Archive for the ‘Fire Behavior Training’ Category

At a formal dinner on 23 January 2010, Chief Ed Hartin was recognized as an honorary member of Company 1 “Germania” of the Valdivia, Chile Fire Department. In addition, he was awarded a commendation for supporting the ongoing professional development of the members of Company 1 “Germania” of the Valdivia, Chile Fire Department and encouraging them in their efforts to share their knowledge with Chile’s fire service.

Commendation for Support of Company 1 “Germania”

Left to Right: Teniente Juan Esteban Kunstmann, Chief Ed Hartin, Capitán Francisco Silva V.

On 24-27 January 2007, the Company 1 “Germania” of the Valdivia, Chile Fire Department hosted the first international fire service congress to be held in South America. Participants included over 150 firefighters and officers from Chile, Peru, Argentina, and the United States. The congress provided an opportunity to participate in both classroom and hands-on workshops on a wide range of fire service topics including fire behavior, ventilation, search, rapid intervention, technical rescue, and extrication. While topical areas were diverse, the congress had a substantive emphasis on compartment fire behavior with lectures presented by CFBT-US Chief Instructor Ed Hartin and Geraldo Crespo of Contraincendio in Buenos Aires, Argentina and practical training sessions conducted by Ed Hartin and Juan Esteban Kunstmann of the Valdivia Company 1 “Germania”.

Lecture Presentation

Lecture presentations by CFBT-US Chief Instructor Ed Hartin included (click on the links for a copies of the presentations):

• Fire Development and Flashover: Foundational Knowledge
• Extreme Fire Behavior: Understanding the Hazard
• 3D Firefighting: Controlling the Fire Environment
• Reading the Fire: B-SAHF
• Modern Buildings: Fires in the Built Environment
• Large Area Fires: Tactical Implications
• Fire and Smoke in Void Spaces: Hidden Hazards
• Live Fire Training as Simulation: The Role of Fidelity

CFBT practical skills sessions were held at the Valdivia Fire Department’s training center and focused on developing basic skill in nozzle technique and understanding fire development in a compartment.

This is My Nozzle! There are many like it, but this one is mine…

Center: Ed Hartin

Practicing Nozzle Techniques

Right: Teniente Juan Esteban Kunstmann

International Collaboration

Left to Right: Battalion Chief Danny Sheridan, FDNY and Capitán Giancarlo Passalacqua Cognoro, Lima, Pe?u Cuerpo General de Bomberos Voluntarios

Congratulations to the members of Company 1 “Germania” for their success with the first Congreso Internacional Fuego y Rescate! I look forward to working with these outstanding fire service professionals in their ongoing efforts to learn and share knowledge with the fire service throughout Chile, Latin America, and the World.

Ed Hartin, MS, EFO, MIFireE, CFO

Prior posts in this series, My Nozzle and Basic Nozzle Techniques & Hose Handling, examined the importance of proficiency in use of the firefighters’ primary weapon in offensive firefighting operations.

This is my nozzle, there are many like it but this one is mine. My nozzle is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I master my life. Without me it is useless, without my nozzle I am useless.

I will use my nozzle effectively and efficiently to put water where it is needed. I will learn its weaknesses, its strengths, its parts, and its care. I will guard it against damage, keep it clean and ready. This I swear [adapted from the Riflemans Creed, United States Marine Corps].

It is critical that firefighters have both a sound understanding of nozzle performance and skill in the use of their primary weapon. In Figure 1, Assistant Superintendent Mohamed Roslan Bin Zakaria, Bomba dan Penylamat, Malaysia examines stream characteristics from an Akron Turbojet. Note the change in droplet size as the nozzle is closed (droplet size increases as pressure drops). In a short pulse opening and closing the nozzle quickly minimizes production of large droplets that are unlikely to vaporize in the hot gas layer. In long pulses, closing the nozzle slowly increases the percentage of large droplets, but this is a necessary tradeoff to prevent excessive water hammer.

Figure 1. Determining Stream Characteristics

Note: Photo by Shan Raffel, ASFM, CMIFireE, EngTech.

This post continues with a discussion of training methods that can be used to develop proficiency in nozzle techniques and hose handling while deploying hoselines and in compartments having varied configurations. Continuing with our military metaphor, we will be practicing fire and maneuver.

