Category: News

Poster abstracts are due October 31. One page abstracts (in PDF format) should be submitted electronically in the same way as full paper submissions, that is, through the EasyChair conference paper submission system. Please refer to the Paper Submission Instructions following the provided template. Once logged into EasyChair as an author, please choose the ‘Poster’ track to submit your poster in PDF format only.

Below is an excerpt of a recent article published by Engineering News Record describing recent efforts to rethink structural fire protection engineering for large, open-plan office spaces.

9/11 Blazes Debunk Code Assumptions About Fire Behavior in Open-Plan Offices
By Nadine M. Post, Engineering News Record

Structural fire engineering is heating up in the U.S. and Europe, thanks in large part to the “traveling fires” observed on Sept. 11, 2001, at the World Trade Center. Structural and fire-protection engineers, aware that current design assumptions do not reflect the behavior of large fires in open-plan office spaces, are developing tools to prevent unprotected structures from collapsing under extreme fire loads.

“I very much believe that certain structures should be analyzed for fire exposure” when there are specific threats or there is a high consequence of failure, says Kevin J. LaMalva, a structural and fire-protection engineer with Simpson, Gumpertz & Heger, Waltham, Mass.

As a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers fire-protection technical committee, LaMalva is co-authoring “Performance-Based Design Procedures for Fire Effects on Structures.” The PBD guide is intended as a non-binding appendix for the 2016 edition of the standard “ASCE/SEI 7: Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures.”

The proposed appendix and commentary set forth performance criteria and evaluation methods for structural systems exposed to significant fires, such as traveling fires or other fires large enough to threaten the structural system.

Structural fire engineering—the interface between fire dynamics and structural engineering—is a relatively young discipline. This would be the first time fire is considered as an explicit load, like wind or seismic, in a U.S. standard.

“There is no such guidance for structural engineers in the U.S.,” says Therese McAllister, a research structural engineer at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Md., and LaMalva’s co-author. Building officials need guidance to help early adopters with the approval of proposed PBDs, she adds.

When it comes to large-floor-plate open-plan office space, the 9/11 fires revealed that model building codes’ prescriptive provisions are flawed. Traditional methods for specifying fire load on the structure erroneously assume uniform burning and homogenous temperature conditions throughout a compartment, regardless of its size.

That’s not the condition in a traveling fire, in which the “flame front” spreads around the floor plate, toward openings such as broken windows, to oxygen. As it travels, the fire burns out as it consumes flammable contents, but there is no cooling behind the flames. Smoke, ahead of and behind the flames, actually preheats and post-heats the structure, causing it to lose strength.

In the U.K., researchers at the University of Edinburgh, sponsored by a $100,000 grant from multidisciplinary engineer Arup, developed a PBD method to keep large-compartment structures standing, even in an unfought fire. The work, finished in 2010, was inspired by the fires set by the highjacked plane attacks on the World Trade Center (WTC).

The fires traveled, defying design assumptions in place for 100 years. “We were surprised and at first thought it was an anomaly,” says Guillermo Rein, who led the Edinburgh research and is currently a professor of mechanical engineering at Imperial College, London.

The WTC fires were troubling, adds Rein. Large-compartment fires last longer and produce more heat, though they burn over a limited area at any one time.

Due to this behavior, conventional design approaches are not necessarily conservative, as assumed, says Rein. The research indicates that the worst-case scenario would be a fire traveling with a size 10% to 25% of the floor area.

The traveling-fire methodology uses simple analytical calculations coupled with a finite element model. Computational fluid-dynamics modeling confirms the results, says Rein. Using a PC or a laptop, engineers trained in the methodology can model the behavior of a two- to three-hour fire over an entire floor in two or three days. A computer cluster can accelerate the modeling to several hours. More costly cloud computing can almost model in real time, says Rein.

Five people are trained in applying the methodology: Rein and four engineers at Arup, including his two former Edinburgh Ph.D. students-researchers, Angus Law, currently at Arup Leeds, and Jamie Stern-Gottfried, currently at Arup Berlin.

Rein is seeking funds to produce a guide that explains the methodology. He figures it is a three-year project.

