1 / 22

Firebrand Protection as the Key Design Element for Structure Survival during Catastrophic Wildland Fires

Firebrand Protection as the Key Design Element for Structure Survival during Catastrophic Wildland Fires. Joseph W. Mitchell & Oren Patashnik. *. *. M-bar Technologies & Consulting jwmitchell@mbartek.com. Firebrands & structures. Historical data & analyses:

mari
Download Presentation

Firebrand Protection as the Key Design Element for Structure Survival during Catastrophic Wildland Fires

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Firebrand Protection as the Key Design Element forStructure Survival during Catastrophic Wildland Fires Joseph W. Mitchell & Oren Patashnik * * M-bar Technologies & Consultingjwmitchell@mbartek.com Fire and Materials 2007

  2. Firebrands & structures • Historical data & analyses: • Firebrands as leading cause of ignition • Water spray as an effective countermeasure • Cedar Fire, 2003 • Curved-tile roofs: Some “good” roofs not so good • Wind-Enabled Ember Dousing – a wind-resilient spray concept Fire and Materials 2007

  3. Wildland fire losses in California are driven by catastrophic wind-driven events • Intense winds • Rapid spread • Firefighter intervention improbable • High density of brands • Extreme fire behavior - Oct 2003: Cedar + others – 4,443 structures • Oct 1991: Oakland (Tunnel) – 2,886 structures • June 1990: Paint – 641 • Sept 1923: Berkeley – 624 • Nov 1961: Bel Air – 505 • Sept 1970: Laguna – 382 Fire and Materials 2007

  4. Firebrands are the leading cause of structure loss G.C. Ramsay, 1987 – study of 1148 structures Ethan Foote, Paint Fire analysis, 1993 Chen & McAneney, 2004 – 50% structure ignition at 45 m or more (satellite analysis) Cohen analyses of structure ignition potential Plus others…(but no comprehensive 2003 data published!) As determined by: Structures too far from fire front Observed ignition points (roof, attic, decks, fences) Civilian protection highly effective Observed density of brands Forensic evidence Structure ignition by firebrands Fire and Materials 2007

  5. Another entry mechanism:Curved-tile roofs This is considered a “good roof” Fire and Materials 2007

  6. Data on roof type & structure survival from the Cedar Fire • Collected in November 2003, Scripps Ranch, San Diego by Amy & Oren Patashnik • Types included wood-shake, curved tile, flat tile, and stone-covered steel • Divided into a portion with initial firefighter protection (“front loop”) and without (“back loop”) Fire and Materials 2007

  7. Structure ignition data Fire and Materials 2007

  8. Statistical significance Hypergeometric distribution (aka “Lotto”) • n is the number of houses in a population N • t is the number of houses of type T • s in the number of houses in a subset S of N (S will be either the surviving or the destroyed houses) • p computes the exact probability, in a randomly chosen subset S of N of size s, that S contains at most m houses of type T • This is a one-tailed distribution Curved-tile results: Back loop p = 0.039 Adjacent destroyed home p = 0.011 Fire and Materials 2007

  9. Idea: Separate the problem of radiant heat & flame protection(answer: distance from fuel) from the problem of firebrand protection… Fire and Materials 2007

  10. Firebrand protection • Protection from firebrand entryStructural characteristics (Australian building codes; Ramsay & Rudolph; CA SFM Interface Fire Building Standards) • Only as good as the weakest point / maintenance • Not good for existing at-risk structures • Protection from secondary ignitionVegetation management / clearance adjacent to structure • Accumulation of litter & leaves in gutters, corners • Ember extinguishingWater systems / gels • Subject to wind disruption • Roof protection adds no value to fire-resistive roofs • Massive water use / undependable supplies • Gels require manual application Fire and Materials 2007

  11. Water-spray systems • Sufficient spray density to affect ignition • Sufficient lifetime to protect during/after fire front • Resilient against wind disruption Fire and Materials 2007

  12. Re-evaluation of Paint Fire dataEthan Foote thesis results on water spray Multivariate analysis found significance at >90% confidence level (but not 95%) Fire and Materials 2007

  13. Water-spray protection • If spray density is high enough, brands can be directly extinguished. • Water accumulates on surfaces and around structures, creating a “moat”. • Spray & vapor can hydrate light fuels. Sensitive to wind disruption Fire and Materials 2007

  14. Wind-Enabled Ember Dousing (WEEDS) CONCEPT: ACHIEVE WIND-RESILIENT BRAND PROTECTION BY DIRECTING COARSE WATER SPRAY OUTWARD FROM THE STRUCTURE • The wind blows it back onto the structure • Spray accumulates where embers do • Low spray densities needed to protect from brands (as opposedto radiant heat) Fire and Materials 2007

  15. Low flow rate (~120 l/min) Agricultural spray nozzles 5000 US gl water tank(plus municipal supply) 12 kW generator (propane) 1.5 kW pump 3-4+ hour protection window Potential improvements: gravity feed, 10k gal tank, automated or remote triggering WEEDS design features Fire and Materials 2007

  16. Crib experiments suggest 1.5 -4.0 gm/m2sec is sufficient to extinguish cribs (reviews: Novozhilov et al., Grant et al.) Simulation of droplet in wind Used similar nozzle for droplet size distribution Achieves extinguishment zone around the structure at nominal design Is it sufficient? Fire and Materials 2007

  17. Wind resilience of spray • Results conservative – don’t take airflow into account • Overlap of spray patterns to 50 km/hr • 40% of spray onto roof / eaves at high wind speed Wind speed = 20 km/hr Fire and Materials 2007

  18. Testing of systemOctober 26, 2003 • Cedar Fire • Nominal operation • Apparent success • Structures lost on all adjacent properties • 60-70% loss rate / no professional fire protection • Forensic evidence of brands on property Not proof, but a case study (Fire Safety Journal, Sept. 06) Fire and Materials 2007

  19. Summary • Prevent firebrand ignitions and you prevent the majority of structure ignitions in wildland fire. • Approach radiant heat and firebrands as separate problems. • Low-volume water spray systems are effective, and can be used to supplement vegetation management. • Water spray systems must operate DURING and AFTER fire-front passage. • Watch for curved tile as a potential avenue for brand entry. • Better data is needed – lack of organized data collection in 2003 was a tragedy. • Structures can withstand extreme wildfire conditions without professional intervention. • Design for WIND! Fire and Materials 2007

  20. Thank YouSlides available from:M-bar Technologies and ConsultingRamona, Californiawww.mbartek.comjwmitchell@mbartek.com Fire and Materials 2007

  21. Fire and Materials 2007

  22. Fire and Materials 2007

More Related