Instructional Concepts

As discussed in Basic Nozzle Techniques and Hose Handling this sequence of drills is designed using the Simplifying Conditions Method (Reigeluth, 1999). This approach moves from simple to complex, beginning with the simplest version of the task that represents the whole and moves to progressively more complex versions until the desired level of complexity is reached. In the case of nozzle technique and hose handling, this involves moving from basic, individual skills, to team skills, and on to integration of physical skills and decision-making.

While modeling a specific technique (such as the short pulse) can be helpful in aiding the learners in developing basic skill, there is a danger. Technique is often mimicked without thought to why it is performed in a particular manner under specific circumstances. Demonstration of a short pulse with a 40o fog pattern (which might be appropriate in a small room) becomes “that is how all short pulses must be performed”. As the learners complete Hose and Nozzle Technique Drills 2 and 3, it is critical to provide changing conditions and encourage the learners to adapt their technique based on conditions.

Drill 2-Hose Handling and Nozzle Operation: Firefighters often lose focus on nozzle technique and operation when they are moving. This drill provides an opportunity for the firefighter with the nozzle and backup firefighter to develop a coordinated approach to movement and operation.

Hose Handling & Nozzle Technique Drill 2 Instructional Plan

Drill 3-Nozzle Operation Inside Compartments: Deployment of hoselines inside a building requires a somewhat different set of skills than simply moving forward and backward. Movement of hoselines around corners and adjustment of nozzle pattern to cool gases in hallways and varied size compartments are important additions to the firefighters’ skill set and provide the next step in developing proficiency in nozzle use.

Hose Handling & Nozzle Technique Drill 3 Instructional Plan

Battle Drills

Analysis of firefighter line-of-duty deaths (LODD) during structural firefighting operations points to the need for highly disciplined, immediate, and appropriate response to rapidly deteriorating conditions. In terms of military small unit tactics, battle drills provide a standardized, collective action rapidly executed without application of a deliberate decision making process (US Army, 1992).

Adapted to firefighting operations, Battle Drills:

• Require minimal leader orders to accomplish and are standard throughout the department
• Are sequential actions vital to success in firefighting operations or critical to preserving life
• Apply to individual companies or teams
• Are trained responses to changing conditions or leader’s orders
• Represent mental steps followed for actions followed in training and firefighting operations

As a starting point for discussing this concept, give some thought to what situations might require a pre-planned and trained set of actions during offensive firefighting operations. For example, this might apply to locating a victim while deploying a hoseline for fire attack, rapidly deteriorating conditions, breathing apparatus malfunction, etc. Also consider how hose handling and nozzle techniques might apply in each of these situations.

Ed Hartin, MS, EFO, MIFireE, CFO

References

Reigeluth, C. (1999). Elaboration theory: Guidance for scope and sequence decisions. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.) Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory volume II. Mawah, NH: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

United States (US) Army. (1992). FM 7-8 Infantry rifle platoon and squad. Washington, DC: Headquarters, Department of the Army

The previous post in this series, My Nozzle, examined the importance of nozzle knowledge and skill in using the firefighter’s primary weapon in offensive firefighting operations.

Figure 1. Practice is Essential to Effective Nozzle Technique

Note: These Fire Officers from Rijeka, Croatia are practicing the short pulse to place water fog into the hot gas layer. Droplet size, cone angle, position of the nozzle, and duration of application have placed water in the right form exactly where it was intended.

This is my nozzle, there are many like it but this one is mine. My nozzle is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I master my life. Without me it is useless, without my nozzle I am useless.

I will use my nozzle effectively and efficiently to put water where it is needed. I will learn its weaknesses, its strengths, its parts, and its care. I will guard it against damage, keep it clean and ready. This I swear [adapted from the Riflemans Creed, United States Marine Corps].

This post continues with a discussion of training methods and techniques that can be used to develop proficiency in nozzle techniques and hose handling.

Limitations in Fire Service Instructional Methods

Fire service instructor training and related instructional methods have direct linkage to the philosophy of vocational education that evolved in the United States in the early 1900s (Hartin, 2004). The philosophy of vocational education that evolved in the first half of the 20^th century put forth a mechanistic view of training and vocational education in which the goal is efficient production of trained individuals (Allen, 1919; Prosser & Allen, 1925). In early fire service instructor training, basic concepts of vocational education were combined with behaviorist psychological concepts of positive and negative reinforcement to guide learning. Over the last four decades, fire service instructor training has evolved to include humanist perspectives on motivation and the characteristics of adult learners. However, the basic principles used in training factory workers to perform simple repetitive tasks remain the meat and potatoes of this theoretical stew. All very interesting, but what does this have to do with nozzle technique?