Each analysis is building-specific. This can result in a more cost-effective design, with protection tailored to the threat, says Rein. The method compliments the traditional method, he adds.

Arup has applied the approach to a half-dozen projects. It recommends contacting the authorities having jurisdiction as early as during conceptual design. The analysis is more involved and costs more than a prescriptive approach, says Arup, but it potentially increases the flexibility of the architecture while increasing the structure’s robustness.

Morgan J. Hurley, technical director for the Society of Fire Protection Engineers, Bethesda, Md., has some issues with the traveling-fire method. It is difficult to predict the way a fire will travel because travel is based on the number of openings, such as broken windows, and that is an unknown, he explains. Similarly, the distribution and type of fuel—building contents—influence fire behavior.

In response, Law says the method allows Arup to predict a range of possible scenarios for any particular building.

The Edinburgh research has been peer-reviewed, but it hasn’t gone through the full standardization process. An effort to include it in the Eurocode is beginning. Once that happens, the method will be transferable to the U.S. Says Hurley, “The fire doesn’t care if the building is in the U.K. or Spain or New York City.”

This summer, ASCE’s fire committee chair, Maria Garlock, expects to present the proposed PBD appendix to the main ASCE 7 committee for balloting. Its future is uncertain, says Garlock, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Princeton University. Seeing potential liability, structural engineers, not typically trained in fire engineering, may resist even a non-mandatory appendix.

Read the full article at: http://enr.construction.com/buildings/design/2013/0729-911-Blazes-Debunk-Code-Assumptions-About-Fire-Behavior-in-Open-Plan-Offices.asp

The IAFSS web team is always looking for relevant news, upcoming events and open academic positions to share with the community. Please submit suggestions to [email protected]. 

A preview of a featured article from the March, 2013 edition of Fire Safety Science News #34:

by Charles R. Jennings

John Jay College of Criminal Justice
The City University of New York, USA

The topic of fire during hurricanes has received scant attention in the scholarly fire engineering community and even in the trade press. While common sense clearly suggests that damage attendant to a hurricane and hazards of utilities and temporary measures for their restoration would produce heightened risk, particularly following an event, a casual review of scholarly indexes shows scarcely any mention of the topic. Hurricane Sandy will be remembered for its widespread swath of destruction. The images of fire-scarred Breezy Point, a community in New York was but one of several large fires that caused unprecedented damage in the City of New York on October 29-30, 2012.

While calls for emergency services were heightened throughout the City, the geography of the Rockaway Peninsula and its location on the southeastern border of the City made it the most severely exposed (along with Staten Island) to the storm’s effects. Remarkably, there were no deaths or significant injuries reported to responders or residents in these historic fires.

One point that is common to all these fires was flooding. The bulk of the Rockaways were inundated throughout

this event. However, because flooding was a result of both ocean tidal and storm surge effects, the water levels rose quickly and varied throughout the events. At their heights, water levels were sufficiently high as to prevent movement of even heavy vehicles – preventing the intervention of the local fire services – the Fire Department of New York (FDNY).

The other factor critical to these events was wind. With gusts reported up to 75 miles per hour (120 km/h) and sustained winds coming from the southeast, fire spread was driven by wind currents.

Breezy Point

Breezy Point is a beach enclave technically self-administering, located on the easternmost tip of the Rockaways. Originally established as a seasonal beach resort, it began with modest cottages and several resorts along the beach. Over time, it grew in to more substantial year-round occupation and many of the original cottages were improved or replaced with multi-story homes of conventional design. The physical plan of the fire area consisted of closely spaced dwellings separated by as little as a few feet (~1m) — with decks, porches and other features making a nearly- continuous field of combustibles. The street plan (refer to map) consisted of alternating narrow streets and smaller, paved paths designed to be navigated on foot or in compact service vehicles.  Construction was almost exclusively timber framed, with older cottages typically built on pilings and more recent homes equipped with masonry or poured concrete foundations and basement stories.

First reported at 1830, the fire was first reported at 173 Ocean Avenue. The extraordinary conditions faced by responders during the storm were illustrated by FDNY Assistant Chief Joseph Pfeiffer’s recollections about reaching the blaze. He reported winding through darkened streets, turning back to avoid fallen trees, driving through water, and ultimately having to stop as he crossed the Marine Park Bridge, which links Brooklyn to the Rockaway Peninsula over Jamaica Bay. “There was three feet of water on the far end of the bridge. I had to park my fire department sedan, and ended up boarding an Engine Company to ride into the scene. Water was up to the headlights as we drove toward the glow.”

