Skip to content


Fire Dynamics Simulation of 2011 Baltimore County LODD- 30 Dowling Circle

No comments

Operations at 30 Dowling Circle 01.19.2011 Box 11-09

 On Wednesday, January 19, 2011, a fire occurred in an apartment building located in the Hillendale section of Baltimore County, Maryland. This fire resulted in the line of duty death (LODD) of volunteer firefighter Mark G. Falkenhan, who was operating as the acting lieutenant on Squad 303 . Upon their arrival, FF Falkenhan and a second firefighter from Squad 303 deployed to the upper floors of the apartment building to conduct search and rescue operations. Other fire department units were already involved with both firefighting operations and effecting rescues of trapped civilians.

During these operations, FF Falkenhan and his partner became trapped in a third floor apartment by rapidly spreading fire and smoke conditions. The second firefighter was able to self-egress the building by diving headfirst down a ladder on the front (address side) of the building. FF Falkenhan declared a “MAYDAY” and implemented “MAYDAY” procedures, but was unable to escape or be rescued.

FF Falkenhan was located and removed via a balcony on the third floor in the rear of the building. Resuscitative efforts began immediately upon removal from the balcony, and continued en route to the hospital. FF Falkenhan succumbed to his injuries and was pronounced deceased at the hospital.

Mark Gray Falkenhan had dedicated his life to serving others. He perished in the line of duty on January 19, 2011 while performing search and rescue operations at a multi-alarm apartment fire in Hillendale, Baltimore County (Maryland). He was 43 years old.

 

Firefighter Mark Falkenhan

30 Dowling Circle

 

The Baltimore County (MD) Fire Department published the Line of Duty Death Investgation Report of the 30 Dowling Circle Fire recently.

The report was written by a Line of Duty Death Investigation Team comprised of departmental members, including representatives of the local firefighters’ union and the Baltimore County Volunteer Firemen’s Association.

An overview and executive narrative of the final report (PDF) on the apartment fire where Volunteer Firefighter Mark Falkenhan sustained fatal injuries was posed on CommandSafety.com HERE.

FF Mark Falkenhan

 On Wednesday, January 19, 2011, a fire occurred in an apartment building located in the Hillendale section of Baltimore County, Maryland. This fire resulted in the line of duty death (LODD) of volunteer firefighter Mark G. Falkenhan, who was operating as the acting lieutenant on Squad 303 (for purposes of this report, Mark will be referred to as FF Falkenhan).

Upon their arrival, FF Falkenhan and a second firefighter (FF # 2) from Squad 303 deployed to the upper floors of the apartment building to conduct search and rescue operations. Other fire department units were already involved with both firefighting operations and effecting rescues of trapped civilians.

During these operations, FF Falkenhan and FF # 2 became trapped in a third floor apartment by rapidly spreading fire and smoke conditions. FF # 2 was able to self-egress the building by diving headfirst down a ladder on the front (address side) of the building. FF Falkenhan declared a “MAYDAY” and implemented “MAYDAY” procedures, but was unable to escape or be rescued.

FF Falkenhan was located and removed via a balcony on the third floor in the rear of the building. Resuscitative efforts began immediately upon removal from the balcony, and continued en route to the hospital. FF Falkenhan succumbed to his injuries and was pronounced deceased at the hospital.

The investigating team examined any and all data available, including independent analysis of the self contained breathing apparatus (SCBA), turnout gear and autopsy report. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) produced a fire model to assist with evaluating fire behavior. Multiple site inspections were conducted. Extensive interviews were conducted by the team which also attended those conducted by investigators from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Photographic and audio transcripts were also thoroughly analyzed. A comprehensive timeline of events was developed. All information used to make decisions regarding recommendations was corroborated by at least two sources.

  • In fairness to those units involved in this incident, the investigating team had the advantage of examining this incident over the period of several months. Furthermore, given the size and nature of the event, and the fact that arriving crews were met with serious fire conditions and several residents trapped and in immediate danger, all personnel should be commended for their efforts for performing several rescues which prevented an even greater tragedy.
  • The team did not identify a particular primary reason for FF Falkenhan’s death.
  • What were identified were many secondary issues involving but not limited to crew integrity, incident command, strategy and tactics, and communications.
  • These issues are identified and discussed, and recommendations are made in appropriate sections of the report, as well as in a consolidated format in the Report Appendix.

Some of the issues identified in this report may require some type of change to current practices, policies, procedures or equipment. Most, however, do not. Specifically, the analysis and recommendations regarding Incident Command and Strategy and Tactics show that if current policies and procedures are adhered to, the opportunity for catastrophic problems may be reduced.

  • Mark Falkenhan was a well-respected and experienced firefighter.
  • He died performing his duties during a very complex incident with severe fire conditions and unique fire behavior coupled with the immediate need to perform multiple rescues of victims in imminent danger.
  • It would be easy if one particular failure of the system could be identified as the cause of this tragedy.
  • We could fix it and move on. Unfortunately it is not that simple.
  • No incident is “routine”. Mark’s death and this report reinforce that fact.

On Wednesday, January 19, 2011 at 1816 hours, a call was received at the Baltimore County 911 Center from a female occupant at 30 Dowling Circle in the Hillendale section of Baltimore County. The caller stated that her stove was on fire and the fire was spreading to the surrounding cabinets. Fire box 11-09 was dispatched by Baltimore County Fire Dispatch (Dispatch) at 1818 hours consisting of four engine companies, two truck companies, a floodlight unit, and a battalion chief. All units responded on Talkgroup 1-2.

The location, approximately one mile from the first dispatched engine company, is a three story garden-type apartment complex, with brick construction and a composite shingle, truss supported roof. The fire building contained a total of six apartments divided by a common enclosed stairway in the center with one apartment on the left and one to the right of the stairs.

 

Fire Dynamics Simulation of 2011 Baltimore County LODD- 30 Dowling

Fire Dynamics Analysis and Insights

 

INTRODUCTION:

Assistance from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Fire Research Laboratory (FRL) was requested for a fire at 30 Dowling Circle by the Baltimore County Fire Investigation Division (FID) through the ATF Baltimore Field Division on the night of January 19, 2011.

ATF Fire Protection Engineers were asked to utilize engineering analysis methods, including computer fire modeling, to assist with determining the route of fire spread and the events that led to the firefighter MAYDAY and subsequent Line of Duty Death.

Download the REPORT HERE

BACKGROUND:

Working closely with the Post Incident Analysis Team, the ATF Fire Research Laboratory created a computer simulation of the garden apartment building using Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS). FDS is a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling program developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

FDS utilizes mathematical calculations to predict the flow of heat, smoke and other products of fire. Smokeview, a post-processer computer program also produced by NIST, was then used to visualize the mathematical output from FDS. The most current available versions of both programs were used: FDS 5.5.3 and Smokeview 5.6. Below are photographs of the front and rear of the fire building next to an image of the same building constructed in FDS.

Figure 01. 30 Dowling Street

 

Figure 2. FDS representation of the front of 30 Dowling Circle showing the terrace (T), second (A) and third (B) levels.

 

The garden apartment building at 30 Dowling Circle was attached to two similar garden apartment buildings, one on each side. The fire damage was isolated to 30 Dowling Circle, so the exposure buildings were not included in the computer fire model. The entire six unit garden apartment building was modeled in FDS, including the patio and balconies on the rear of the building. FDS works by dividing a space into cubical “grid cells” for calculation purposes. FDS then computes various CFD calculations for each grid cell to predict the movement of mass, energy, momentum and species throughout a three-dimensional space.

The Dowling Circle model consisted of 2,560,000 total grid cells that were each 3.9 inch (10 cm) cubes. The model was used to simulate a total elapsed real time of 27.5 minutes, beginning before the 911 call and ending just after flashover of the third floor and the firefighter MAYDAY.

The model was synchronized in real time with the fireground audio throughout the duration of the fire.

Fiqure 03 and 04

 

FDS has been validated to predict the movement of heat and smoke throughout a compartment, however the accuracy of fire modeling depends on it being used appropriately by a trained user that is aware of its limitations. Due to lack of knowledge about the exact material properties for the various furnishings and other available fuels, a user-specified fire progression was used for this application.

For flame and fire gas movement after consumption of the original burning fuel packages, the fire model calculated smoke and ventilation flow paths through the building and was used to gain a better understanding of the rapid fire growth leading to flashover of the stairwell and third floor.

  • In addition, FDS was utilized to illustrate the complex route of fire spread through the building as verified by witness statements, firefighter interviews, photographs and burn patterns.
  • Input data for the computer model included heat release rate data and video from previous testing conducted by the ATF FRL and NIST.
  • Ambient weather data was also input into the model, including temperature, as well as wind direction and magnitude at the time of the fire. In addition, several alternative compartmentation scenarios were modeled to explore the possible effects of closed stairway apartment entrance doors on the spread of smoke and flames in the stairwell.
  • The statements of each firefighter were reviewed and their individual actions (breaking windows, opening doors, etc.) and observations (fire size, smoke conditions, etc.) were recorded on floor diagrams.

The actions and observations of the firefighters were then associated with specific times in the fireground audio to generate an overall event timeline. All events in the model are based on this master timeline of events. In addition, all photographs were time stamped and synchronized with the model. The Post Incident Analysis Team was consulted throughout the development of the event timeline and the computer fire model to ensure accuracy.

MODELING ANALYSIS:

1. Analysis of Fire Development in the Terrace Level

The fire originated on the stovetop of an occupied apartment on the right (south) side of the terrace level (apartment T2). Flames from a grease fire ignited kitchen cabinets, eventually causing the kitchen to flashover into the attached living room. Upon fire department arrival, a fully developed fire existed in the living room and kitchen of apartment T2. Prior to exiting the apartment, the occupant opened both the rear sliding door and the apartment entrance door in an attempt to ventilate smoke from the apartment.

 

Figure 06. A typical floor plan of the right side apartments at 30 Dowling Circle.