The dominant focus of most fire service instructor training programs is on classroom instruction and to a lesser extent on demonstration of basic skills as an instructional method. Less focus is placed on effective methods for skills instruction (other than demonstration) and more importantly how to coach and provide effective feedback during skills instruction. Effectively and efficiently developing firefighters’ psychomotor skills requires a somewhat different focus.

There is a commonality between firefighters and athletes. Both require development of a wide range of physical and mental skills as well as underlying knowledge. A tremendous amount of research has been conducted on effective approaches to development of skill and proficiency in sport. Kinesiology (the science of human movement) and sport psychology provide a useful starting point for improving fire service skills training. While this post is focused on nozzle techniques and hose handling, the underlying theories can be applied to many other skills. It is essential that both the coach and the learner not only understand what needs to be done and how to do it, but why!

Motor Learning and Performance

A motor skill can be conceptualized as a physical task such as operating a nozzle or stretching a charged hoseline through a building. However, there are a number of dimensions on which these types of task can be classified:

• Task organization (simple, single task or multiple, interconnected tasks)
• Importance of motor and cognitive elements (doing or thinking)
• Environmental predictability (consistent or variable conditions)

Simply opening and closing the nozzle is a discrete task that predominantly involves motor skill, and takes place in a fairly predictable environment (the firefighters’ position may change, but the nozzle remains the same). However, when placed in the context of hoseline deployment inside a structure with variable fire conditions things change quite a bit. This involves serial (multiple, sequential) tasks and requires both physical and cognitive (decision-making) skills, in a somewhat predictable, but highly variable environment. This explanation makes things seem a bit more complicated than they appear at first glance!

Motor learning can be divided into several relatively distinct stages (Schmidt & Wrisberg, 2008). In the verbal-cognitive stage, learners are dealing with an unfamiliar task and spend time talking and thinking their way through what they are trying to do. As learners progress to the motor stage, they have a general idea of the movement required and shift focus to refining their skill. Progression through the motor stage often requires considerable time and practice. Some learners progress to the autonomous stage in which action is produced almost automatically with little or no attention. Other than the newest recruits, most firefighters are in the motor stage of learning when developing skill in nozzle techniques and hose handling.

Developing an understanding of motor performance and learning requires a conceptual model. However, in that many of you are likely to be less excited about learning theory than I am, I will make an effort to limit this to a simple framework.

1. Stimulus Identification: Recognize the need for physical action
2. Response Selection: Determination of the action needed.
3. Response Programming: Preparation and initiation of the required action.
4. Feedback: Determination of the effectiveness of the action (this loops back to stimulus identification and the process begins again).

In some cases, feedback is obtained during the action and corrective action can be taken during task performance (closed loop control). In other (shorter duration) tasks, feedback is received after the task is completed (open loop control)

Many nozzle techniques such as application of a short pulse of water fog into the hot gas layer involve open loop control as the action is completed before the firefighter can receive and process feedback on the effectiveness of the action. Training must develop sufficient skill (and preferably automaticity) to allow firefighters to apply various nozzle techniques with minimal conscious thought to allow focus on maintaining orientation in the building and key fire behavior indicators.

While there is much more to the story, this limited explanation of motor learning and performance provides a starting point to understand why the nozzle technique and hose handling drills are important and why they are designed the way that they are.

Nozzle Technique and Hose Handling Drills

One more bit of learning theory before we get our hands on the nozzle. This sequence of drills is designed using the Simplifying Conditions Method (Reigeluth, 1999). This approach moves from simple to complex, beginning with the simplest version of the task that represents the whole and moves to progressively more complex versions until the desired level of complexity is reached. In the case of nozzle technique and hose handling, this involves moving from basic, individual skills, to team skills, and on to integration of physical skills and decision-making.

Once basic proficiency is developed in simple tasks (such as the short pulse, long pulse, penciling, and painting), practice should be randomly sequenced (rather than blocked into practice of a single skill). In addition, practice should be distributed over a number of shorter sessions, rather than massed into fewer, but longer sessions. For more information on design of effective and efficient practice sessions, see Motor Learning and Performance (Schmidt & Wrisberg, 2008).

Drill 1-Basic Skills in Nozzle Operation: The starting point in developing a high level of proficiency in nozzle use is to gain familiarity with the nozzle(s) you will be using including performance characteristics such as flow rate, operating pressure, and nozzle controls (i.e., shutoff, pattern, flow). In addition, firefighters should build skill in basic nozzle techniques such as the short pulse, long pulse, penciling, and painting while in a fixed position. Click on the following link to download the instructional plan for Drill 1 in PDF format.