Companies operating relied on drafting standing water in a large parking are on the north side of the blaze, and made use of hydrants – some of which were used only after firefighters made connections by diving into the floodwaters and connecting hoses by feel amid the storm. Figure 2 (left) shows the view of the damage looking north from near the point of origin.

Driven by the strong winds coming directly off the ocean, the fire spread from house to house in the densely packed enclave. Chief Pfeiffer credited stopping the fire to being able to position resources ahead of the moving fire, and being ready to exploit an opportunity when winds shifted early in the morning of the 30th.  He cautioned that had the winds not shifted, that the fire could well have continued to the west. The fire was declared under control at approximately 0630 on the 30th.  The fire destroyed some 126 homes and damaged another 22. The effects of manual fire suppression efforts are apparent as the demarcation of destroyed and damaged homes is very clear (Figure 2 left).

Belle Harbor

The Newport Avenue fire is perhaps the most interesting from the perspective of fire spread. Occurring in a predominantly residential neighborhood of detached 1-2 family dwellings, this fire was also driven by the wind, and exhibited a remarkable path of travel. Although timber frame buildings appeared to fare poorly, there were notable examples of fire extending into and through masonry structures as well.

Figure 2 (right) shows the pattern of damage for this fire. The fire began on Beach 129 Street in a 2-family timber frame house (Figure 3), extended to an adjacent  brick exterior 2-family house, driven by winds it moved across backyards, possibly into a detached car storage structure and spread to three houses in a row on Beach 130th Street. The last of these houses was a masonry exterior home on the corner of Newport Ave and Beach 130 Street. The fire, driven by high winds, spread via a likely combination of flying brands, across the Newport Avenue (shown running left to right across the photo) and into a 2-story masonry-faced commercial building housing a restaurant. Despite its being detached, and surrounded on three sides by streets or a parking lot, the fire spread in two directions count – northward along Beach 130 Street, and across the west side of Beach 130 Street, where it consumed an additional 16 buildings[1].  Thirty-two buildings were destroyed in all. The fire was stopped mid-block with a brick-walled home suffering significant fire damage on the west side of the street, and a large timber frame home suffering damage to vinyl siding on its façade. The home on the east side of the street had a larger space between the fire and the other houses on the block. Fire suppression stopped this fire from spreading further, and like the others, firefighting was delayed because of high water levels.

Rockaway Beach Blvd.

The Rockaway Beach Boulevard fire occurred in a commercial strip of buildings predominantly of ordinary construction (masonry exterior walls and timber interiors with some incidental steel structural members). The buildings ranged in height from 1 to 3 stories.

Interestingly, the fire spread was constrained by its location adjacent to a rail yard, which prevented its spread to the north. A masonry building with no windows abutting the building of origin prevented spread to the east, while a gap of roughly 3 feet (0.9 m) and fire service intervention limited spread on the western end of the block, although the building exposed suffered some damage, mainly scorching of its façade. This building was of brick and timber joist construction, which likely prevented the propagation of the fire and permitted successful intervention by fire services. Sixteen buildings were destroyed. Figure 4 shows damage resulting from this fire.

Summary

Three concurrent large fires in a relatively small geographic area of an island is highly unusual in New York City. The spread of fire between brick or stone facade buildings was worthy of further study, as was the transmission of fire across a wide thoroughfare in the Belle Harbor fire. The extraordinary efforts of the FDNY were instrumental in stopping these well-developed fires and point out the need for well-staffed and equipped fire services during extreme events not commonly thought to be “fire” emergencies.

References and Acknowledgments: Information on cause and origin and numbers of buildings damaged or destroyed came from FDNY Media Advisory “Fire Marshals Determine Causes of Several Major Fires from the Night of Super Storm Sandy – Including Breezy Point Fire Which Destroyed 126 Homes” December 24, 2012 online. Field investigation and photography was assisted by Chaim Roberts of the Christian Regenhard Center for Emergency Response Studies at John Jay College. Mapping was donated by Tom Vaughan of Manitou, Inc., Peekskill, NY. We acknowledge the assistance of several members of the FDNY who provided information to support this effort.

