N.Y. Chief Blames Fatal Fire on Lightweight Construction

[tmurray]

That plate does not look like it even touches the top chord...look at the one behind it....

I'd agree. We see trusses here on a significant portion of our projects and I have never seen a gang plate miss a chord. I would require the manufacturer to submit a letter attesting to the compliance with code.

 

[twistr2002]

when Pennsylvania ammended the IRC they Created and Enacted Act 1 of 2011, which in a nutshell says if you are using Engineered Lightweight framing members, you can only have 80sqft exposed other wise it has to be covered with not less than 1/2" gypsum or equivalent.

 

[twistr2002]

or it has to have the affected area sprinklered

 

[SCBO1]

steveray, yes that truss plate is not properly installed over the joint as you pointed out. Can't tell if theres one on the other side in that photo like the one behind it.

But thats not a wall nor is it attached to OSB. In the article theres a reference to 2x12s being tested vs a eng. IJ.

Im kinda confused on what the failure was?

pc1

 

[Frank]

Why stop at calling trusses and TJIs lightweight construction?

What about those thin section sawn lumber joists that are only 1-1/2 inces wide as oppossed to the traditional 3 or 4 inch width that will last alot longer under fire conditions we see around here in many older buildings?

At 1/2 inch char depth the web of a TJI is twice gone, a modern nominal 2x12 is a little over 2/3 degradeded but a 3x12 inch actual is only degraded 1/3 in the approximately 20-30 minutes it takes to get this char depth with exposure to ASTM E119 time temp curve (varies with species and moisture content). A 2x4 nominal truss cord loses over 75% of its cross sectional area with 1/2 inch char depth on all 4 sides. Note also that the rate of char slows down as the char layer gets thicker insulating the wood below.

IF designed with 50% safety factor char depth to 100% (2/3 originial thickness)

3/8" TJI web-- 1/16 inch char about 4-5 minutes

1-1/2 inch 2x12 1/4 inch char about 10-15 minutes

3x8 inch actual 1/2 inch char about 20-30 minutes

2x4 truss cord 2/3 original cross section 0.2 inches char about 8 to 12 minutes

 

[fatboy]

Or, we can just go back to heavy timber construction........

 

[TJacobs]

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.

If you think the fire service, the sprinkler industry and those of us that support sprinklers like fire deaths for their PR value, then you are indeed the ***hole POS others on this site are claiming.

 

[brudgers]

If you think the fire service, the sprinkler industry and those of us that support sprinklers like fire deaths for their PR value, then you are indeed the ***hole POS others on this site are claiming.

The people died of asphyxiation. The Fire Chief went on a rant about light weight construction.

That's PR.

The fire service should focus the public's resources where it makes a real difference, not on a long tail of diminishing returns.

The house was old.

As are most houses.

Passing sprinkler legislation won't create a significant impact on life safety.

Compared to better funding for fire departments.

But that would probably be best achieved by raising taxes.

Again, the agenda gets in the way.

If I had to fault the industry, it's for taking the easy emotional approach rather than doing the real political work that actually costs something.

The numbers are there.

Even in this case.

Better fire safety knowledge would have reduced deaths by 25%.

That's not to say I'm not an ***hole.

Just that those who are using these deaths to push their agendas are too.

 

[tmurray]

Does the IRC allow sprinkler heads to be fed from a domestic water supply? In Canada we can feed fewer than 9 heads from a domestic water supply. Keeping in mind most fires start in the kitchen, wouldn't it be a nice compromise to fire a couple sprinkler heads in the kitchen? This would cover over 33% of residential fires with a significantly reduced cost when compared with sprinklering an entire dwelling.

 

[Min&Max]

So what percentage of fires that originate in the kitchen result in fatalities? Isn't it the idea to protect people when they are most vulnerable, such as when they are asleep in their beds?

 

[brudgers]

A plurality of fatal fires start from someone falling asleep while smoking.

Kitchen fires are most common but result in a lower rate of fatalities.

NFPA 13D systems can be fed entirely from domestic water supply.

All that said, this was an older house and new sprinkler requirements would not have saved any lives.

 

[conarb]

The last thing anyone should do is put a sprinkler head over a cooking facility, at least not until they ban frying food and cooking with grease. I built a school cafeteria once and the engineer wouldn't even let me run a black iron pipe within 20 feet of the halogen protected hood over the range, I had to go way around it to feed sprinklers downstream from the range.

 

[fatboy]

@tmurray, yes, a IRC P2904 RFS is completely fed from the domestic water supply.

 

[fireguy]

The last thing anyone should do is put a sprinkler head over a cooking facility, at least not until they ban frying food and cooking with grease. I built a school cafeteria once and the engineer wouldn't even let me run a black iron pipe within 20 feet of the halogen protected hood over the range, I had to go way around it to feed sprinklers downstream from the range.

Halogen protected hood?

Halon is poor choice to protect cooking appliances. Halon evaporates at, 30°F? Anyway, the halon would evaporate and dissapate. Maybe you used BC dry chem or if the job was after 1991, probably UL300 Wet Chem?

 

[conarb]

Fireguy:

All commercial buildings I built had them in the 60s & 70s, I even did one house with it in the early 80s, the owner was an inventor/engineer and he specified the commercial hood along with a full 13 black iron sprinkler system, but you did make me look it up:

When halon 1301 came on the market in the 1960s it was rightly seen as the most effective gaseous fire fighting agent ever developed. It found widespread application in the protection of data processing rooms, telecommunications switches, art and historical collections, process control rooms, and many others. However, by the late 1980s a great deal of scientific evidence indicated that the agent was an ozone depleting chemical and the Montreal Protocol of 1987 required a phaseout of new production. The fire protection industry began the search for halon alternatives. Current regulations on can be monitored at the HARC website: http://www.harc.org/, or at the EPA website:

Current Status of Halon 1301 Systems

If you have halon systems currently installed in your company facilities and they are located in the United States, you need to know the following facts:

• You are under no legal obligation to remove systems from service.
  
• There is no federal legal requirement to remove systems from service by any specific date.
  
• You may legally recharge your system in the event of a discharge
  
• Recycled agent is still commonly available for fire system recharge.
  
• No new agent 1301 is being manufactured
  
• You should plan the replacement of your systems with a halon alternative.¹
  

¹ http://www.reliablefire.com/halon/halon.html

 

[tmurray]

So what percentage of fires that originate in the kitchen result in fatalities? Isn't it the idea to protect people when they are most vulnerable, such as when they are asleep in their beds?

According to a study conducted by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation the majority of deaths result from kitchen fires, second is when someone falls asleep with a cigarette. for the second case by the time the heat would deploy a sprinkler head the occupant is already dead.

 

[tmurray]

Halogen protected hood? Halon is poor choice to protect cooking appliances. Halon evaporates at, 30°F? Anyway, the halon would evaporate and dissapate. Maybe you used BC dry chem or if the job was after 1991, probably UL300 Wet Chem?

Halon was the fire suppression gas used anywhere water would be detrimental. When I was working for a fire engineering firm we mostly saw them in server farms, archive rooms, ect. The main problem with halon is that you need an area that is reasonable air tight because the halon displaces the air so the fire has no fuel to burn. The other problem is you typically need a two stage alarm because once the halon is deployed in the fire area any occupants would become asphyxiated.