Hose and Nozzle Technique Drill 1 Instructional Plan

Firefighting is team based. After firefighters have demonstrated individual proficiency in basic nozzle techniques from a fixed position, the next step is to apply these techniques in a team context.

Drill 2-Hose Handling and Nozzle Operation: Firefighters often lose focus on nozzle technique and operation when they are moving. This drill provides an opportunity for the firefighter with the nozzle and backup firefighter to develop a coordinated approach to movement and operation.

Drill 3-Nozzle Operation Inside Compartments: Deployment of hoselines inside a building requires a somewhat different set of skills than simply moving forward and backward. Movement of hoselines around corners and adjustment of nozzle pattern to cool gases in hallways and varied size compartments are important additions to the firefighters’ skill set and provide the next step in developing proficiency in nozzle use.

Drills 2 and 3 will be addressed in the next post in this series. Subsequent posts will address door entry procedures, indirect attack, and will introduce the concept of battle drills to build skill in dealing with worsening conditions or other emergencies while operating inside burning buildings.

Ed Hartin, MS, EFO, MIFIreE, CFO

References

Hartin, E. (2004). Theoretical foundations of fire service instructor training (unpublished manuscript available from the author). Portland State University.

Allen, C. R. (1919). The instructor the man and the job. Philadelphia, PA: J. B. Lippencott Company. Prosser, C. A., & Allen, C. R. (1925). Vocational education in a democracy. New York: The Century Company.

Schmidt, R. & Wrisberg, C. (2008). Motor learning and performance (4^th ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Reigeluth, C. (1999). Elaboration theory: Guidance for scope and sequence decisions. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.) Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory volume II. Mawah, NH: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Warfare is often used as a metaphor for firefighting with fire being the enemy and the building the ground on which we fight. Extending warfare as a metaphor, handline nozzles are firefighters’ principle weapon in offensive firefighting operations.

In the early 1940s Major General William H. Rupertus, United States Marine Corps (USMC), wrote the Rifleman’s Creed (also known as My Rifle). The creed is part of Marine doctrine that emphasizes that regardless of specialty or assignment, all Marines are riflemen. The Rifleman’s creed emphasizes the criticality of caring for and mastering the use of the Marine’s individual weapon. How many firefighters have the same commitment to care and mastery of their nozzle?

All too often, firefighters consider the nozzle to be a simple device requiring little practice to master and seldom thought of until needed. Take a minute and think about the nozzle(s) that you use!

Nozzle Knowledge

These 20 questions focus on some of the fundamental knowledge that firefighters must have if they are truly going to master their primary weapon in offensive firefighting operations.

1. What kind of nozzle(s) are on your preconnected hoseline (combination or solid stream)?
2. What type of nozzles are they (i.e., fixed flow, variable flow, automatic, or single tip, stacked tips)?
3. What flow rate, rates, or range do they have?
4. If flow rate can be varied, how is this accomplished? Does the mechanism used to change flow operate freely?
5. If you change the flow without a corresponding change in line pressure at the pump, what happens to the nozzle pressure?
6. What is their designed operating pressure or pressures (for dual pressure nozzles)?
7. For combination nozzles, what is the impact of nozzle pressure on droplet size? Can you operate the nozzle at more than one nozzle pressure?
8. If a variable flow or automatic combination nozzle, does droplet size change with flow rate? Why might this be significant?
9. What is the maximum effective reach of the nozzle?
10. Can you flush debris from the nozzle? If so, how?
11. What type of coupling is the nozzle equipped with (e.g., if threaded, is it National Standard Hose, Iron Pipe, or some other thread)?
12. What type of valve is the nozzle equipped with (ball or slide valve) and what difference does it make?
13. If it is a combination nozzle, does it have fixed or spinning teeth? Why would this matter?
14. If the nozzle is equipped with spinning teeth, does the turbine spin freely?
15. Do your nozzles open and close easily when under pressure?
16. Are your nozzles clean (inside and out)? How should they be cleaned?
17. Do your nozzles require lubrication to ensure free movement of their operating mechanism? If so, when was the last time that they were lubricated?
18. If a combination nozzle, how to you adjust the nozzle to a wide angle fog pattern?
19. For combination nozzles, what is the maximum angle of the wide fog pattern?
20. If a combination nozzle, how far from straight stream or wide angle fog does the pattern control need to be turned to produced a 40^o (medium) fog pattern?

