• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

N.Y. Chief Blames Fatal Fire on Lightweight Construction

mark handler

mark handler

SAWHORSE
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
11,678
Location
So. CA
N.Y. Chief Blames Fatal Fire on Lightweight Construction

By Kirstin Cole

WPIX-TV, New York

A devastating house fire killed four family members in Carmel on May 1.

PUTNAM COUNTY, N.Y. -- The devastating home fire that killed four family members in Carmel on May 1 is still being investigated, but details being released show the way the home was built could be exposing millions more families to the same fatal fate.

The Carmel Fire Department said the flames that early morning were unbeatable. Firefighters say it took a mere ten minutes for the Sullivan family home to catch fire, collapse, ad kill four out of five of them sleeping inside. The Carmel fire chief was quick to blame lightweight construction. It's uses inexpensive and popular building materials made of small bits of wood held together by glue and metal plates to fasten it all.

Carmel Fire Chief Bob Lipton wearily recounted the details of the home's undoing to reporters the day of the fire saying the walls gave way as metal fasteners popped off from heat. Once the walls started to buckle, the roof crashed down. It took a mere ten minutes Lipton said, and it's an all too common occurrence for homes built to code using engineered wood products.

Dave Walsh, a fire instructor at Dutchess Community College and 40 year firefighting veteran summed it up. "The structure as an entity is much more prone to collapse and fire spread when these materials are used. And with quick collapse, death to occupants and firefighters occurs."

Walsh conducted burn tests recently with his team. They compared the burn times of traditional lumber building to newer standards using lightweight building materials, and showed how deadly that choice can be.

He recounted the results of how engineered wood products failed three times quicker in his testing, "The wood I-Beam failed in 2 minutes 30 seconds, where as stick built made out of 2 x 12 lumber, took 7 minutes 11 seconds to collapse."

Walsh elaborated by indicated that the game has changed when it comes to today's firefighting techniques. "In today's building materials, in some cases, they actually promote fire production. The fire travels very quickly. Some of the lightweight construction uses OSB, or particle board and that produces a lot of thick, toxic, very flammable gas, so in effect, the material is propogating it's own demise."

AdditionaL fire companies we spoke with say they won't even put men onto the roof to try to knock flames down, fearful these new construction methods can lead to collapse in just minutes, as happened at the Sullivan family home.

Carmel's Fire Chief said the metal plates that are used instead of nails to create bonds between pieces of OSB actually heated up and popped off, causing the walls and roof to collapse. According to the Medical Examiner, the family all died from smoke inhalation--which is the other major problem with this less expensive lightweight construction.

Walsh laid it out, "The gasses that are produced as the glue is consumed by the fire is toxic as well as flammable, so as the wood is burning it produces a toxic gas that burns even more. The resulting fires are 200% to 300% hotter. Plus the fire releases heat quicker. This is just a nasty toxic recipe for killing. It really is."

80% to 85% of fire deaths happen inside people's homes, and with lightweight construction potentially adding to those numbers, the industry and states and municipalities are now pushing for greater usage of single family home sprinkler systems. In new construction, it costs $2000 -- $3000 for an average size home. Fires are generally extinguished within minutes, using just a few dozen gallons of water. And lives are spared. So far only California, much of Maryland and a smattering of towns countrywide require them in in new construction. Greenburg, NY in Westchester County is also at the forefront of fire prevention by requiring them in all new homes built.

http://www.firehouse.com/news/10710892/ny-chief-blames-fatal-fire-on-lightweight-construction
 
mark handler said:
N.Y. Chief Blames Fatal Fire on Lightweight Construction Carmel's Fire Chief said the metal plates that are used instead of nails to create bonds between pieces of OSB actually heated up and popped off, causing the walls and roof to collapse. According to the Medical Examiner, the family all died from smoke inhalation--which is the other major problem with this less expensive lightweight construction.

http://www.firehouse.com/news/10710892/ny-chief-blames-fatal-fire-on-lightweight-construction
Click to expand...
Forgive my ignorance; what metal clips is he refering to?
 
Sifu said:
Forgive my ignorance; what metal clips is he refering to?
Click to expand...
TRUSS PLATES

structural_truss-plates-misplaced.jpg


Typically 18-gauge steel plates with prongs of 3⁄8-inch penetration.
 