 

An analysis of the ventilation flow path through the apartment with FDS indicated that a significant unidirectional flow path existed up the stairs with an inlet at the rear terrace sliding door and outlet at the front apartment entrance door leading to the stairwell.

Figure 7. Smokeview frame of the rear of the building indicating the fire origin and smoke spread within the T2 apartment. Figure 8. View of smoke flow out of kitchen and open sliding glass door (center of photo) in the rear of apartment T2. Figure 9. Smokeview frame of flashover of the kitchen with flames extending into the living room. Flames also begin to extend out of the rear sliding door and impact the balcony above.

 

Figure 10. Ignition of second level balcony resulting from flame extension from living room.

 

This unidirectional flow path up the stairs is difficult to combat and is often experienced during basement fires as crews attempt to descend interior stairs. The model indicates sustained air temperatures in the stairwell of approximately 600 Fahrenheit (315 Celsius) at velocities of approximately 6 mph (2.7 m/s) from floor to ceiling as crews attempted to descend the stairs. This is consistent with statements from firefighting crews, who experienced extremely high heat conditions and indicated periodically seeing flames in the smoke layer flowing up the stairs.

The elevated air velocity of the stairwell flow path resulted in a high rate of convective energy transfer to the structural firefighting gear and high perceived temperatures as the firefighters attempted to descend the stairs. Firefighting crews flowed a hoseline down the stairs to combat the high temperatures; however no significant cooling was noticed by firefighters because the hose stream could not reach the seat of the fully developed fire in the kitchen area.

The crews were simply cooling the ventilation flow path without cooling the source of the energy in the apartment. It was not until a hose stream was directed through an exterior window and a portion of the fire was extinguished that gas temperatures and velocities began to decrease, allowing firefighters to make entry to the terrace apartment via the stairs.

Figure 12. Smokeview section frame showing unidirectional flow of approximately 600 Fahrenheit (315 Celsius) gases out of the stairwell entrance door

Front photo of unidirectional flow of smoke up stairwell from apartment T2. Note the high volume of smoke from floor to ceiling as the stairwell door serves as the flow path outlet. The ground ladder in the foreground was used to rescue an occupant on the third floor trapped by heavy smoke in the stairwell. (Refer to Figure 014)

Figure 014. Front photo of unidirectional flow of smoke up stairwell from apartment T2. Note the high volume of smoke from floor to ceiling as the stairwell door serves as the flow path outlet.

 

The first arriving engine, E-11, was staffed with a Captain, Lieutenant, Driver/Operator, and a Firefighter. Upon arrival at 1820 hours, the Captain gave a brief initial report describing a three story garden apartment with smoke showing from side Alpha: “The Captain of E-11 will have Command and we are initiating an aggressive interior attack with a 1 ¾” hand line”. Command also instructed the second due engine to bring him a supply line from the hydrant. 

A female resident (victim # 1) appeared in a third floor apartment window, Alpha/Bravo side (Apt. B-1), yelled for assistance, and threatened to jump. Smoke or fire was visible from any of the third floor windows. At 1823 hours, Command advised Dispatch that he had a rescue and that he was establishing Limited Command. Fire Dispatch was in the process of upgrading the response profile to an apartment fire with rescue when the responding Battalion Chief requested that the fire box be upgraded to a fire rescue box. While the Firefighter and Lieutenant prepared for entry into the building, the Captain and Driver/Operator extended a ladder to the 3rd floor apartment window and rescued the resident. The first attempt by the Firefighter and Lieutenant to make entry into the side Alpha entrance was unsuccessful due to the extreme heat and smoke conditions.

The second due engine, E-10, arrived at 1823 with staffing of a Captain, Lieutenant, Driver/Operator, and a Firefighter. At 1823, E-10’s crew brought a 4″ supply line to E-11 from the hydrant at Deanwood Rd. and Dowling Circle and assisted the first-in crew with fire attack.

  • The Captain from E-10 conferred with Command and was instructed to advance a second 1 ¾” hand line.
  • The window to the first floor right apartment (Apt. T-2) was removed, and the second 1 ¾” line was advanced to the building by the crew of E-10.
  • Fire attack was initiated through the removed window. At 1827, Command requested a second alarm.

At this time, heat and smoke conditions just inside the front door improved enough to allow the Firefighter and Lieutenant from E-11 to make entry through the front door and into the stairwell. There they encountered heavy, thick black smoke and high heat conditions coming up the stairs from the terrace level apartment. The Lieutenant reported that the doorway to the first floor apartment was orange with fire and he had to fight his way through heavy heat and smoke conditions to attack the fire in the first floor right apartment (Apt. T-2). Entry was made approximately 3 feet into the doorway when the Firefighter’s low air alarm began to sound, and he exited the building. A member from E-10’s crew replaced the Firefighter from E-11 on the hose line.

At the same time, the Captain from E-11 proceeded to the rear of the structure to complete his initial 360 degree size up. He noted that there was fire emanating from the open sliding doors on the first floor Charlie/Delta apartment (Apt. T-2), extending to the balcony above. E-1, staffed by a Captain, Driver/Operator, and two Firefighters arrived and completed the hookup of the supply line that had been laid to the hydrant by E-10. The rest of Engine 1’s crew grabbed tools and an extension ladder and reported to the Charlie side of the building.

Figure 015 Charlie Side ( Rear) Extension

The Photo above referenced as  Figure 015 shows conditions  from rear of flames in apartment T2 and extension to the balcony above. Note the relative minimal volume of smoke as the sliding door serves as the inlet for ventilation into the apartment. The smoke and heat is flowing in from the rear, through the apartment and up the stairs.

This unidirectional flow path up the stairs is difficult to combat and is often experienced during basement fires as crews attempt to descend interior stairs.

  • The model indicates sustained air temperatures in the stairwell of approximately 600 Fahrenheit (315 Celsius) at velocities of approximately 6 mph (2.7 m/s) from floor to ceiling as crews attempted to descend the stairs.
  • This is consistent with statements from firefighting crews, who experienced extremely high heat conditions and indicated periodically seeing flames in the smoke layer flowing up the stairs.
  • The elevated air velocity of the stairwell flow path resulted in a high rate of convective energy transfer to the structural firefighting gear and high perceived temperatures as the firefighters attempted to descend the stairs.

Firefighting crews flowed a hoseline down the stairs to combat the high temperatures; however no significant cooling was noticed by firefighters because the hose stream could not reach the seat of the fully developed fire in the kitchen area.

The crews were simply cooling the ventilation flow path without cooling the source of the energy in the apartment.

It was not until a hose stream was directed through an exterior window and a portion of the fire was extinguished that gas temperatures and velocities began to decrease, allowing firefighters to make entry to the terrace apartment via the stairs.

Plan view of flow path and temperatures within the apartment. Note the location of the seat of the fire and the location of initial hose stream application down the stairs.

Figure 016

 

Photograph of hoselines being positioned at the stairwell entrance door and front window. Note the heavy smoke venting from all front openings in apartment T2. (Figure 017)

Figure 017 Alpha Side Entry Door

 

Figure 017  Hoselines being positioned at the stairwell entrance door and front window. Rapid Fire Progression Leading to Flashover of the Third LevelFlames extended upwards from the T2 apartment sliding door and ignited the rear balconies of the second and third level apartments above.
 
Fire on the second floor balcony extended into apartment A2 by failing the sliding glass door and igniting vertical plastic slat curtains that were suspended above.As crews searched within the second floor apartment, they noted seeing the burning curtains on the floor with flames extending to a nearby couch (containing polyurethane foam padding) adjacent to the sliding doorway.
 
The fire continued to grow unsuppressed and spread to a second couch as interior firefighting crews were engaged in rescuing two victims from the living room in the second floor apartment.Personnel stated that at this point fire conditions seemed to improve, suggesting that crews were making progress extinguishing the fire. (The first arriving attack crew reported that they were able to see apparatus lights through the sliding doors on Charlie side, which indicated to them that smoke and fire conditions were improving.)Truck 1, a tiller unit staffed by a Lieutenant, two Driver/Operators, and a Firefighter, arrived on side Alpha and immediately began search and rescue operations.
 
Windows on the second floor Alpha/Delta side apartment (Apt. A-2) were vented and ladders were thrown to gain access. T-8 arrived at the alley on side Charlie. E-1 extended a ground ladder to the third floor balcony on the Charlie/Bravo side of the structure (Apt. B-1), and made access to the apartment to search for additional victims.They noted fire venting from the first floor Charlie/Delta apartment (Apt. T-2) out of the sliding glass doors progressing upwards towards the balcony on the second floor.
 
Upon entering the apartment, they conducted a primary search and noted minimal heat with light smoke conditions.The crew accessed the hallway via the apartment entry door and noticed an increase in the temperature and the amount of smoke.They immediately closed the door and exited the apartment via the ground ladder.Upon exiting the apartment, E-1’s crew observed E-292 on the scene with a hand line extending into the apartment of origin, (first floor, Charlie/Delta side, Apt. T-2).
 
The officer on E-1 noted white smoke coming from the unit.Having already laid a supply line from the intersection of the alley and Deanwood Road, E-292’s crew extended a 1 ¾” hand line into the apartment of origin. Moderate fire conditions with zero visibility were encountered, and they reported feeling a great deal of heat on their knees as they crawled through the apartment.The Lieutenant and the Firefighter from Truck-1 entered Apartment A-2 via a second floor bedroom window (Alpha/Delta side) and began a search for additional victims. As they traversed the living room area they found an unconscious male resident (victim #2).
 
At 1836 hours, the Lieutenant notified Command via an urgent transmission that a victim had been located and they needed assistance with evacuation. The Lieutenant and Firefighter noted a small fire in the rear corner near the victim as they exited the room. The crew returned to the bedroom from which they had entered and closed the door behind them. Victim #2 was then evacuated from the apartment via a ground ladder through the bedroom window, and transferred to EMS personnel on side Alpha.
 