While knowing the answers to these questions, is necessary, it alone is not sufficient. In addition to knowledge of operating characteristics and maintenance procedures, firefighters must be skilled in nozzle operation in order to be able to accurately put water where it is needed.

Nozzle Skills

In some respects a nozzle is a fairly simple device designed to increase the velocity of water and provide a useful stream for firefighting operations. However, can you consistently:

1. Adjust a fog pattern to the desired angle without visual reference, before opening the nozzle to check the pattern?
2. Apply a short or long pulse of water fog so that the droplets evaporate in the hot gas layer, minimizing water contact with compartment linings (i.e. walls and ceiling)?
3. Apply a fog pattern to fill the maximum volume of a compartment without excessive water hitting the compartment linings?
4. Apply water gently in the form of a straight stream so that it flows onto a hot surface, maximizing cooling and minimizing runoff?
5. Recognize audible indicators of fire stream impact on compartment linings?
6. Adjust flow rate based on conditions and tactical application (i.e. gas cooling, indirect attack, direct attack)?
7. Maximize both effectiveness (in controlling the fire) and efficiency (by minimizing water use)?

These questions are obviously focused on combination nozzles. If you more commonly use solid stream nozzles, ability to cool hot gases is limited by the form in which water is applied. While limited in gas cooling effectiveness, what techniques can you use to have some impact on the threat presented by the hot gas layer?

As with knowledge of your nozzle, these skills are necessary, but not sufficient. Firefighters must be able to integrate physical skill with situational awareness and team based tactical skill.

My Nozzle

With due credit to General Rupertus and the USMC; I have adapted The Rifleman’s Creed:

This is my nozzle, there are many like it but this one is mine. My nozzle is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I master my life. Without me it is useless, without my nozzle I am useless.

I will use my nozzle effectively and efficiently to put water where it is needed. I will learn its weaknesses, its strengths, its parts, and its care. I will guard it against damage, keep it clean and ready. This I swear.

Developing Skill

During structural firefighting operations firefighters are faced with dynamic and rapidly changing conditions in which situational awareness is critical. Basic skills in the use of personal protective equipment and the tools of the firefighters’ craft must have reached the autonomous stage of performance to allow focus on critical decisions and tasks.

Habit hardens the body for great exertions, strengthens the heart in great peril, and fortifies the judgment against first impressions. Habit breeds that priceless quality, calm, which passing from hussar and rifleman up to the general himself, will lighten the commanders task. (Von Clausewitz, p. 122)

Colonel B.P. McCoy, USMC (2007) drew on Clausewitz’s wisdom in identifying combat marksmanship as a critical habit. “Anybody, even in the middle of a phobic response to the violence of combat can yank on a trigger and spray rounds in the general direction of the enemy, ‘spray and pray'” (p. 25). How many firefighters have the same response in the fire environment? “Combat marksmanship is the hallmark of the infantryman. Nothing nurtures confidence like the knowledge that one can hit what one is shooting at” (McCoy, 2007, p. 25). Firefighters require the same skill in nozzle use as Colonel McCoy’s Marines required in the use of their rifles.

During offensive firefighting operations firefighters apply water for one of two purposes. 1) to cool hot gases or 2) to cool hot surfaces (Grimwood, Hartin, McDonough, & Raffel, 2005). Each of these tasks requires a different method to put water where it is needed in a form that will accomplish the intended outcome.

Gas Cooling: In general water application to cool hot gases should be based on the following requirements:

• Most of the water applied must vaporize in the hot gas layer (not on surfaces)
• Nozzle pattern should maximize the volume of hot gases cooled.

The challenge to the nozzle operator is that there is not one single approach to meeting these requirements. In general, smaller droplets work better than large droplets, but nozzle pattern (wide, medium, or narrow fog) is dependent on the size of the space and temperature of the flames and/or hot, unignited gases.

Surface Cooling: The requirement for cooling hot surfaces is different than those required for gas cooling, but is equally simple.

Most of the water applied must vaporize on contact with hot surfaces (not in the hot gas layer)

As with gas cooling there is not a single approach to meeting these requirements. In general, effective surface cooling requires a thin layer of water on the hot surface. If the surface is extremely hot, water application must be continued until the temperature is reduced sufficiently to slow and stop pyrolysis.

Important! Water on the floor after extinguishment is completed did not do significant work. Far more energy is required for water to change phase into steam than to simply raise its temperature. Water application must be effective (in achieving fire control), but should also be efficient (in minimizing the water used and limiting fire control damage).

