Green Residential Structural Collapse Fires Collection Summery (2003-2013)

FIDO (2003-2013)

• Green Building Features ─ Structural Materials and Systems Lightweight Wood Lightweight Concrete FRP elements

─ Exterior Materials and Systems Solar Roof Panels Vinyl Siding

─ Modular Home

Identified FIDO Green Residential Structural Collapses Incidents Details

Year Property Use Year Built Green Building Elements Structural Collapse

F.F Injuries

F.F Fatalities

2013 Single Family 1989 Solar panels, Wind spires Roof 0 0

2012 Single Family 1977 Lightweight Wood Roof 0 0

2011 Single Family New Large Void Space, Lightweight Wood, FRP

Ceiling 12 1

2011 Multi APTs Lightweight Wood Roof 0 1

2011 Multi APTs Lightweight Concrete Floor 2 0

2010 Multi APTs Lightweight Wood, Insulated Vinyl Siding

Floor 7 0

2009 Multi APTs Lightweight Wood, OSB Roof 0 0

2009 Multi APTs 1999 Lightweight Wood Roof 2 0

2009 Single Family Lightweight Wood Floor 3 0

2008 Modular 2005 Modular Home Roof 0 0

2007 Single Family 2004 Lightweight Wood Floor 3 1

2007 Single Family Lightweight Wood, Insulated Vinyl Siding, OSB

Roof 1 1

2006 Single Family 2004 Lightweight Wood, Insulated Vinyl Siding

Floor 3 1

2006 Single Family 1999 Lightweight Wood Floor 2 1

2006 Single Family Lightweight Wood Floor 0 0



Identified FIDO Green Commercial Structural Collapses Incidents Details

Year Green Building Incidents Suspected Green Building Incidents Total Number of Incidents

2013 0 0 2

2012 0 6 15

2011 1 4 21

2010 0 3 13

2009 0 0 0

2008 0 0 0

2007 0 0 0

2006 1 0 1

2005 0 0 1

2004 1 0 1

2003 1 0 2

Total 4 13 57

Identified FIDO Green Commercial Structural Collapses Incidents Details

Year Property Use

Year Built Green Building Elements Structural Collapse

F.F Injuries

F.F Fatalities

2003 Mercantile Lightweight Metal Roof Collapse

Roof 0 2

2006 Retail 1963 Lightweight Wood Collapse Awning 0 1

2010 Church Lightweight wood/joists Ceiling 0 0

2011 Laboratory Lightweight Wood, Metal Roof Walls & Roof

0 0

2011 Foundry 2002 Lightweight Wood Framing Walls 0 0

2011 Church 1991 Lightweight Wood, blown in Insulation

Roof 0 1

2012 Movie Theater

Lightweight Wood Roof 0 1

Experimental Data CollectionGreen Building Elements No. of Fire Experiments Reports

Lightweight Wood 11Lightweight Concrete 70Fiber Reinforced Plastic (FRP) 75Structural Insulated Panel (SIP) 65Exterior Insulation & Finish (EIFS) 24High-performance Glazing 2Double Skin Facade 3Rigid Foam Insulation 1Spray-applied Foam Insulation N/ABamboo 2Nano Materials N/APhotovoltaic Panels (PV) 6



Recommendations

• More data, new forms, identify ‘green’ elementsTypes of Construction Wood Concrete Metal Brick

T1 Heavy Timber W1 Dimensional Lumber

C1 Traditional Concrete M1 B1

T2 Ordinary Wood Frame

W2 Plywood C2 Lightweight aggregate concrete

M2 B2

T3 Lightweight Wood Truss

W3 Engineered I‐Beam

C3 Foamed concrete M3 B3

T4 Concrete W4 Engineered I‐Joist C4 Autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC)

M4 B4

T5 Lightweight Concrete

W5 Oriented strand board (OSB)

C5 M5 B5

T6 Brick W6 Parallel strand lumber (PSL)

C6 M6 B6

T7 Metal Truss W7 laminated timber C7 M7 B7

T8 Modular Home

T9 Mobile Home

‘Green’ vs ‘Traditional’ Construction

Green vs Traditional

• The fire performance of the green building features should be compared to the fire performance of a baseline.

• A traditional building feature as a baseline should be based on following standards. ─ It should be widely used in the U.S. ─ It should be comparable with green building features. ─ It should have similar shapes with green building

features.