Figure 019 Flame extension and suppression efforts at the rear of the structure. Flames caused the second level glass slider to fail and ignite plastic curtains in the doorway located
 

Figure 019

 
 

The middle level apartment (A2) entrance door was opened by a second search crew around the same time as the second couch ignited, creating a ventilation flow path from the second floor balcony, through the apartment, and upwards into the stairwell (third floor). This flow path follows the same general route through the apartment and into the stairwell as was seen in the terrace level apartment below. Squad 303’s crew arrived on scene after the bulk of the fire in the terrace level apartment had been suppressed and appeared to be under control. The crew entered the front stairwell, which had minimal smoke up to the second level and the crew began to systematically search the building.

Squad 303’s crew proceeded to search two apartments before entering the third floor right side apartment to conduct a search, leaving the entrance door open. It should also be noted that carpeting impacted the bottom of the door and prevented the apartment entrance doors on the second and third levels from closing automatically. The entry doors had to be actively pushed closed to overcome the friction of the carpet.

 

Photo depicting building smoke and fire conditions around the arrival of Squad 303.

Note the lack of heavy smoke or fire in the stairwell or terrace level.

There is also no indication of the growing fire in the second (middle) level apartment.

 

 

 

When Squad 303’s crew of two firefighters entered the third level apartment (B2), smoke was banked about halfway down the walls with moderate visibility. The crew could clearly see the floor of the apartment without the need to crawl below the smoke layer to search. Squad 303’s crew was unaware of the flames spreading across the two couches in the second floor apartment below them. The crew split in order to search the apartment faster, with one firefighter searching the front bedrooms and the officer searching the kitchen and living room.

As flames in the second level began to rollover into the apartment entranceway, the smoke layer in the third level quickly dropped to the floor with a rapid increase in temperature. With Squad 303’s crew searching above, flames began to extend into the stairwell, supplied by sufficient ventilation flowing through the apartment. This combination of fuel, heat and oxygen rich fresh air resulted in a rapid increase in heat release rate and flashover of the second level apartment followed by full room involvement.

The open entrance doors on the second and third levels created a ventilation flow path through the second floor apartment, into the sealed stairwell and up through the third floor apartment directly above. The flames followed this flow path and extended from the second floor, through the stairwell and into the living room area of the third floor apartment. Flashover of the third floor occurred approximately 30 seconds after the second floor experienced flashover.

Figure 026 and 027

 

Rollover from the second level apartment into the stairwell.

 

 
 
Flames followed the ventilation flow path and extend into the third floor apartment, resulting in ignition of the couches just inside the doorway.

 

 

    

 

Command sounded the building evacuation tones as flames extended into the hallway and up to the third level apartment.

Two couches just inside the entrance door on the third level ignited, blocking the primary means of egress for both firefighters from Squad 303. Upon hearing the evacuation horns from the trucks, the second firefighter from Squad 303 (searching the front bedrooms) attempted to exit the apartment via the apartment entrance door, however he was blocked by flames in the living room and stairwell.

Trapped in the bedroom, the firefighter bailed out headfirst down a ground ladder on the front side from the third floor. Squad 303 officer’s means of egress through the apartment entrance door was also blocked by the flames in the living room and stairwell. There were no windows located in the rear of the apartment.

The only means of escape was the balcony slider, however the entire balcony was engulfed in flames from the fully involved apartment below. With both escape routes blocked by flames and experiencing extremely high heat conditions, Squad 303’s officer requested assistance and declared a MAYDAY from the rear of the third floor apartment.

Firefighters re-entered the structure to combat the fire and locate the trapped firefighter. The downed firefighter was eventually located on the third level just inside the sliding glass door and was removed to the rear balcony. The firefighter was then extricated in a stokes rescue basket down the aerial ladder of a truck located in the rear, where he was subsequently transported to the hospital.

Effects of Compartmentation on Fire Spread

The Post Incident Analysis Team requested that alternate modeling scenarios be conducted to explore the effects of compartmentation on fire spread throughout the building.

The team specifically wanted to know how the ventilation flow paths through the stairwell would differ if the second or third level apartment entry doors were shut after entering/leaving the apartments. Two alternate computer fire modeling scenarios were conducted.

The first alternative modeling run featured the exact same fire scenario, except the second (middle) level apartment door was closed after the last victim was removed from that apartment. The apartment entry doors from the stairwell were fire-rated doors constructed of solid wood.

  • As soon as the door is shut, the ventilation flow path through the apartment and up the stairwell is blocked.

 

Shutting the second level apartment door blocks the flow path and flame extension into the stairwell. 

Even with the third floor apartment door left open, the model indicates that the stairwell and third floor remain tenable for firefighters. Flames eventually extend from the third floor balcony into the apartment, however the escape routes through the stairwell and the front apartment windows are accessible.           

The model indicates that closing the second level apartment door prevents the flow of smoke, heat and other products of combustion from entering the stairwell, thus preventing flashover of the stairwell and the third level. As long as the second floor entry door remains shut, the model indicated that the conditions within the stairwell and third floor remain tenable for firefighters, even with the third floor apartment door open.

A second alternative modeling scenario was conducted where the third level entrance door was closed after crews made entry to search the apartment.The same fire conditions from the actual model were used.When the door remained closed, the outlet of the ventilation flow path was blocked at the top of the stairs. Without a complete flow path, there wasn’t sufficient oxygen flowing through the second floor apartment to support extended burning in the stairwell.

Consequently after flashover of the second floor, the flames in the stairwell only exist momentarily before consuming all available oxygen and becoming ventilation limited.The fire model indicated that temperatures within the third floor apartment stayed tenable for firefighters, even with a fully developed fire on the second floor and flames in the stairwell.

Flames would eventually extend up the rear balcony to the third level, however they would not block egress through the living room and front windows of the apartment.By closing the apartment door on the third floor and blocking the outlet for fire gases emanating from the second floor apartment, the third floor apartment remains tenable for firefighting crews and the temperatures only briefly spike in the stairwell before the fire becomes ventilation limited.The ventilation flow through the apartments results in an increased burning rate within both the second and third levels, as well as the stairwell.                     

Results of each modeling scenario describing extent of flame spread

Results of each modeling scenario describing extent of flame spread.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Effects of Compartmentation on Fire Damage to the StructureThe impact of compartmentation on fire and smoke spread is evident by examining the post-fire damage throughout the structure. While other factors contributed to the relative fire damage, including fire department overhaul and relative apartment configuration, analyzing the damage to the building and the position of the apartment entry doors provides insight on the benefits of compartmentation.

By closing apartment unit entrance doors and interior hollow core doors, one can slow or even block the ventilation flow path through the structure, thus significantly reducing the rate of fire spread. The photos below represent the post-fire damage in all six apartments within the fire building. Four of the six apartment entry doors were open for the majority of the fire and the relative difference in damage is clearly evident.

Terrace level stairwell landing looking into T1 (left) and T2 (right) apartments.

 

Door Closed……Door Open

 

 

Using doors to compartmentalize and limit fire and smoke spread in a structure is not limited to fire-rated entrance doors. Interior hollow core doors also offer considerable protection for compartmentation purposes.

A search crew utilizing the Vent, Enter and Search (VES) technique through a front window used a hollow core bedroom door to isolate themselves from the developing fire in the living room of apartment A2.

As the crews removed the second victim from the living room to the bedroom, they shut the bedroom hollow core door behind them.

The living room soon experienced flashover followed by full room involvement, however the bedroom remained isolated from the heat and smoke for the duration of the fire. The photos below illustrate this effective use of compartmentation to protect firefighters during a search.

 
Controling the Doors during VES

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
SUMMARY:
While no fire model will exactly replicate a fire, this model provided insight on the route of fire spread, the rapid fire growth leading to flashover of the second and third level, and the benefits of compartmentation on slowing fire and smoke spread.
  • The unidirectional flow path up the stairs from the terrace level apartment resulted in a high rate of convective heat transfer to the firefighters initially attempting to descend the stairs, making attacking the seat of the fire very difficult.
  • The model then supported the fact that the main stairwell acted as an open channel for fire and smoke spread between the second and third levels, resulting in flashover of the third level in approximately 30 seconds after the second level.
  • This rapid fire growth leading to flashover is supported by photographs, witness statements and fireground audio.
  • The model was then utilized to explore the effects of compartmentation using apartment entrance doors.
  • The FDS model supported the scene observations and indicated that shutting the entrance doors blocked the flow of buoyancy driven fire gases through the structure, ultimately preventing fire extension to the third floor apartment via the stairwell.
  • The FDS model was utilized as part of the overall engineering analysis of this tragic fire and allowed for a better understanding of the events that led to the firefighter MAYDAY and subsequent Line of Duty Death.
  • The model was also used as an educational tool providing insight on potential methods of preventing similar tragedies in the future.
  • The results of this engineering analysis are intended to be reviewed by the Post Incident Analysis Team to assist in the creation of recommendations to mitigate the danger associated with future fire incidents.

References:

NFPA 2010 Fire Loss in the U.S. Report issued

No comments

NFPA releases 2010 “Fire Loss in the U.S.” report

New report shows lower number of fires but increased fire deaths

 

Public fire departments responded to 1,331,500 fires in the United States during 2010, a slight decrease from the previous year and the lowest number since 1977, according to a new report (759 KB) issued by the National Fire Protection Association(NFPA).

These fires caused an estimated 3,120 civilian fire deaths, a 4 percent increase from a year ago; an estimated 17,720 civilian fire injuries, also a 4 percent increase from the previous year; and more than $11.5 billion in property damage, a significant decrease from the year before.

Fire Loss in the U.S. analyzes 2010 figures for fires, civilian fire deaths, injuries, property damage, and intentionally set fires. Estimates are based on data collected from fire departments that responded to NFPA’s Annual National Fire Experience Survey.