Effective and efficient fire control requires that firefighters be skilled at putting water in the right form where it is needed (in the hot gases or on hot surfaces). Development of autonomous (habitual) skill in nozzle use requires deliberate practice. This is not simply repetition of our current skills, but continuing to stretch just beyond our current abilities. Deliberate practice is designed specifically to improve sharply defined elements of performance.

The next several posts in this series will examine how research in sport psychology regarding motor learning and performance can be used to enhance our ability to develop proficiency in nozzle use (as well as other physical firefighting skills).

Ed Hartin, MS, EFO, MIFireE, CFO

References

US Army (1992). Field manual 7-8 infantry Rifle platoon and squad. Washington, DC: Headquarters, Dept. of the Army.

Clausewitz, C. (1984) On war. (M. Howard & P. Paret, Trans.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press

McCoy, B. (2007). The passion of command. Quantico, VA: The Marine Corps Association.

Grimwood, P., Hartin, E., McDonough, J, & Raffel, S. (2005) 3D firefighting: Training, techniques, and tactics. Stillwater, OK: Fire Protection Publications.

As discussed in prior Reading the Fire posts and the ongoing series examining fire behavior indicators (FBI) using the B-SAHF (Building, Smoke, Air Track, Heat, and Flame) organizing scheme, developing proficiency requires practice. This post provides an opportunity to exercise your skills using three video segments shot during a commercial fire. In addition to practicing your skill in reading the fire, use these video clips to help develop or refine your smoke indicators concept map (see Reading the Fire: Smoke Indicators).

Commercial Fire

The Lake Station (IN) Fire Department was dispatched to a reported structure fire in the vicinity of the American Legion Hall on Central Avenue. Responding companies found a commercial building with fire and smoke showing at the intersection of Central Avenue and Howard Street.

Download and the B-SAHF Worksheet.

While the video clip of this incident does not allow you to walk around the building and observe fire conditions, Google maps street view allows you to view all sides of the building. If you haven’t used street view, have a look at the following Google Street View Tutorial.

Perform a “walkaround” by clicking on the following link to view the building involved at this incident: 1691 Central Ave, Lake Station, IN. Note: Radio communication in the video clip identifies the Incident Commander as “Howard Command”. However, for this activity, I have identified Central Avenue as the A Side of the involved building. Click on the arrows to move east on Central Avenue and move and adjust the compass rose to look at Side D. Move back along Central Avenue and then go down Howard Street, again adjusting the compass rose to look at Sides B and C. After your “walk around”, complete the Building Factors segment of the B-SAHF Worksheet.

The video clip of this incident begins with the view of Side B from the A/B Corner prior to the arrival of the first engine company. Watch the first 60 seconds of Video Segment 1. Consider the information provided in this segment of the video clip. First, describe what you observe in terms of the Building (add to what you have done so far), Smoke, Air Track, Heat, and Flame Indicators and then answer the following five standard questions:

1. What additional information would you like to have? How could you obtain it?
2. What stage(s) of development is the fire likely to be in (incipient, growth, fully developed, or decay)?
3. What burning regime is the fire in (fuel controlled or ventilation controlled)?
4. What conditions would you expect to find inside this building?
5. How would you expect the fire to develop over the next two to three minutes?

Watch the next three minutes of the video and identify if, and how conditions change from the beginning of the clip until the first line is placed in operation (at approximately 04:00).

Watch the next 2 minutes 30 seconds until the firefighters make entry through the door on Side A (at approximately 06:30).

1. What conditions would you expect to find inside this part of the building?
2. How would you expect the fire to develop over the next two to three minutes?

Watch the remainder of the video clip.

Important: While not related to Reading the Fire, you likely heard the Personal Alert Safety System (PASS) device sounding through much of the incident. While PASS devices can (and often are) accidentally activated, continuous sounding of a PASS indicates a firefighter in distress. While this was not the case in this incident, failure to silence PASS devices that are accidentally activated desensitizes firefighters to this important audible signal.

Remember the Past

August 1994 saw the loss of two company officers and a firefighter in three separate incidents involving extreme fire behavior. Rapidly changing fire conditions are a threat to firefighters working in career staffed, urban fire departments and volunteer departments serving small communities.