The US edition of the 4th Fire Behavior and Fuels Conference – co-organized by IAWF (International Association of Wildland Fire), IAFSS, Tomsk State University, and Worcester Polytechnic Institute – was held in Raleigh from February 18 to 22, 2013. This conference allowed wildland fire researchers to meet around the main topic: “At the Crossroads, Looking Toward the Future in a Changing Environment”. This topic arose from the feeling that the changing environment substantially modifies fire behavior and fire regimes in the forests as well as at the wildland/urban interface.

This edition can be deemed as a success, with around 350 attendees, 7 keynote presentations, 85 oral presentations and over 50 posters representing the last research developments in fire behavior and fuel modeling. In addition to the presentations, over 10 workshops were held on February 18 to discuss specific fire topics or present new applications developed in research and now available to end-users.

In addition to the U.S. edition, the Russian edition will be held in St. Petersburg from July 1 to 4 (Download Flyer PDF at: www.iawfonline.org/2013FuelsConference/Call-for-papers-St.Petes.pdf). Contributed oral, poster and special session papers may cover a wide variety of topics. Proposals that make creative use of the conference theme are especially welcome. Visit the conference webpage (www.iawfonline.org/2013FuelsConference/CFP.php) for a full listing of suggested topics and an explanation of the session formats.

The CALL FOR ABSTRACTS deadline for the St. Petersburg, Russia, Conference was March 1st but we decided to offer a grace period until March 17th for IAFSS members to encourage more submission from fire scientists. Your contribution will be much welcomed! Please, send your abstract directly to: [email protected].

A selection of the best papers from Raleigh and St. Petersburg will be published in special issues of the International Journal of Wildland Fire and the Fire Safety Journal. IAFSS awards will also be given for the best paper, best applied paper and best student paper in St. Petersburg.

All abstracts for the St. Petersburg, Russia, conference will be reviewed and notification of acceptance made by 15 April 2013.

A group of FPE students, research staff and faculty members has teamed up during the last two weeks of March to prepare a video response to the question “What is a flame?” The question was asked by Alan Alda, actor, director, writer and science popularizer, in the form of an open science-outreach competition organized by Stony Brook University’s Center for Communicating Science. This apparently simple question is seen as an example of the type of challenges faced by engineers and scientists who typically struggle to communicate to the general public the relevance, interest and excitement of their work. To make things even worse (as well as more interesting), the “Flame Challenge” question was to be answered in a way that an 11-year-old would find intelligible and maybe even fun.

Because of mid-term exams and Spring Break, the FPE team was composed mostly of graduate students. The team included Paul Marcus Anderson (PhD student), Luis Bravo (PhD student), Haiwen Ding (former FPE graduate, currently a staff member of the UM Maryland Technology Enterprise Institute), Haiqing Guo (PhD student), Vivien Lecoustre (Research Associate), Isaac Leventon (PhD student) and Rosalie Wills (BS student). The team was advised by Professors Stas Stoliarov, Peter Sunderland and Arnaud Trouvé.

Entries to the “Flame Challenge” were accepted in different formats, including writing, video or graphics; the FPE team decided to submit a video. In a matter of a few days, the FPE team wrote a script, performed several experiments, made video recordings, enlisted two 10-year-old children (Jamel Johnson and Anthony Romero) from a local school (Mount Rainier Elementary School) to recite the text, and produced a movie that was then submitted by the April 2 deadline.

Entries have been submitted from all over the world and number up to several hundred (perhaps more than 1,000). Entries will be judged in part by panels of 11-year-olds (the Center for Communicating Science is working towards a goal of more than 10,000 young judges). Go Terps!

To learn more on the “Flame Challenge”, visit the “Flame Challenge” web site, the Center for Communicating Science web site or listen to the NPR interview of Alan Alda by Ira Flatow during the Science Friday show recorded on March 23, 2012.

For more information on the FPE entry to the “Flame Challenge” competition, please contact:
Prof. Arnaud Trouvé
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 301-405-8209