There were an estimated 482,000 structure fires reported to fire departments in 2010, a very slight increase from a year ago. The number of structure fires was at their peak in 1977, the first year that NFPA implemented its current survey methodology, when 1,098,000 structure fires occurred. 

“We have made tremendous progress in reducing the fire problem in the United States since we began looking at these numbers in the late 70’s,” said Lorraine Carli, vice president of Communications for NFPA. “But this report shows us that more must be done to bring the numbers down even further. We continue to see the vast majority of deaths occurring in homes, a place where people often feel safest. These survey results will be combined with data from the U.S. Fire Administration’s (USFA’s) National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS) to determine how often specific fire circumstances occur and where we can most effectively focus our efforts.”

Other key findings from the report include:

  • A fire department responded to a fire every 24 seconds.
  • 384,000 fires or 80 percent of all structure fires occurred in residential properties.
  • About 85 percent of all fire deaths occurred in the home.
  • 215,500 vehicle fires occurred in the U.S. during 2010, causing 310 civilian fire deaths, 1,590 civilian fire injuries and $1.4 billion in property damage.
  • 634,000 outside and other fires occurred in the U.S. during 2010 causing $501 million in property damage.

Download the full report “Fire Loss in the United States during 2010”.

 

Overview of 2010 U.S. Fire Experience

Number of Fires

  • 1,331,500 fires were attended by public fire departments, a slight decrease of 1.3% from the year before
  • 482,000 fires occurred in structures, a very slight increase of 0.3%
  • 384,000 fires or 80% of all structure fires occurred in residential properties
  • 215,500 fires occurred in vehicles, a decrease of 1.6% from the year before
  • 634,000 fires occurred in outside properties, a decrease of 2.3%

What do these fire frequencies above mean?

  • Every 24 seconds, a fire department responds to a fire somewhere in the nation.
  • A fire occurs in a structure at the rate of one every 65 seconds, and in particular a residential fire occurs every 82 seconds.
  • Fires occur in vehicles at the rate of 1 every 146 seconds, and there’s a fire in an outside property every 50 seconds

Civilian Fire Deaths

  • 3,120 civilian fire deaths occurred in 2010, an increase of 3.7%
  • About 85% of all fire deaths occurred in the home
  • 2,640 civilian fire deaths occurred in the home (1-and-2 family dwelling homes and apartments), an increase of 2.9%
  • 285 civilians died in highway vehicle fires.
  • 90 civilians died in nonresidential structure fires
  • Nationwide, there was a civilian fire death every 169 minutes

Civilian Fire Injuries

  • 17,720 civilian fire injuries occurred in 2010, an increase of 3.9%. This estimate for civilian injuries is on the low side, because many civilian injuries are not reported to the fire service
  • 13,800 of all civilian injuries occurred in residential properties, while 1,620 occurred in nonresidential structure fires
  • Nationwide, there was a civilian fire injury every 30 minutes.

Property Damage

  • An estimated $11.6 billion in property damage occurred as a result of fire in 2010, a decrease of 7.5% from last year
  • $9.7 billion of property damage occurred in structure fires.
  • $7.1 billion of property loss occurred in residential properties.

Intentionally Set Fires

  • An estimated 27,500 intentionally set structure fires occurred in 2010, an increase of 3.8%
  • Intentionally set fires in structures resulted in 200 civilian deaths, an increase of 17.7%
  • Intentionally set structure fires also resulted in $585,000,000 in property loss, a decrease of 14.5%
  • 14,000 intentionally set vehicle fires occurred, a decrease of 6.7% from a year ago, and caused $89,000,000 in property damage, a decrease of 17.6% from a year ago.

 

Overview 2010

 

1977 - 2010

 
 

Community Size and Fires 2010

Online, self-paced training for Chevy Volt

No comments

2011 Chevy Volt

One million advanced electric vehicles are expected to be on the road by 2015

The National Fire Protection Association’s (NFPA) Electric Vehicle Safety Training project is providing firefighters and first responders with the information and materials necessary to respond to emergency situations involving electric vehicles. This training will help first responders identify electric vehicles and respond to common hazards. The project is being funded by a $4.4 million grant from the U.S. Department of Energy.

Electric Vehicle Safety Training

Available trainings

NFPA, Chevrolet, and OnStar have launched Electric Vehicle Safety Training for the 2011 Chevrolet Volt, an extended-range electric vehicle that hit the roads last fall. The training features an inside look at the vehicle’s technology and safety systems. More training resources for the Chevrolet Volt.     

NFPA, Chevrolet and OnStar have launched the first virtual electric vehicle safety training for first responders. The online training — hosted on NFPA’s Electric Vehicles Safety Training website — features an inside look at the technology and safety systems for the all-new 2011 Chevrolet Volt, an electric vehicle with extended-range capabilities that hit the roads last fall.

The collaboration with Chevrolet and OnStar stems from NFPA’s electric vehicle safety training initiative, a result of a $4.4 million grant from the U.S. Department of Energy, that supports the growing number of electric vehicles in the United States.

This is an NFPA sponsored training opportunity which may be reached at:

About the Project

  

Are you prepared to respond?

NFPA’s Electric Vehicle Safety Training project is a nationwide program to help firefighters and other first responders prepare for the growing number of electric vehicles on the road in the United States. The NFPA project, funded by a $4.4 million grant from the U.S. Department of Energy, provides first responders with information they need to most effectively deal with potential emergency situations involving electric vehicles.

The project is being developed in support of the Department of Energy’s overarching goal of increasing the number of electric vehicles on the road. Knowing that firefighters and first responders are equipped with the information they need about electric vehicles will be crucial to the public’s acceptance of these vehicles. 

Andrew KlockAndrew Klock, NFPA senior project manager, talks about the Electric Vehicle Safety Training project.
What is Electric Vehicle Safety training all about?
Why is NFPA launching the program?
How will the program’s safety information be distributed?

 

Casey GrantCasey Grant, research director of the Fire Protection Research Foundation, talks about key issues concerning first responders and electric vehicles.
What are the differences between electric vehicles?
What are the key safety issues for first responders?
Why is the Research Foundation studying safety issues for electric vehicles?

Goals

The goal of NFPA’s Electric Vehicle Safety Training project is to ensure that firefighters and first responders are prepared for emergencies involving electric vehicles. The training seeks to:

  • Create awareness of unique emergency response needs for electric vehicles
  • Drive awareness of availability of training modules
  • Remove concern about inherent safety of electric vehicles and ability to safely respond in emergency situations
  • Reassure public that trained first responders know what to do in emergency situations involving electric vehicles

Who should participate in the Electric Vehicle Safety Training?

Members of the fire service, law enforcement and EMS personnel should participate in the training.

Why is this training being offered?

Firefighters and other first responders put their lives on the line every day. It is critical that they have all of the specific information they need about electric vehicles when preparing to deal with hazardous situations. They deserve to know what is coming down the road.

Who is developing the training?

The training will be based on extensive research and findings from the Fire Protection Research Foundation, NFPA, Subject Matter Experts, Auto Manufacturers and others.

What topics will be covered in the training?

  • Overview of the EV electrical & safety systems
  • Identification of electric & hybrid vehicle
  • Immobilization process
  • Electrical power-down procedures
  • EV extrication awareness, including high strength steel
  • Vehicle fire recommended practices
  • Emergency operations (battery fires, submersion)
  • New challenges presented by vehicle charging stations and infrastructure

Other LINKS

Watch the full episode. See more MotorWeek.

Have you Looked at the 16 Firefighter Life Safety Initiatives Lately; Doing Anything with them?

1 comment

When was the last time you looked at the Initiatives?

  1. Define and advocate the need for a cultural change within the fire service relating to safety; incorporating leadership, management, supervision, accountability and personal responsibility.
  2. Enhance the personal and organizational accountability for health and safety throughout the fire service.
  3. Focus greater attention on the integration of risk management with incident management at all levels, including strategic, tactical, and planning responsibilities.
  4. All firefighters must be empowered to stop unsafe practices.
  5. Develop and implement national standards for training, qualifications, and certification (including regular recertification) that are equally applicable to all firefighters based on the duties they are expected to perform.
  6. Develop and implement national medical and physical fitness standards that are equally applicable to all firefighters, based on the duties they are expected to perform.
  7. Create a national research agenda and data collection system that relates to the initiatives.
  8. Utilize available technology wherever it can produce higher levels of health and safety.
  9. Thoroughly investigate all firefighter fatalities, injuries, and near misses.
  10. Grant programs should support the implementation of safe practices and/or mandate safe practices as an eligibility requirement.
  11. National standards for emergency response policies and procedures should be developed and championed.
  12. National protocols for response to violent incidents should be developed and championed.
  13. Firefighters and their families must have access to counseling and psychological support.
  14. Public education must receive more resources and be championed as a critical fire and life safety program.
  15. Advocacy must be strengthened for the enforcement of codes and the installation of home fire sprinklers.
  16. Safety must be a primary consideration in the design of apparatus and equipment.

The Following links From the NFFF/Everyone Goes Home web site, HERE

Firefighter Life Safety Initiatives Resources

16 Intiatives Overview & Explanation

Watch Media Resources:

» Overview & Explanation: View | Download
» Initiative 1: CultureView | Download
» Initiatives 1 – 4View | Download
» Initiatives 5 – 8View | Download
» Initiatives 9 – 12View | Download
» Initiatives 13 – 16View | Download

Related Resources:
» 16 Initiatives in Español
» Power Point Presentations: Part 1 | Part 2
» Resolution: Home Fire Sprinklers (Initiative 15)

In Print:
» 16 Firefighter Life Safety Initiatives Handout
» 16 Firefighter Life Safety Initiatives Poster
» Everyone Goes Home® Bookmark

For Your Computer:
» 16 Initiatives Desktop Wallpaper

Tactical Patience and New Considerations of Ventilation on Fire Behavior in Legacy and Contemporary Residential Construction

1 comment

Tactical Patience and the New Considerations of Ventilation on Fire Behavior in Legacy and Contemporary Residential Construction

UL Ventilation and Fire Behavior Full Scale Testing

 

Impact of Ventilation on Fire Behavior in Legacy and Contemporary Residential Construction

For many of you that have been following my writings and perspectives on building construction, firefighting, command risk management and operational excellence for firefighter safety have long recognized that I have been promoting and advocating the fact the fireground is changining, our stratgies and tactics demand change adn does the demand for increased knowledge within the areas of building construction, fire dynamics, while integrating the art and science of firefighting. The most recent release of the testing report from Underwriters Laboratories; Impact of Ventilation on Fire Behavior in Legacy and Contemporary Residential Construction and the accompaning emphirical data further validates assumptions and presmises that many of us shared based upon field obervations and first hand incident operations related to the dramatic changes being witnessed as a result of operational challenges in a wide varity of occupanies and building types.