I just wish the fire service had spent the time and money they spent on sprinklers in an effort to ban all lightweight construction, flake board, and toxic plastics including plastic insulation.

There are other reasons to ban the gang-nail plates, lightweight roof trusses I put up in the 50s had plywood gussets and have done just fine, in the 60s the truss industry started using the gang-nail plates and I've had to rebuild several roofs I built with them and this with no fire, just heat and weight popping them off. I've pointed out in the past that the City of Elmhurst Illinois has an excellent residential code, if a permittee wants to use roof trusses he has to cover them with glued and nailed plywood gussets, if he wants to use I Joists he has to install sprinklers, I talked to the CBO in Elmhurst a few years ago, he said at that time nobody had elected to use I Joists not wanting to install sprinklers. I asked him how he came up with such a good set of amendments to the IRC, he said he had a very knowledgeable cooperative fire marshal.

The very thread of sprinklers alone is enough for any knowledgeable builder to substantially upgrade the quality of his construction to avoid them.
 
I am not the best person to respond to the previous post, as in 20 + years as a volunteer, paid on call, full time firefighter, and wearing the white hat, I never saw a residential fire sprinkler. I only saw residential sprinklers after I left the fire service. But the few commercial fires I responded to, when the building was equipted with sprinklers, 1 or 2 sprinklers controlled the fire. I think it will be several years before we see the benefit of residential sprinklers. Then we will wonder why it took so long to install sprinklers in homes. In the meantime, we will see more homes burn because of the cheap, fast burning homes that are being built.

In the early sixties, I helped Dad build a spec house per year. We built trusses on the job site. I remember nailing those plates on because they would pop-off before we could get the trusses in place. In the early 70's, I built my young family a new house. the trusses were built off-site and delivered to the job. I put plywood over the truss plates before putting them on the walls. I also remember venting houses with the truss plates, and working off a ladder because soon after being on scene, the roof was too spongy to walk on.

Those who hate sprinklers, and claim they do not work seem to have no problem with light construction, flammable glues, truss plates that fail minutes into a fire. Some time ago, a video of a light construction fire was on this site. You should see that video. Maybe someone will post it again.

I freely admit, I like sprinklers. They work. To set the record straight, my company does not install sprinklers. We do test, inspect, and repair sprinkler systems, along with other life and safety systems. Sprinklers do work, and they do save life and property.
 
When I worked at a fire engineer consultant firm we had a discussion at length with code officials on lightweight construction. When we evaluated the data for residential fires it showed us that after a dwelling has been on fire for 4 minutes the chances of someone getting out alive drop to almost nothing. Lightweight construction can under typical conditions withstand fire for about 8 minutes. We thought the way fire responders were looking at it at the time was flawed; non-lightweight construction would allow responders to enter the home and remove the occupants, but the resuscitation rate was around 4% at that time. However, if you were to install sprinklers they would at the worst case scenario deploy a couple heads and control the fire until occupants could evacuate the dwelling. At the time we recommended mandating sprinklers in houses rather than prohibiting light construction, but here in Canada we have yet to see that.
 
"Carmel's Fire Chief said the metal plates that are used instead of nails to create bonds between pieces of OSB actually heated up and popped off,"

.......................Hunh?...Never seen metal plate connected OSB.....bad reporting? Smoke detectors anyone?

No doubt (in my mind)that the eng wood products should be protected...but at least give people a choice to use passive protection (drywall, etc...) Don't introduce another system that will not be maintained and still has no guaranty of working....

"Greenburg, NY in Westchester County is also at the forefront of fire prevention by requiring them in all new homes built."..........................................Supression is a failure in prevention........A wise man once told me that.......
 
Are residential fire sprinklers an option - yes, is requiring passive construction methods to protect the lightweight framing an option - yup.

Does this discussion do anything for the four family members killed inn the fire - Nope.

I truly believe in residential fire sprinklers....however, i also feel that each person should have the right to choose the type of protection that they want in their castle --

Are the sprinklers a solve all for all fires... absolutely not..

Remember the purpose of a fire sprinkler system (whether residential or commercial) is to do one of two things - either allow a person time to get out (maintain a tenable atmosphere for ten minutes) or hold the fire in check until the fire service arrives on scene. Occasionally the fire sprinkler system does put the fire out as well.