August 7, 1994
Captain Wayne Smith
Fire Department of the City of New York, New York

On August 7, Captain Wayne Smith of the New York City Fire Department was critically injured while conducting search and rescue operations on an upper floor of a building when he was trapped by high heat and heavy smoke conditions. Captain Smith was burned over 40 percent of his body and received severe smoke inhalation injuries to his lungs. He died on October 4 from his injuries. Fourteen other firefighters were injured in the blaze. Initial operations were hampered by a faulty fire hydrant across the street from the building.

August 8, 1994
Sergeant Craig Drury
Highview Fire District, Kentucky

On August 8, Sergeant Craig Drury of the Highview (KY) Fire District was caught in a flashover while making entry into a single story house. Sgt. Drury suffered severe burns to his lungs that eventually caused his death. The fire was started by an arsonist.

August 27, 1994
Firefighter Paul MacMurray
Hudson Falls Volunteer Fire Department, New York

On August 27, Firefighter Paul MacMurray of the Hudson Falls (NY) Volunteer Fire Department responded as part of an engine company to a fire on the first floor of in a three story hotel. Assigned to search for and rescue occupants on the second floor, MacMurray and another firefighter successfully evacuated several victims while attempts to extinguish the fire were initiated below them. Upon their return to continue the search, conditions quickly changed from a light haze of smoke to black smoke with high heat conditions. MacMurray and his partner became separated in their attempt to locate the stairwell and get out of the building. The other firefighter made several efforts to locate MacMurray, but was forced to retreat due to untenable conditions. Several rescue efforts were made but heavy fire conditions eventually forced the evacuation of all fire personnel to defensive positions as the entire structure burned. MacMurray’s body was recovered the following day. The fire was of incendiary origin.

Ed Hartin, MS, EFO, MIFIreE, CFO

Live Fire Simulations: Key Elements of Fidelity examined some of the important elements in physical fidelity, the extent to which the simulation looks and feels real. This post will begin the process of identifying key aspects of functional fidelity, the extent to which the simulation works and reacts realistically.

Maintaining the Balance

One important factor to consider in live fire training simulation is that despite the fact that it is a training exercise, the fire is real. While I too use the terms training fire and real fire, the combustion processes and fire dynamics in live fire training are the same as encountered in a structure fire. What is different is the type, amount, and geometry of the fuel used and the ventilation profile.

Providing complete functional fidelity (as well as physical fidelity) simply requires that structural environment, fuel loading, and ventilation be the same as would be encountered in an actual incident. However, this substantially increases variability of outcome and the risk to participants.

Use of a purpose built structure allows control of variability and provides the ability for repetitive and ongoing training. Purpose-built structures are often designed to use either solid Class A fuel or gaseous Class B fuel. Facility design and selection of fuel type should be based on a wide range of factors including provision of adequate fidelity for the type of training to be conducted, environmental issues, health and safety of participants, anticipated duty cycle (i.e., frequency and duration of training activity) and life-cycle cost (e.g., initial purchase price, ongoing maintenance costs).

Figure 1. Live Fire Simulation with Gas (left) and Class A Fuel (right)

As illustrated in Figure 1, there can be obvious and substantial differences in physical fidelity when gas fired props are used to simulate a typical compartment fire. Depending on the purpose of the simulation these physical differences can be important. However, differences in functional fidelity may be even more important.

Functional Fidelity

As stated earlier, functional fidelity is the extent to which the simulation works and reacts realistically. I have tentatively identified five subsystems related to functional fidelity of live fire simulation as illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Functional Fidelity Concept Map

This concept map is a simple and preliminary look at the elements of functional fidelity. Each of the concepts illustrated can be further refined and elaborated on to provide a clearer picture of physical fidelity in live fire training.

Physiology & Personal Protective Ensemble

Live fire simulation places the participant in a hostile environment requiring the use of personal protective clothing and self-contained breathing apparatus. Functional fidelity in these subsystems and their interaction with the thermal environment may or may not be a critical element of context, depending on the intended learning outcomes of the simulation. However, insulation of firefighters from the thermal environment encountered in structural firefighting delays, modifies, and my limit perception of critical thermal cues (e.g., high temperature, changes in temperature). Overcoming this challenge requires training in a realistic thermal context.

Fire Suppression System

One of the most critical elements in functional fidelity of the fire suppression system involves interaction with fire dynamics: Does the fire and fire environment (e.g., hot gas layer) react appropriately to extinguishing agent application? In some respects there may be a conflict between the desire for physical fidelity of the fire suppression system and functional fidelity of the interaction between extinguishing agent application and fire dynamics. For example, it may be desirable for participants to use the same flow rate (providing realistic nozzle reaction) in simulations as will be used in the structural firefighting environment. However, the limited fuel load typically used to provide a safe training environment do not result in the same required flow rate for fire control as fire in a typical residential or commercial compartment. Does use of a high flow handline in live fire simulation with limited fuel load create an unrealistic expectation of the performance under actual incident conditions? Which is more effective, realistic flow rate with a limited fuel load or matching of flow rate and fuel load to provide a realistic interaction between the fire and fire attack? This question remains to be answered.