This material is a must read for all emerging and practicing company and command officers ( for starters) to being grasping the magnitude and extent of quantifiable data that supports the premise that combat fire engagement and suppression operations and the rules of engagement are going to change and that change is fast approaching.

 Considerations for Tactical Patience and Adaptive Fireground Management are continued themes I will expand upon in future postings….

Here’s the executive summary of the report and findings from UL. For an download of the entire UL Report, go HERE.

Under the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Assistance to Firefighter Grant Program, Underwriters Laboratories examined fire service ventilation practices as well as the impact of changes in modern house geometries.  There has been a steady change in the residential fire environment over the past several decades.  These changes include larger homes, more open floor plans and volumes and increased synthetic fuel loads.  This series of experiments examine this change in fire behavior and the impact on firefighter ventilation tactics.  This fire research project developed the empirical data that is needed to quantify the fire behavior associated with these scenarios and result in immediately developing the necessary firefighting ventilation practices to reduce firefighter death and injury.

Two houses were constructed in the large fire facility of Underwriters Laboratories in Northbrook, IL.  The first of two houses constructed was a one-story, 1200 ft2, 3 bedroom, 1 bathroom house with 8 total rooms.  The second house was a two-story 3200 ft2, 4 bedroom, 2.5 bathroom house with 12 total rooms.  The second house featured a modern open floor plan, two-story great room and open foyer.   Fifteen experiments were conducted varying the ventilation locations and the number of ventilation openings.  Ventilation scenarios included ventilating the front door only, opening the front door and a window near and remote from the seat of the fire, opening a window only and ventilating a higher opening in the two-story house.  One scenario in each house was conducted in triplicate to examine repeatability.

The results of these experiments provide knowledge for the fire service for them to examine their thought processes, standard operating procedures and training content.  Several tactical considerations were developed utilizing the data from the experiments to provide specific examples of changes that can be adopted based on a departments current strategies and tactics.

Under the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Assistance to Firefighter Grant Program, Underwriters Laboratories examined fire service ventilation practices as well as the impact of changes in modern house geometries.

There has been a steady change in the residential fire environment over the past several decades. These changes include larger homes, more open floor plans and volumes and increased synthetic fuel loads. This series of experiments examine this change in fire behavior and the impact on firefighter ventilation tactics.

This fire research project developed the empirical data that is needed to quantify the fire behavior associated with these scenarios and result in immediately developing the necessary firefighting ventilation practices to reduce firefighter death and injury.

  • Two houses were constructed in the large fire facility of Underwriters Laboratories in Northbrook, IL.
  • The first of two houses constructed was a one-story, 1200 ft2, 3 bedroom, 1 bathroom house with 8 total rooms.
  • The second house was a two-story 3200 ft2, 4 bedroom, and 2.5 bathroom house with 12 total rooms.
  • The second house featured a modern open floor plan, two story great room and open foyer.

 Fifteen experiments were conducted varying the ventilation locations and the number of ventilation openings. Ventilation scenarios included ventilating the front door only, opening the front door and a window near and remote from the seat of the fire, opening a window only and ventilating a higher opening in the two-story house.

One scenario in each house was conducted in triplicate to examine repeatability. The results of these experiments provide knowledge for the fire service for them to examine their thought processes, standard operating procedures and training content. Several tactical considerations were developed utilizing the data from the experiments to provide specific examples of changes that can be adopted based on a departments current strategies and tactics.

The tactical considerations addressed include:

  • Stages of fire development: The stages of fire development change when a fire becomes ventilation limited.
    • It is common with today’s fire environment to have a decay period prior to flashover which emphasizes the importance of ventilatio
  • Forcing the front door is ventilation: Forcing entry has to be thought of as ventilation as well.
    • While forcing entry is necessary to fight the fire it must also trigger the thought that air is being fed to the fire and the clock is ticking before either the fire gets extinguished or it grows until an untenable condition exists jeopardizing the safety of everyone in the structure.
  • No smoke showing: A common event during the experiments was that once the fire became ventilation limited the smoke being forced out of the gaps of the houses greatly diminished or stopped all together.
    • No some showing during size-up should increase awareness of the potential conditions inside.
  • Coordination: If you add air to the fire and don’t apply water in the appropriate time frame the fire gets larger and safety decreases.
    • Examining the times to untenability gives the best case scenario of how coordinated the attack needs to be.
    • Taking the average time for every experiment from the time of ventilation to the time of the onset of firefighter untenability conditions yields 100 seconds for the one-story house and 200 seconds for the two-story house
    • In many of the experiments from the onset of firefighter untenability until flashover was less than 10 seconds.
    • These times should be treated as being very conservative. If a vent location already exists because the homeowner left a window or door open then the fire is going to respond faster to additional ventilation opening because the temperatures in the house are going to be higher.
    • Coordination of fire attack crew is essential for a positive outcome in today’s fire environment.
  • Smoke tunneling and rapid air movement through the front door: Once the front door is opened attention should be given to the flow through the front door.
    • A rapid in rush of air or a tunneling effect could indicate a ventilation limited fire.
  • Vent Enter Search (VES): During a VES operation, primary importance should be given to closing the door to the room.
    • This eliminates the impact of the open vent and increases tenability for potential occupants and firefighters while the smoke ventilates from the now isolated room.
  • Flow paths: Every new ventilation opening provides a new flow path to the fire and vice versa.
    • This could create very dangerous conditions when there is a ventilation limited fire.
  • Can you vent enough?: In the experiments where multiple ventilation locations were made it was not possible to create fuel limited fires.
    • The fire responded to all the additional air provided.
    • That means that even with a ventilation location open the fire is still ventilation limited and will respond just as fast or faster to any additional air.
    • It is more likely that the fire will respond faster because the already open ventilation location is allowing the fire to maintain a higher temperature than if everything was closed. In these cases rapid fire progression if highly probable and coordination of fire attack with ventilation is paramount.
  • Impact of shut door on occupant tenability and firefighter tenability: Conditions in every experiment for the closed bedroom remained tenable for temperature and oxygen concentration thresholds.
    • This means that the act of closing a door between the occupant and the fire or a firefighter and the fire can increase the chance of survivability.
    • During firefighter operations if a firefighter is searching ahead of a hoseline or becomes separated from his crew and conditions deteriorate then a good choice of actions would be to get in a room with a closed door until the fire is knocked down or escape out of the room’s window with more time provided by the closed door
  • Potential impact of open vent already on flashover time: All of these experiments were designed to examine the first ventilation actions by an arriving crew when there are no ventilation openings.
    • It is possible that the fire will fail a window prior to fire department arrival or that a door or window was left open by the occupant while exiting.
    • It is important to understand that an already open ventilation location is providing air to the fire, allowing it to sustain or grow.
  • Pushing fire: There were no temperature spikes in any of the rooms, especially the rooms adjacent to the fire room when water was applied from the outside. It appears that in most cases the fire was slowed down by the water application and that external water application had no negative impacts to occupant survivability.
    • While the fog stream “pushed” steam along the flow path there was no fire “pushed”.
  • No damage to surrounding rooms: Just as the fire triangle depicts, fire needs oxygen to burn.
    • A condition that existed in every experiment was that the fire (living room or family room) grew until oxygen was reduced below levels to sustain it.
    • This means that it decreased the oxygen in the entire house by lowering the oxygen in surrounding rooms and the more remote bedrooms until combustion was not possible.
    • In most cases surrounding rooms such as the dining room and kitchen had no fire in them even when the fire room was fully involved in flames and was ventilating out of the structure.

Online Training Program

In order to make the results of this study more user friendly for the fire service to examine, UL developed an online interactive training module that can be viewed by clicking here.  The program includes a professionally narrated description of all of the experiments, their results and the tactical considerations.  Experimental video is used and graphical data is explained in a way that brings science to the street level firefighter.

UL University On-Line CBT

 

Comparison of Modern and Legacy Home Furnishings

An experiment was conducted with two side by side living room fires.   The purpose was to gain knowledge on the difference between modern and legacy furnishings.  The rooms measured 12 ft by 12 ft, with an 8 ft ceiling and had an 8 ft wide by 7 ft tall opening on the front wall.  Both rooms contained similar amounts of like furnishings.

The modern room was lined with a layer of ½ inch painted gypsum board and the floor was covered with carpet and padding.

  • The furnishings included a microfiber covered polyurethane foam filled sectional sofa, engineered wood coffee table, end table, television stand and book case.
  • The sofa had a polyester throw placed on its right side.  The end table had a lamp with polyester shade on top of it and a wicker basket inside it.
  • The coffee table had six color magazines, a television remote and a synthetic plant on it.
  • The television stand had a color magazine and a 37 inch flat panel television.
  • The book case had two small plastic bins, two picture frames and two glass vases on it.
  • The right rear corner of the room had a plastic toy bin, a plastic toy tub and four stuffed toys.
  • The rear wall had polyester curtains hanging from a metal rod and the side walls had wood framed pictures hung on them.

The legacy room was lined with a layer of ½ inch painted cement board and the floor was covered with unfinished hardwood flooring.

