LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
A fire averted
When the same fuse blew in my mother’s trailer within two months, my husband and I started looking. We traced the problem to a three-way switch in her table lamp with an imported single-way bulb. My husband had read your News in Brief article in the November 1992 issue only days before. The inside of the socket and the bottom of the bulb showed signs of arcing. The fuses did their job and kept my mother’s home from being our next fire call. The socket has been rewired for a singleswitch, and she is buying different light bulbs.
Your magazine is an excellent source of Information for helping firelighters better serve their communities Sometimes, however, it is a little frightening to see just how close to home that can be. Thank you.
Christina Armstrong Firefighter
Kent Armstrong Captain Crossrille (IL) Volunteer Fire Department
Random Thoughts right on target
Each month when my copy of Fire Engineering arrives, l immediately turn to the inside back cover to read Random Thoughts. It is quick and to the point, and 1 always learn a lot. Most of the things are common sense: things we have learned and forgotten during the years of firefighting. But much of it is thought provoking. It points out things we should have known but for one reason or another didn’t think about. The topics are certainly “real life.” And when you read it. you know it was written by someone who has a lot of experience putting “the wet stuff on the red stuff.”
I make notes about things 1 want to bring up at our monthly training drills—to remind the firefighters about the things Brennan points out. Keep the articles coming. 1 really look forward to reading them.
Donald Filiere Captain Call Firefighter Division Shrewsbury (MA) Fire Department
The Random Thoughts column is the best part of Fire Engineering. When the magazine arrives each month, the first thing I do is open it to the back page to find out what the topic is that month and what pearls Brennan has for us.
The information is practical, obviously proven, and real. I keep the magazine on file in my locker at the station. If there’s an upcoming drill scheduled on a certain subject, we always are able to find some good information in the article. Keep up the great work.
Pat Smith Salinas (CA) Fire Department
Column failure from fire
As sometimes happens in rural firefighting, you don’t receive the alarm until it’s too late. When I arrived at the scene, the roof already was in the cellar. The structure was brand new and due to be occupied in a few weeks. The two-story frame was supported by steel I-beams, which in turn were held up with four-inch lollicolumns. Lolli-columns are thin wall steel tubes filled with concrete for strength. The I-beams had twisted and fallen into the cellar, leaving what basically was a big hole and a lot of fire. The lolli-columns were extremely hot and began to twist as well. Some split at their bases from the steam generated by the relatively wet cement. In others, the steam pressure continued to build until slugs of glowing cement were expelled. The largest was about nine inches long, with most about the size of a hockey puck. They flew in all directions, some sailing as far as 80 feet from the structure. Since this fire was at night, they were quite visible to advancing firefighters.
No one in our fire company or any of the mutual-aid departments had heard of this before; we thought it was worth mentioning.
Art Donahue Chief Glenville Hill (NY) Fire Department
Safety first —always
In the November 1992 issue the article on horizontal ventilation (“Bread and Butter Operations”) was interesting and informative. Part of my job as a training officer involves viewing every operational component with a critical eye and ensuring that training exercises are performed safely. In viewing the pictures on page 70, safety appears to be compromised. The picture on the right shows a firefighter using an axe to initiate ventilation. It appears as though the firefighter has overlooked two very important safety items: gloves and proper eye protection. The second firefighter, with the pike pole, also is without gloves and proper eye protection.
With the high percentage of injuries that occur in our profession, I think it is important that pictures show the proper way of performing such operations. I’ve heard it said that a picture is worth a thousand words. In this case this picture can serve as a reminder that safety must be observed during all operations, training and real life.
William D. Stewart Fire Department Training Officer Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Washington, D.C.
Bill Manning responds: We wholeheartedly agree that proper personal protection should be used for fireground operations, and our caption for the photo mentioned in the letter should have stressed the point. I encourage all readers to critique and discuss the articles and photos in this publication to enhance safe fireground practices.
“Real” testing of building materials needed
I read with interest “Let’s Calm Down the Firefighters” by Francis L. Brannigan (October 1992). The first point that must be made with respect to the article is that it referenced a Rural Builder synopsis of a presentation I gave at the National Frame Builders Association’s annual convention in Cincinnati, Ohio, on January 22-24, 1992. As a consequence, that article was written through the eyes of Rural Builder, and the seminar covered was selected primarily for readership impact. I am quite certain that if the context of the entire presentation had been provided, it would have lent a slightly different slant to my approach to this topic. I always have been extremely interested in gathering as many facts as possible surrounding an issue. With the facts in place, one can disseminate them to the audience; and typically, people are intelligent enough to make sound decisions based on a factual foundation.