I do honestly believe that something needs to be done to protect the structures - whether passive or active systems....but preferably a combination of both.
 
In all likelyhood tenability and revivability were lost before the collapse.

Fire resistant construction creates ovens that are still standing after the fire to make body removal easier.

Examples of fire resistant buildings that survived the fire when the occupants did not include Triangle Shirtwaist, Iriqouis Theater, Coconut Grove, etc
 
Jeff said:
That is a moronic statement if I ever heard one.
Click to expand...
I don't agree, I've posted this before but the uncontradicted Canadian National Mortgage Association (a government agency) has proven, that if the objective is to save lives, there are much better places to put the money. In fact, if we must mandate sprinklers I'd suggest the builder/owner be given the option of contributing the same amount of money to a more worthy cause. View attachment 1337 According to the Canadian study you are over three thousand time more likely to die from suicide than from a house fire.View attachment 574

View attachment 574

/monthly_2011_03/canadian-study-2.jpg.ddedba76af13c971eedfa3f5f9c98893.jpg
 
A couple of points:

1. The times given seem consistent with UL study that was done, but I believe they measured the failure time from flashover, not ignition. This is an important distinction that I feel we should be more careful to note. The time needed for flashover to occur will vary wildly depending on a number of factors.

2. It is more than "occasionally" that sprinklers extinguish the fire, regardless of the installation standard. They virtually always extinguish the fire in low or ordinary hazard environments.

We can express our dislike for lightweight construction materials all we want, but I don't see them going away. Even if the fire service had fought these materials, they would have only been delaying the inevitable (much like contractors fighting RFS).
 
Permitguy:

Then why not mandate them for lightweight construction only and not quality construction? Today's lightweight construction has a service life of 30 years, mandating sprinklers would influence many to opt for higher quality construction (like has happened in Elmhurst Illinois). In my case with the home I'm building sprinklers would have added $200,000 to the cost and added two more ugly 5,000 gallon stainless steel tanks, one might say that is just 5% + ugly, but that $200,000 could be better put to higher quality construction and lose the ugly tanks. From my point of view I'd rather have a Buggatti Veyron in my garage than fire sprinklers in my home.
 
conarb said:
I don't agree, I've posted this before but the uncontradicted Canadian National Mortgage Association (a government agency) has proven, that if the objective is to save lives, there are much better places to put the money. In fact, if we must mandate sprinklers I'd suggest the builder/owner be given the option of contributing the same amount of money to a more worthy cause. View attachment 1337 According to the Canadian study you are over three thousand time more likely to die from suicide than from a house fire.
Click to expand...
The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), I'm assuming that is who you are referring to, is actually a crown corporation. This means that they get a mandate from the government and the CEO would be appointed by an elected official, but they otherwise operate as a company. This being said they do a significant amount of real world testing in partnership with the National Research Council (the organization who publish our codes). They do a significant amount of testing on alternative building techniques and building science. For instance; last year I had an applicant submit an application to build a straw bale house. He also provided the detailed CMHC report discussing straw bale construction.
 
If the fire reaches flashover, the chances of survival are already gone. Flashover is a function of the contents and compartment size, not the materials used for construction. Sprinklers prevent flashover. Lightweight materials may fail faster, but if you weren't out long before failure in the first place, you'll be pulled out after extinguishment. I'm not trying to be dramatic, but that's just how it goes.

Stainless stell tanks? That's just crazy California talk!

Elmhurst is a 10 square mile town that is built out. It's easy to pass restrictive building codes when nobody builds there, anyway. Their tune would change rather quickly if they had land available for development and elected officials desired a larger property tax base . . .
 
jar546 said:
That is a moronic statement if I ever heard one.
Click to expand...
Fire fatalities are low. But they make great PR.

Just like underwear bombers.

All four people died from asphyxiation.

Lightweight construction didn't make a difference.

And BTW, it would have only been three fatalities if dad hadn't gone back in.
 
mark handler said:
TRUSS PLATES
structural_truss-plates-misplaced.jpg


Typically 18-gauge steel plates with prongs of 3⁄8-inch penetration.
Click to expand...
Not a real good decsription of a truss plate "....create bonds between osb....."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top