  • The furnishings included a cotton covered, cotton batting filled sectional sofa, solid wood coffee table, two end tables, and television stand.
  • The sofa had a cotton throw placed on its right side.
  • Both end tables had a lamp with polyester shade on top of them.
  • The one on the left side of the sofa had two paperback books on it.
  • A wicker basket was located on the floor in front of the right side of the sofa at the floor level.
  • The coffee table had three hard-covered books, a television remote and a synthetic plant on it.
  • The television stand had a 27 inch tube television.
  • The right front corner of the room had a wood toy bin, and multiple wood toys.
  • The rear wall had cotton curtains hanging from a metal rod and the side walls had wood framed pictures hung on them.

Both rooms were ignited by placing a lit stick candle on the right side of the sofa.  The fires were allowed to grow until flashover.  The modern room transitioned to flashover in 3 minutes and 30 seconds and the legacy room at 29 minutes and 30 seconds.

View the entire video, or you may also download the video:

Survivability Profiling: Taking it to the Streets

No comments

Live Online April 20th at 9pm ET

Live and Online Taking it to the Streets with your host Christopher Naum will present another timely and insightful look at an emerging element of today’s evolving fire ground.
 
 
Join in on Wednesday April 20th at 9pm ET for a very special and exciting program discussing the concepts and theory of Survivability Profiling.
 
Joing the program will be special guest, Captain Stephen Marsar, FDNY assigned to Engine Co. 8 in the Third Division, Manhattan, NYC.
Captain Marsar, FDNY has researched and developed insights into the theory and application of Survivability Profiling.
The Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Fire Administration announced on April 4 that Capt. Stephen Marsar, Engine 8, is one of three fire service executives from across the country who was selected to receive the National Fire Academy’s 2010 Annual Outstanding Research Award.

The award recognizes Executive Fire Officer Program students for exceptional research projects.

Capt. Marsar’s project, titled Can They Be Saved? Utilizing Civilian Survivability Profiling to Enhance Size-Up and Reduce Firefighter Fatalities in the Fire Department, City of New York, was selected as the Executive Leadership Course award winner. The National Fire Academy said it was chosen from among the more than 60 Applied Research Projects submitted this year, the highest number in the program’s 26-year history.

The Executive Fire Officer Program provides senior fire officers with information and education on various facets of fire administration. After a four-year course of study, participants are required to complete an applied research project that attempts to resolve a problem in their own organization.

View Capt. Marsar’s project: http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/pdf/efop/efo44310.pdf

Grab a cup of coffee and sit down for a special one hour program with Taking it to the Streets on FirefighterNetcast.com where we’ll be discussing the concept, research and application of Survivability Profiling with Captain Marsar and the manner in which it might be implemented in today’s emerging and evolving fire ground operational methodologies with Christopher Naum and this outstanding fire service leader.

Capt. Stephen Marsar, FDNY

STEPHEN MARSAR is a captain in the Fire Department of New York, covering in Engine Company 8 in Manhattan. He has previously served in Engine Company 16 and Ladder Companies 7 and 11. An ex-commissioner in the Bellmore (NY) Fire Department, he has certifications as a national and New York State fire instructor, NY instructor coordinator, and NY State Department of Health regional faculty member.

He serves on the adjunct faculty for the Nassau Community College, NY Fire Science Degree Program, and teaches for the FDNY and Nassau County, Long Island, Fire and EMS academies. He has a bachelor’s degree in fire science and emergency services administration and is enrolled in the Executive Fire Officer Program at the National Fire Academy.

Taking it to the StreetsTM is a monthly radio show featured on BlogTalk Radio and is hosted by Christopher Naum and is a Buildingsonfire.com Series and FireFighternetcast.com Production, © 2011 All Rights Reserved

Join in on the live open discussion with other fire service personnel from around the country. Check out the latest downloads of recent programs in the archives by visiting Taking it to the Street’s webpage on Firefighternetcast.com or for program insights at CommandSafety.com.

  • Tune in to the Program Wednesday evening April 20th at 9:00 pm ET, HERE
  • Firefighternetcast.com HERE
  • Taking it to the Streets Radio Programs, HERE and HERE

U.S. Firefighter Injuries in 2009 Report Released

No comments

Based on survey data reported by fire departments, the NFPA estimates that 78,150 firefighter injuries occurred in the line of duty in 2009.

This is a decrease of 1.9 percent from the year before. In recent years, the number of firefighter injuries has been considerably lower than it was in the 1980s and 1990s, but this is due in part to additional survey questions about exposures that allow us to place them in their own categories. Previously, some of these exposures might have been included in total injuries under other categories.

In 2009, NFPA estimates that there were 23,000 exposures to hazardous conditions such as asbestos, radioactive materials, chemicals, and fumes. This amounts to 22.5 exposures per 1,000 hazardous condition runs.

An estimated 15,150 injuries, or 19.4 percent of all firefighter injuries, resulted in time lost from work in 2009.

These are some of the key findings in the U.S. Firefighter Injuries in 2009 report. Each year, using data collected during our annual Survey of Fire Departments for U.S. Fire Experience, NFPA studies firefighter injuries to provide national statistics on their frequency, extent, and characteristics.

  • This year’s firefighter injury report includes an estimate of the total number of firefighter injuries in 2009, estimates of the number of injuries by type of duty, and an estimate of the number of exposures to infectious diseases.
  • It also covers trends in firefighter injuries and rates, fireground injuries by cause, fire department vehicle accidents and resulting firefighter injuries, the average number of fires and fireground injuries per department by population of community protected, and descriptions of selected incidents that illustrate firefighter safety problems.

 
Firefighters work in varied and complex environments that increase their risk of on-the-job death and injury. A better understanding of how these fatalities, non-fatal injuries, and illnesses occur can help identify corrective actions that could help minimize the inherent risks.

Injuries by type of duty
Type of duty is divided into five categories:

  • responding to, or returning from, an incident, including fires and non fire emergencies;
  • participating in fireground operations, including structure fires, vehicle fires, and brush fires, from the moment of arrival at the scene to departure time, including setup, extinguishment, and overhaul;
  • operating at non fire emergencies, including rescue calls, hazardous materials calls such as spills, and natural disasters;
  • training; and
  • participating in other on-duty activities such as inspection or maintenance.

Not surprisingly, results by type of duty indicate that the largest share of injuries occurs during fireground operations.

In 2009, 32,205, or 41.2 percent, of all firefighter injuries occurred during fireground operations. That number is the lowest recorded during the 1981-to-2009 period and represents a 53.3 percent drop in fireground operations injuries since 1981, which saw a high of 67,500 over that same period.

The number of fires also declined steadily during that period, for an overall decrease of 52.3 percent. The rate of injuries per 1000 fires has not shown any consistent trend up or down for the period. These results suggest that even though the number of fires and fireground injuries declined similarly during the period, the injury rate did not, and when there is a fire, the fireground injury rate risk has not changed much for the period.

Overall for the 1981-to-2009 period, the number of injuries at non fire emergencies increased from 9,600 in 1981 to 15,320 in 2009, for an overall increase of 66 percent.

  • For the same period, the number of non fire emergencies increased a substantial 220 percent, due in large part to an increase in the number of medical aid incidents.
  • The injury rate per 1,000 non fire emergencies declined during the period, from 1.24 in 1981 to 0.62 in 2009, because the number of non fire emergencies increased at a higher rate than did the number of injuries at non fire emergencies.

Nature and cause of fireground injuries
Estimates of 2009 firefighter injuries by nature of injury and type of duty indicate that the major types of injuries that occur during fireground operations are

  • strains and sprains, which were responsible for 48.2 percent;
  • wounds, cuts, bleeding, and bruises, responsible for 13.2 percent; smoke or gas inhalation, responsible for 6.2 percent;
  • burns, 7.1 percent; and
  • thermal stress, responsible for 5.8 percent.

Results were fairly consistent during all non fireground activities, with strains, sprains, and muscular pain accounting for 58.9 percent of all non fireground injuries, and wounds, cuts, bleeding, and bruises accounting for 16.2 percent. “Cause” here refers to the initial circumstance leading to the fireground injury.

The leading causes of fireground injuries were

  • overexertion and strains, which were responsible for 25.2 percent, and
  • falls, jumps, slips, which were responsible for 22.7 percent.
  • Other major causes were contact with object, responsible for 11.4 percent, and exposure to fire products, responsible for 12.9 percent.

Fireground injuries per department by population and region
The NFPA examined the average number of fires and fireground injuries per department by population of community protected in 2009.

  • These tabulations show that the number of fires a fire department responds to is directly related to the size of the population protected and that the number of fireground injuries incurred by a department is directly related to its exposure to fire—that is, the number of fires the department attends.
  • The second point is clearly demonstrated when we examine the range of the statistic: they run from an average high of 83.9 fireground injuries for departments that protect communities of 500,000 to 999,999 to a low of 0.2 for departments that protect communities of less than 2,500.
  • The overall range of rates varied from a high of 3.3 for departments that protect communities 250,000 to 499,999 to a low of 1.3 for departments that protect communities of 5,000 to 9,999.
  • Thus, the wide range noted in average fireground injuries by the size of the population protected narrows when relative fire experience is taken into account.
  • The overall injury rate for departments protecting communities with a population of 50,000 or more was 2.7 injuries per 100 fires, or 40 percent higher than the injury rate for departments protecting communities with populations under 50,000.

The NFPA also examined the risk of fireground injury per 100 firefighters by size of community protected. Larger departments generally had the highest rates, with departments protecting communities of 250,000 to 499,999 having the highest rate of 7.8 injuries per 100 firefighters. As community size decreases, the rate drops steadily to a low of 0.8 for departments protecting fewer than 2,500 people. That is a more-than-nine-to-one difference in risk of injury between communities of 250,000 to 499,999 and the smallest communities of less than 2,500.