Traditional building

• Building Materials and construction methods have changed over time.

• Framing method has switched from balloon to platform frame technique.

• Boards have been mostly replaced by engineered wood structural panels (OSB and plywood)

• Dimensional lumber have been mostly replaced by engineered wood products (engineered wood I-Joist)

• Use of vinyl sidings has increased while use of wood has decreased.

Exterior Finish

(Z)

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Perc

enta

ge (

%)

Year

Principal Type of Exterior Wall Material of New Single-Family Houses (Unted States)

Brick

Wood

Stucco

Vinyl

Fiber

Other

Structural Building Elements (Wood)

2”x 4” or2”x 6”

Cross Laminated Timber (CLT)

Engineered Wood I-Joist

Structurally Insulated Panel

Engineered Wood



Comparison between 2”x 4” and 2”x 6”

Windows Framing

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

1990 1995 2000 2005 2007 2009

Win

dow

Sal

es (

Mill

ions

)

Residential Prime Window Sales, by Frame Type Aluminum (2) Wood (3) Vinyl Other

Ventilation Effects on Fire

Kerber S (2009) Impact of ventilation on fire behavior in legacy and contemporary residential construction. UL, Northbrook



Insulation

Installation Types• Batts and Blankets• Loose-Fill Insulation• Structurally Insulated

Panels• Spray Foam

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

1992 2001 2006 (1)

U.S. Insulation Demand, by Type (Million Pounds) (1)

Fiberglass

Foamed Plastic

Cellulose

Mineral Wool

Other

Key Factors

StructuralFeature Structural Components Modern/Green Materials

and MethodsConventional/TraditionalMaterials and Methods

Fire-related Issues in GreenMaterials and Methods

Walls

Studs

2x6 wood framing spaced 24inches on center (or withadditional 2x3 horizontalstrapping)

2x4 or 2x6 wood framing spaced16 inches on center

Potential for shorter time tostructural failure.

Sill 2x6 stud 2x4 or 2x6 stud

Corner Post Two stud corners Three stud corners


Potential for shorter time toignite.

Framing support membersaround opening

Minimum use of Jack Studsand Cripple

Multiple use of Jack Studs andCripple


Plate Single top plates Double top plates

Sheathing (Outside)Rigid foam sheathing,

OSB or plywoodOSB or Plywood (Rigid foam sheathing) Burns

readily once ignited.

Building Paper

SidingInsulated vinyl siding or

vinyl siding

Vinyl siding or

wood siding (fastening into studsevery 16 inches)

Burns readily once ignited. (Insulated vinyl siding) Contributes more fuel/increased HRR.

Wall Insulation

Spray-applied foam insulation,

Rigid Foam

Glass wool, rock wool Burns readily once ignited.

Sheathing (Inside) Drywall Drywall, plaster

Floors and Ceilings

GirderGlued-laminated members

Solid lumberSolid lumber

Joist

I-Joist, structural compositelumber (SLC), gluedlaminated timber (Glulam) at24 inches center

Solid wood joist


Burns readily once ignited.

BridgingCross bridging

Metal cross brace

Solid or Cross Bridging

Metal cross braceSubfloor OSB, plywood OSB, plywoodFinish Flooring Carpet or wood Carpet or woodCeiling Gypsum wallboard Gypsum wallboard

Windows and Doors

Window

Double or Triple Glaze,

Low E glass,

Gas filled

Single Glaze

Heat from fire cannot be released as easily as in conventional glazes, resulting in fast fire growth.

Window Frame Vinyl Frame Wood FrameReadily ignitable.

Burns readily once ignited.

Window Sash Vinyl Sash Wood SashReadily ignitable.