I agree with Brannigan that all construction materials have structural performance problems when under attack by fire. In all cases, fire radically changes a structural material’s ability to withstand Loads. When one takes a deeper look at the real differences in structural performance among various structural materials under fire conditions, one finds that performances are not radically different. For example, unprotected steel under ASTM FI 19 conditions performs in a range of three minutes 30 seconds to seven minutes 30 seconds. Unprotected wood joists under the same conditions perform in a range of six minutes 30 seconds to 13 minutes 34 seconds. The one metal plate connected truss assembly tested under these same conditions yielded a performance time of 10 minutes 12 seconds. Brannigan would argue that these ASTM El 19-generated times are meaningless to firefighters.
I wholeheartedly agree with Brannigan that the results of ASTM El 19 tests and rated assemblies have no relationship to the real performance of these assemblies in real buildings under real fire conditions. The intent of using ASTM E1 19 testing is only to provide a relationship between assemblies tested using standardized test conditions for use in code-complying construction (eg., one hour, two hour. etc ). The thought that a one-hour rated assembly will perform in the field for one hour under fire conditions never has been part of my vocabulary. In fact, from my perspective, one of the real problems firelighters have is that not enough data are collected on how structures actually perform under realistic conditions It seems to me that replication of real-life buildings with real-life fires, with the focus on learning the warning signals prior to a collapse and modes of failure, would be very useful to firefighters in developing strategies and tactics for any construction type. It also would help the engineered component industry understand the more realistic fire performance of its products and could result in the development of systems that would improve fireground safety.
Wood has one inherent problem — its combustibility. Often, however, an important point is missed when dealing with the wood-combustibility issue: the char rate and insulating effect of char during fire. An example would be to try to start a fire with a match using a log that previously had been burned (charred). It simply doesn’t work. This side of wood performance often is not mentioned, and it is very important when considering the fire performance issue. Generally, wood chars at 1/40 inch per minute (1 1/2 inches per hour) and provides structural performance until the wood is charred through. Using these facts, one often can calculate times of performance for wood members.
The point of my letter is not to argue with Hrannigan over technical facts. From my perspective, that serves no useful purpose. The unfortunate thing about Brannigan’s article is that his attacks on the wood industry, as well as other industries, make it very difficult for firefighters and the industry to feel good about working together. In many cases, we agree about the issues at hand but arclooking at them from entirely different perspectives. Both perspectives are valid, though. In fact, it seems to me that the best way to resolve differing opinions is to objectively view all valid perspectives, because there is a strong likelihood that out of this will come a very positive solution to the issue(s).
Finally, as registered professional engineers, we must hold firm to several fundamental engineering tenets. Those relevant to this topic are the following:
- The safety, health, and welfare of the public are of paramount importance in the performance of our professional duties.
- We must design structures that meet the requirements of public safety while also being economically efficient, which serves the public interest as well.
- By supporting prefire planning and early fire detection through smoke detectors and alarms, compartmentation, and sprinklers as proactive measures for fire safety, we are serving the public interest and, at the same time, aiding firefighters by promoting safer environments for the public so that the likelihood of firefighters having to go into a burning building to save lives is reduced.
It is, however, also in the public interest to have economically affordable construction. This is potentially at cross purposes with the goals of firefighters. Generally, creating economic structures means using higherstrength structural material, which typically optimizes and reduces the amount of structural material used in a building. Since mass is a benefit to fire performance, this may not be an optimum approach from a firefighting point of view. This is the challenge the engineering profession faces with respect to enhancing fireground performance. There is a delicate balance between affordability of structures and the perfect building from a fire endurance performance perspective.
From my perspective, the loss of one firefighter directly attributable to the collapse of a structural element is a disaster—for firefighters, the engineering profession, and the industry involved. We must work together to better understand the warning signals that occur prior to the building’s becoming seriously weak in structure and dangerous and the various modes of fire-related failure so that risks during fireground operations can be lessened.
The optimum solutions to these issues are not trivial. Real solutions will take time, proactive cooperative work, and funding to do real-life, fullscale testing. Writing articles detailing perspectives—some of which are very arguable from an engineering perspective—creates division, thereby reducing the chance for cooperative work to take place. Isn’t it about time to obtain real-life data and create real-life solutions to the issues at hand? Let’s quit writing and talking and get together and just do it!
Kirk Grundahl, P.E. Founder Qua!tint Technologies International Madison, Wisconsin