An explanation for this difference is that, although a department protecting a community with a population of 250,000 to 499,999 has, on average, more than 24 times as many firefighters as a department protecting a population of less than 2,500, the larger department attends more than 95 times as many fires and, as a result, incurs considerably more fireground injuries.

An evaluation by region of the country shows that the Northeast reported a higher number of fireground injuries per 100 fires for most community sizes where all departments reported sufficient data.

FIREFIGHTER INJURIES BY THE NUMBERS – 2009

  • 78,150 firefighter injuries occurred in the line of duty in 2009, a decrease of 1.9 percent from the year before.
  • 32,205, or 41.2 percent, of all firefighter injuries occurred during fireground operations.
  • An estimated 15,455 occurred at non fire emergencies, while 17,590 occurred during other on-duty activities.
  • The Northeast reported a higher number of fireground injuries per 100 fires than other regions of the United States.
  • The major types of injuries received during fireground operations were;
  • strains, sprains, and muscular pain, responsible for 48.2 percent;
  • wounds, cuts, bleeding, and bruises, responsible for 13.2 percent;
  • smoke or gas inhalation, responsible for 6.2 percent.
  • Strains, sprains, and muscular pain accounted for 58.9 percent of all non fireground firefighter injuries.
  • The leading causes of fireground injuries were;
  • overexertion and strains, responsible for 25.2 percent, and
  • falls, slips, and jumps, responsible for 22.7 percent.

This posting is a summary from the NFPA; Refer to the Full Article Posting on the NFPA web Site HERE

U.S. Firefighter Injuries in 2009 report, HERE

NFPA Fire Statistics, HERE

Respiratory Diseases and the Fire Service, Report Issued

No comments

The United States Fire Administration (USFA), in partnership with the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), announced the release of Respiratory Diseases and the Fire Service, a report discussing the findings of a long-term study intended to examine and improve the occupational health of firefighters. Link to Report HERE

“Respiratory diseases remain a significant health issue for firefighters and other emergency responders,” said IAFF General President Harold A. Schaitberger. “Respiratory effects due to firefighter occupational exposure are a concern affecting the fire service throughout the United States.” The goal of this project was to research the long-term effects and post-exposure mitigation of occupational respiratory exposure to firefighters and develop a report based on this research.

This effort involved renowned experts in the field of pulmonary medicine. The study will assist in recognizing and quantifying the impact of respiratory exposure, and the development of mitigation strategies and programs for firefighters, their families, and fire departments. The manual was written for fire fighters and emergency medical responders, a group of individuals who face special occupational risks of respiratory diseases due to fire ground exposures and their direct interaction and contact with the public. Respiratory diseases in fire fighters have been an area of concern and focus for the International Association of Fire Fighters and others for several decades.

Although medical progress has led to improvements in the diagnosis and treatment of respiratory diseases, prevention remains the best method of decreasing the number of such diseases and related deaths. Understanding diseases of the respiratory system, identifying respiratory disease-causing agents, and avoiding exposure to these agents are key in preventing respiratory diseases.

Excerpt from Introduction: Respiratory diseases remain a significant health issue for fire fighters and emergency responders, as well as civilians. Respiratory disease is the number three killer in North America, exceeded only by heart disease and cancer, and is responsible for one in six deaths. The American Respiratory Association estimates that more than 35 million Americans are living with chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (COPD) including emphysema and chronic bronchitis.

Fire fighters work hard each and every day, proudly protecting and serving our citizens by answering the call for help — a call to save lives. That call may be to suppress fire and save lives jeopardized by smoke and flame. It may be a response to a hazardous materials incident, a structural collapse or other special operations event. The response may be for emergency medical assistance and transport to the hospital, with potential exposures to a host of infectious disease. Fire fighters have little idea about the identity of many of the materials they are exposed to or the health hazards of such exposures — whether they are chemical, biological or particulates.

Nevertheless, fire fighters and emergency medical responders continue to respond to the scene and work immediately to save lives and reduce property damage without regard to the potential health hazards that may exist. A fire emergency has no engineering controls or occupational safety and health standards to reduce the effect of irritating, asphyxiating or toxic gases, aerosols, chemicals or particulates.

It is an uncontrollable environment that is fought by fire fighters using heavy, bulky and often times inadequate personal protective equipment and clothing. An occupational disease takes years to develop. It is the result of a career of responding to fires and hazardous materials incidents; it is caused by breathing toxic smoke, fumes, biological agents, and particulate matter on the job; and it is the response to continuous medical runs or extricating victims at accidents. Some health effects are immediate while others may take years and even decades to develop and because some respiratory diseases develop over time, it’s impossible to say, “This specific emergency response caused my disease,” yet fire fighters continue to get sick and die from occupationally caused respiratory diseases.

Variability in exposures among fire fighters can be great; however, a number of exposures are commonly found in many fire scenarios. The common combustion products encountered by fire fighters that present respiratory disease hazards include but are not limited to: acrylonitrile, asbestos, arsenic, benzene, benzo(a)pyrene and other polycyclic hydrocarbons (PAHs), cadmium, chlorophenols, chromium, diesel fumes, carbon monoxide, dioxins, ethylene oxide, formaldehyde, orthotoluide, polychlorinated biphenyls and vinyl chloride. Also, findings from fire fighters monitored during the overhaulphase (fire is extinguished, clean-up begins and where respiratory protection is not usually available) of structural fires indicates that short-term exposure levels are exceeded for acrolein, benzene, carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, glutaraldehyde, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide as well as soots and particulates.

They are often exposed in their fire stations to significant levels of diesel particulate from the operation of the diesel fueled fire apparatus. Fire fighters are routinely exposed to respirable particulate matter consisting of liquids, hydrocarbons, soots, diesel fumes, dusts, acids from aerosols, and smoke. Health effects are known to be produced not just by the particulates themselves, but also by certain chemicals adsorbed onto the particulates. Further, the mixture of hazardous chemicals is different at every fire and the synergistic effects of these substances are largely unknown.

Respiratory Diseases and the Fire Service is available from the IAFF website (PDF, 6.1 Mb).

Situational Awarness on Taking it to the Streets; Did you Listen in?

No comments
Taking it to the Streets hosted by Christopher Naum

Last month on Firefighter NetCast.com ,Taking it to the Streets presented an exceptional show related to the emerging issues affecting fire ground operations and the emerging and prevailing issues related to situational awareness on the fireground and incident scene  and its relationship to firefighter safety or operational integrity. The show was titled; “We Have a Situation; Are you Aware?” Joining host Christopher Naum, his guests included Battalion Chief Matt Tobia with the Anne Arundel County, MD Fire Department, a metropolitan combination Fire/Rescue/EMS agency in Suburban Baltimore, MD and Battalion Chief Greg W. Collier, Mount Laurel Fire Department, NJ and NFFF/EGH New Jersey State Advocate.

Together they discussed relevant issues affecting today’s fire service, in the streets  ensuring operational excellence, personnel safety and promoting effective and efficient incident management and mitigation.

If you missed the live online radio call-in show, you can download all the previous shows to your device and listen to them where ever you are. You can download the programs at Fire Fighter Netcast.com.

  • Download the August 19th, 2010 program  on Situational Awareness,HERE

Check out Taking it to the Streets with Christopher Naum this month on Wednesday night September 22nd at 9pm ET with another  live online radio call-in show addressing the most current issues affecting the Fire Service. Taking it to the Streets has in the few short months of production and tranmissions, has become one of the the most talked about, on-line radio programs;  listened to live on-the air and download fire service podcast programs. If your hearing some of the buzz and that humm; then its time to tune into to FireFighter Netcast.com and Taking it to the Streets to hear first hand and have a Rockin Hot Time…

Join the growing list of live listeners and become a regular follower with this ground breaking and newest radio show on FireFighter Netcast.com at Blogtalk Radio… Stay tuned on TheCompanyOffice.com, CommandSafety.com, Fire Fighter Netcast.com and launching this quater, Buildingsonfire.com for a comprehensive list of future shows, topics and guests.

Taking it to the Streets With Christopher Naum

A New Monthly Radio Talk show on Fire Fighter Netcast.com

A Buildingsonfire.com Series and Fire Fighter Netcast.com Production

 Advancing Fire Fighter Safety and Operational Integrity for the Fire Service through provocative insights and dynamic discussions dedicated to the Art and Science of Firefighting and the Traditions of the Fire Service. Check out more information of Taking it to the Streets, HERE 

“On your Street, In your City, Across the Country, Around the World”, Taking it to the Streets

In the Streets; On the Air

No comments

Taking it to the Streets had its premier July 21st on Firefighter Netcast.com with a lively and provoking discussion on “What’s on YOUR Radar Screen?” The program theme aligned with a recent posting on the same topic. Join me on the program were two prominent and nationally recognized fire service leaders, who I’m honored to have known for many years, Chief Billy Hayes and Chief Doug Cline; the program explored leading fire service issues affecting firefighter safety, training, credentialing and education; fireground operational variables related to the continuing changes in building construction, engineered systems and extreme fire behavior,  and the emerging need for “Tactical Patience” as I’ve been exploring the relationships towards the need for tactical enhancements to our current fire suppression theory and firefighting models.

Conversations expanded on the NFFF/Everyone Goes Home Campaign and programs, the newest EGH initiatives on Behavioral Health and the successes achieved through the Courage to be Safe Programs and the Advocacy Program.

Both our guests provided cutting edge perspectives and commentary on the key issues that the fire service needs to have on their radar screen and the need for emerging and practicing fire officers and commanders to continually strive to increase skill sets and maintain a pulse on the leading issues affecting the fire service and apply emerging research  and studies to increase operational capabilities, improve performance and enhance and promote firefighter safety and survival and operational integrity.

Although technical difficulties from the live feed coming from the Inner Harbor in Baltimore at the Firehouse Expo, precluded the ability to have the call-in segments of the program to work, the 120 minute program gave the listeners a wealth of information to talk over in the firehouse, at the kitchen table or in the apparatus bays.