Burns readily once ignited.Header Single Header Double or Triple HeadersWindow Casing (Trim) Wood, composite material Wood

Door Composite Hollow Core Solid Core, Hollow CoreReadily ignitable and burnsreadily once ignited compared toconventionaldoors

Door Frame Wood, composite material Wood

Stairs

TreadAPA panel tread or

OSBSolid lumber

Burns readily and lost itsstructural integrity easily onceignited

RiserAPA panel riser or

OSBSolid lumber


Stair Stringer 2x4 lumber Solid lumberNewelStair Rail

Roof

RidgeWood Truss

Solid lumberBurns readily and lost itsstructural integrity easily onceignited

Ridge BoardWood Truss

Solid lumberBurns readily and lost itsstructural integrity easily onceignited

Rafters

Wood Truss

Engineered I-Joist Rafter at24 inches on center Solid lumber


Collar Beam (Rafter tie) Wood Truss Solid lumberBurns readily and lost itsstructural integrity easily onceignited

Ceiling Insulation Spray-applied foam insulation Or Rigid Foam Glass wool, rock wool

Roof Sheathing OSB or plywood OSB or plywood

Roofing

Green roof, Built-up roof,

A recycled rubber and plasticslate

Shingles, shakes

• New configurations of traditional lumber with ‘advanced framing’ techniques

• Use of SIPs• Increased vinyl siding

and increasing insulation

• New window glazing and framing

• Unclear system performance

Efforts in Risk Assessment



Risk on Fire Service

Consequences

Firefighters Operation

Structure Fire Performance

Material Fire Performance Short time to Failure

Potential to Collapse

Defensive Attack

Fire Growth

Keep Searching

Injuries or Fatalities

Trapped

Injuries or Fatalities

Figure X. Risk of Lightweight Construction Failure on Fire Service

Failure Mode Effects and Criticality Analysis

• Screening Tool for construction features failure and fire spread

• Identify hazard/risk issues and performance criteria

• Completed using─ Fire Incident Data─ Scientific Literature─ Analysis of Physics

Function Component Failure Mode

Failure Mechanism

Failure Effects•Local•Regional•End•Firefighter

Severity Class

FMECA

• Broken up into Function Group─ Structural System─ Connections─ Interior System

• Broken up into Components─ Truss System─ Connections

• Severity Class

Local Effects Next Higher Level End Effects Firefighter Effect

Lightweight wood

Truss structural failure

Loss of stability of

Floor, danger to

firefighters on floor

Walls connected to

floor system at greater

risk, greater

oportunity for flame

and smoke spread

Floor Collapse will

lead to building

collapse

Firefighter injury or fatility

possible, firefighters move

to defensive positions

outside structure 1

Lightweight wood

Truss connection

failure


Floor, danger to


Walls connected to


risk, greater


and smoke spread

Floor Collapse will

lead to building

collapse




outside structure NA

Sawn Wood Truss

Failure


Floor, danger to


Walls connected to


risk, greater


and smoke spread

Floor Collapse will

lead to building

collapse




outside structure 2

Sawn Wood Truss

Connection Failure


Floor, danger to


Walls connected to


risk, greater


and smoke spread

Floor Collapse will

lead to building

collapse




outside structure NA

Severity Class

(1,2,3,NA)

Failure EffectsFailure Mechanism



Experimental Program – Domestic Structure Performance (Year 2)

Structure: Test Plan

• Compartment Fires─ Test Connections─ Test Effect of Insulation─ Test Effect of Interior fire to Exterior Spread Through

window

• Exterior Spread─ Test Exterior Walls Vinyl EIFs

─ Test Effect of Exterior Spread to Interior Spread Through window

Structure: Test Rig Design

• Standard Room Fire Test used as a guide for standard framing

• BRE modular construction test as a guide for SIPs

• Rig to be designed to adapt to typical framing and SIPs

• Exploring full-scale room type, and reduced scale, full building type configurations



Structure: SIP Connections

Structure: 2x4 & 2x6 Configurations

Structure: Test Focus Areas

• Connection performance• Window breakage• External / internal fire spread• SIP performance



Natural Ventilation – Issues

Buoyancy-Driven Ventilation

• Driven by density difference between interior/exterior due to temperature differences

Wind Driven Natural Ventilation

• Forced convection through a compartment

• Highly dependent on external conditions

• Some designs have sensitive control algorithms



Double-Skinned Façade

• Add stack or air barrier to encourage heating/ cooling

• Potentially lose separation• Operable windows

The Gherkin in London. Windows open on the outer skin to allow air to enter the cavity between the inner and outer skin.

Potential Fire movement in Façade – Simon Lay, Presentation to NFPA Green Building Symposium, Chicago, Il, 2012.