The program is a Buildingsonfire.com Series and a Fire Fighter Netcast.com  production, produced by John Mitchell and Rhett Fleitz.  The live program segment will be edited and available for iTunes download soon. You can check out the other programming and shows produced by Fire Fighter Netcast.com HERE. Stay tuned for announcements on the next program date for Taking it to the Streets coming to you live from the IAFC Fire Rescue International Conference in Chicago in August.  

Taking it to the Streets; Advancing Fire Fighter Safety and Operational Integrity for the Fire Service through provocative insights and dynamic discussions dedicated to the Art and Science of Firefighting and the Traditions of the Fire Service. 

  • Firefighter Netcast.com HERE
  • Taking it to the Streets, HERE, HERE
  • “What’s on your Radar Screen?” July 21, 2010 Program, HERE
  • “What’s on your Radar Screen?” post on Commandsafety.com, HERE

The NIST Report on Residential Fireground Field Experiements, Executive Summary

2 comments

4-28-2010 5-53-48 PM

The NIST Report on Residential Fireground Field Experiements was issued this morning. A copy of the report is at CommandSafety.com HERE and is also available for download at the NIST, HERE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Both the increasing demands on the fire service – such as the growing number of Emergency Medical Services (EMS) responses, challenges from natural disasters, hazardous materials incidents, and acts of terrorism—and previous research point to the need for scientifically based studies of the effect of different crew sizes and firefighter arrival times on the effectiveness of the fire service to protect lives and property.

To meet this need, a research partnership of the Commission on Fire Accreditation International (CFAI), International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC), International Association of Firefighters (IAFF), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) was formed to conduct a multiphase study of the deployment of resources as it affects firefighter and occupant safety. Starting in FY 2005, funding was provided through the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) / Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Grant Program Directorate for Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program—Fire Prevention and Safety Grants. In addition to the low-hazard residential fireground experiments described in this report, the multiple phases of the overall research effort include development of a conceptual model for community risk assessment and deployment of resources, implementation of a general sizable department incident survey, and delivery of a software tool to quantify the effects of deployment decisions on resultant firefighter and civilian injuries and on property losses.

The first phase of the project was an extensive survey of more than 400 career and combination (both career and volunteer) fire departments in the United States with the objective of optimizing a fire service leader’s capability to deploy resources to prevent or mitigate adverse events that occur in risk- and hazard-filled environments. The results of this survey are not documented in this report, which is limited to the experimental phase of the project. The survey results will constitute significant input into the development of a future software tool to quantify the effects of community risks and associated deployment decisions on resultant firefighter and civilian injuries and property losses.

The following research questions guided the experimental design of the low-hazard residential fireground experiments documented in this report:

  • How do crew size and stagger affect overall start-to-completion response timing?
  • How do crew size and stagger affect the timings of task initiation, task duration, and task completion for each of the 22 critical fireground tasks?
  • How does crew size affect elapsed times to achieve three critical events that are known to change fire behavior or tenability within the structure:
    • Entry into structure?
    • Water on fire?
    • Ventilation through windows (three upstairs and one back downstairs window and the burn room window),
  • How does the elapsed time to achieve the national standard of assembling 15 firefighters at the scene vary between crew sizes of four and five? In order to address the primary research questions, the research was divided into four distinct, yet interconnected parts:
  • Part 1—Laboratory experiments to design appropriate fuel load
  • Part 2—Experiments to measure the time for various crew sizes and apparatus stagger (interval between arrival of various apparatus) to accomplish key tasks in rescuing occupants, extinguishing a fire, and protecting property
  • Part 3—Additional experiments with enhanced fuel load that prohibited firefighter entry into the burn prop – a building constructed for the fire experiments
  • Part 4—Fire modeling to correlate time-to-task completion by crew size and stagger to the increase in toxicity of the atmosphere in the burn prop for a range of fire growth rates. The experiments were conducted in a burn prop designed to simulate a low-hazard1 fire in a residential structure described as typical in NFPA 1710® Organization and Deployment of Fire

Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments. NFPA 1710 is the consensus standard for career firefighter deployment, including requirements for fire department arrival time, staffing levels, and fireground responsibilities. Limitations of the study include firefighters’ advance knowledge of the burn prop, invariable number of apparatus, and lack of experiments in elevated outdoor temperatures or at night. Further, the applicability of the conclusions from this report to commercial structure fires, high rise fires, outside fires, terrorism/natural disaster response, HAZMAT or other technical responses has not been assessed and should not be extrapolated from this report.

Primary Findings

  • Of the 22 fireground tasks measured during the experiments, results indicated that the following factors had the most significant impact on the success of fire fighting operations.
  • All differential outcomes described below are statistically significant at the 95 % confidence level or better.

 Overall Scene Time:

  • The four-person crews operating on a low-hazard structure fire completed all the tasks on the fireground (on average) seven minutes faster—nearly 30 %—than the two-person crews.
  • The four-person crews completed the same number of fireground tasks (on average) 5.1 minutes faster—nearly 25 %—than the three-person crews.
  • On the low-hazard residential structure fire, adding a fifth person to the crews did not decrease overall fireground task times.
  • However, it should be noted that the benefit of five-person crews has been documented in other evaluations to be significant for medium- and high-hazard structures, particularly in urban settings, and is recognized in industry standards.

 Time to Water on Fire:

  • There was a 10% difference in the “water on fire” time between the two- and three-person crews.
  • There was an additional 6% difference in the “water on fire” time between the three- and  four-person crews. (i.e., four-person crews put water on the fire 16% faster than two person crews). There was an additional 6% difference in the “water on fire” time between the four- and five-person crews (i.e. five-person crews put water on the fire 22% faster than two-person crews).

 Ground Ladders and Ventilation:

  • The four-person crews operating on a low-hazard structure fire completed laddering and ventilation (for life safety and rescue) 30 % faster than the two-person crews and 25 % faster than the three-person crews.

Primary Search:

  • The three-person crews started and completed a primary search and rescue 25 % faster than the two-person crews.
  • The four- and five-person crews started and completed a primary search 6 % faster than the three-person crews and 30 % faster than the two-person crew.
  • A 10 % difference was equivalent to just over one minute.

Hose Stretch Time:

  • In comparing four-and five-person crews to two-and three-person crews collectively, the time difference to stretch a line was 76 seconds.
  • In conducting more specific analysis comparing all crew sizes to the two-person crews the differences are more distinct.
  • Two-person crews took 57 seconds longer than three-person crews to stretch a line.
  • Two-person crews took 87 seconds longer than four-person crews to complete the same tasks.
  • Finally, the most notable comparison was between two-person crews and five-person crews—more than 2 minutes (122 seconds) difference in task completion time.

Industry Standard Achieved:

  • As defined by NFPA 1710, the “industry standard achieved” time started from the first engine arrival at the hydrant and ended when 15 firefighters were assembled on scene.
  • An effective response force was assembled by the five-person crews three minutes faster than the four-person crews.
  • Based on the study protocols, modeled after a typical fire department apparatus deployment strategy, the total number of firefighters on scene in the two- and three-person crew scenarios never equaled 15 and therefore the two- and three-person crews were unable to assemble enough personnel to meet this standard.

Occupant Rescue:

  • Three different “standard” fires were simulated using the Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS) model. Characterized in the Handbook of the Society of Fire Protection Engineers as slow-,medium-, and fast-growth rate4, the fires grew exponentially with time.
  • The rescue scenario was based on a non-ambulatory occupant in an upstairs bedroom with the bedroom door open. Independent of fire size, there was a significant difference between the toxicity, expressed as fractional effective dose (FED), for occupants at the time of rescue depending on arrival times for all crew sizes. Occupants rescued by early-arriving crews had less exposure to combustion products than occupants rescued by late-arriving crews.
  • The fire modeling showed clearly that two-person crews cannot complete essential fireground tasks in time to rescue occupants without subjecting them to an increasingly toxic atmosphere. For a slow-growth rate fire with two-person crews, the FED was approaching the level at which sensitive populations, such as children and the elderly are threatened.
  • For a medium-growth rate fire with two-person crews, the FED was far above that threshold and approached the level affecting the general population.
  • For a fast-growth rate fire with two-person crews, the FED was well above the median level at which 50%of the general population would be incapacitated. Larger crews responding to slow-growth rate fires can rescue most occupants prior to incapacitation along with early-arriving larger crews responding to medium-growth rate fires.
  • The result for late-arriving (two minutes later than early-arriving) larger crews may result in a threat to sensitive populations for medium-growth rate fires.
  • Statistical averages should not, however, mask the fact that there is no FED level so low that every occupant in every situation is safe.

Conclusion:

More than 60 full-scale fire experiments were conducted to determine the impact of crew size, first-due engine arrival time, and subsequent apparatus arrival times on firefighter safety and effectiveness at a low-hazard residential structure fire.

  • This report quantifies the effects of changes to staffing and arrival times for residential firefighting operations. While resource deployment is addressed in the context of a single structure type and risk level, it is recognized that public policy decisions regarding the cost-benefit of specific deployment decisions are a function of many other factors including geography, local risks and hazards, available resources, as well as community expectations.
  • This report does not specifically address these other factors. The results of these field experiments contribute significant knowledge to the fire service industry.
  • First, the results provide a quantitative basis for the effectiveness of four-person crews for low-hazard response in NFPA 1710.
  • The results also provide valid measures of total effective response force assembly on scene for fireground operations, as well as the expected performance time-to-critical-task measures for low-hazard structure fires.

Additionally, the results provide tenability measures associated with a range of modeled fires.Future research should extend the findings of this report in order to quantify the effects of crew size and apparatus arrival times for moderate- and high-hazard events, such as fires in high-rise buildings, commercial properties, certain factories, or warehouse facilities, responses to large-scale non-fire incidents, or technical rescue operations.

Addition project information and insights, Go to CommandSafety.com  HERE and HERE

Related Posts with Thumbnails