Natural Ventilation Configurations

• Wind Only

• Internal Stack

• Internal + External Stack

• Internal Stack + Wind

• Internal + External Stack + Wind

Issues

• Dependent on external conditions─ Temperature─ Wind Velocity & Direction

• Highly sensitive to changes─ Opening or closing windows/doors

• No guidelines on how to respond─ Positive Pressure Ventilation─ Open Windows/Doors or allow automatic function

• Potential for unexpected consequences



Construction Review

Buoyant Natural VentilationSan Diego Children’s Museum

Wind Driven VentilationSan Francisco Federal Building

Large Atria, Plaza of the Americas in Dallas, Texas.

Double skin Façade, Agbar Tower Barcelona

Glass Solar ChimneyManitoba Hydro Building, Canada

Research Focus

• Model smoke movement in naturally-ventilated enclosures including─ Wind-Driven Configurations─ Buoyancy Driven Configurations Especially Sloped Ceilings

─ Double-Skinned Facades

• Develop simple engineering models to─ Anticipate external effects on smoke movement─ Highlight dangerous scenarios/configurations

• Translate this into better firefighting practices and code recommendations

Experimental Program (Year 2) –Natural Ventilation



Modeling Challenge

• Building ventilation is determined by─ Complex building geometry─ Internal dynamics

• Unrealistic computational power needed to compute all scenarios

• A laboratory scaling approach is necessary

UMD Experimental Facility

Experimental Technique

Fire Experiments

Fire Source

Smoke

Experimental TechniqueSaltwater Experiments

Saltwater Source

Fresh Water

VentAcrylic Model

Salt Water



Temperature/Scalar Measurements

Instantaneous PLIF image (left), Concentration tests comparison with Zukoski’s model (top) for an unconfined plume

Measurements allow fullknowledge of flow field to see notonly what is happening but why

Smoke Filling

Blue dye smoke filling experiment, UMD

Dimensionless smoke layer height vs. dimensionless time.

□m*=1.25e-6, ○m*=1.3e-5, Δ=Hagglund et.al.[38].

Velocity Measurements (PIV)

• Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV)• Velocity Fields

Work shown for modeling of beamed ceilings – Department of Justice Study.

C.C. Siang, Characterizing Smoke Dispersion Along Beamed Ceilings Using Saltwater Modeling, Masters Thesis, University of Maryland, College Park, 2010.



Imposed Wind/Plume Interaction

• Flow development over a building model• Enables “real” modeling of wind effects on smoke

transport in enclosures

Y.E. Ling, Wind-Driven Plume Dispersion Near a Building. Masters Thesis, University of Maryland, College Park, 2008

Ventilation: Test Plan

• Custom-built small-scale acrylic models • Sloped Roofs─ Common design with NO reliable validation data

• Solar chimneys• Glass building façades ─ Open windows on smoke movement and slatted facades.

• Effects of wind on natural ventilation─ Manual firefighter control effects on automatic systems

• Increased hazards over time due to potentially longer response and evacuation times.

Scale Model Configurations

Scale models proposed to test smoke filling dynamics of green building features including (a) a sloped roof atria configuration with a fire source in the lower right hand corner and (b) a combined solar chimney, two room, atria and slatted double-skinned façade configuration.



Dissemination of Information

• Significant interest in the topic – only one year in, but several requests for preliminary findings─ 2014 NFPA Annual Conference (June 2014)─ FPRF Webinar (June 2014)─ 2014 ICC Annual Conference (September 2014)─ 2014 International Conference on Performance-Based

Codes and Firesafety Design (November 2014)─ Research referenced in magazines for architects,

engineers and fire service

Disclaimer

• The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security or other project sponsors.

Acknowledgements

• Team─ Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) Brian Meacham, PI and Nicholas Dembsey, Co-I Matt Yin, Drew Martin, Young-Geun You - Student RAs

─ University of Maryland (UMD) Michael Gollner and Andre Marshall, Co-Is Pietro Maisto – Student RA

─ Fire Protection Research Foundation (FPRF) Casey Grant / Project Technical Panel

─ National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Rita Fahy, Marty Ahrens, and John Hall Jr

─ Massachusetts Department of Fire Services (DFS) Timothy Rodrique



Questions?

Website: http://wpi-fprf.wix.com/gbffsafety

[email protected]

fire safety challenges of ‘green’ systems and features in … · 2014 icc annual conference...

Documents