The type of nozzle used presents a simpler issue related to functional fidelity in live fire simulation. Most combination nozzles have similar operational controls for controlling the flow of water (i.e. on and off) and pattern adjustment. However, there are subtle differences such as the extent of movement needed to adjust from straight stream to wide angle fog. Flow control mechanisms vary more widely from fixed flow rate, to variable flow and automatic nozzles. Firefighters must be able to select pattern and flow as necessary based on conditions encountered in the fire environment and intended method of water application. Use of a substantively different nozzle in training than during incident operations is likely to result in less than optimal performance. However, as with the question of flow rate, the extent to which this is a concern is unknown.

Fire Dynamics

Likely the greatest concerns with regards to functional fidelity are in the area of fire dynamics. If firefighters are to learn how fires develop and the impact of changes to ventilation profile and application of extinguishing agents, the fire must behave as it would under actual incident conditions (or as close to this ideal as can be safely and practically accomplished).

Most fuels encountered in structure fires are solids (e.g., furniture, interior finish, structural materials). Class A fuel used in live fire training, often has a lower heat of combustion and heat release rate than typical fuel in the built environment, but is similar in that it must undergo pyrolysis in order to burn; providing similar (but not identical) combustion performance. Combustion of Class A fuel also results in generation of significant smoke, another similarity to typical fuels in the built environment. Class B (gas) fuel used in structure fire simulations has a high heat of combustion with heat release rate controlled through engineering and design of the burner system. However, this fuel generally burns cleanly, necessitating introduction of artificial smoke to provide higher fidelity. Flaming combustion and smoke production must be mechanically controlled by a computerized system, a human operator, or both. The nature of the fuel and design of the combustion system also impact on the fires reaction to changes in ventilation and application of extinguishing agents such as water.

Changes to ventilation will not substantively influence fire behavior if the fire is fuel controlled. However, if the fire is ventilation controlled, changes in ventilation can have a significant impact on fire behavior (which may or may not be desirable, depending on the intended learning outcomes).

With Class A fuel, water applied to cool the hot gas layer or to fuel packages has a similar impact as it would in actual structural firefighting operations. The degree of similarity is dependent on the design of the compartment in which the training is being conducted as well as fuel factors and ventilation profile. With Class B fuel, temperature sensors, computerized controls, and a human operator all must interact to ensure that water application results in appropriate changes to combustion.

System Latency

In general, live fire training simulations are conducted in real time. However, time lag due to system limitations in Class B (gas) fired props or delay in instructor or operator perception of changing conditions in either Class A or B fueled props can influence system latency, resulting in faster or slower than normal interaction between  fire dynamics and fire control subsystems.

Closing Thoughts

While I admit I am (currently) biased in favor of live fire training simulation using Class A fuel, there is no reason why other systems such as those using Class B (gas) fuel could not be designed in such a way to provide higher fidelity. However, this would likely increase both complexity and cost. I have been also discussing the potential of computer based (non-live-fire) fire training systems to develop some (but likely not all) of the skills necessary to safely operate in the structural firefighting environment. This is something else to think about!

I will come back to this topic again from time to time as I gain additional insight into the elements of physical and functional fidelity in live fire training.

Remember the Past

Last Tuesday, was the second anniversary of the deaths of Captain Mathew Burton and Engineer Scott Desmond of the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District in California.

Figure 1. 149 Michele Drive-Alpha/Delta Corner

Note: Contra Costa Fire Protection District (Firefighter Q76) Photo, Investigation Report: Michele Drive Line of Duty Deaths. This photo illustrates conditions shortly after 0159 (Q76 time of arrival).

July 21, 2007
Captain Matthew Charles Burton
Fire Engineer Scott Peter Desmond
Contra Costa County Fire Protection District, California

Captain Burton, Engineer Desmond, and another engineer were the crew of Engine 70. At 0143 hours, Engine 70 was dispatched to a residential fire alarm. As additional information was received, the incident was upgraded to a structural fire response with the addition of two engines, a quint, and a command officer.

Engine 70 arrived on the scene at 0150 hours and reported heavy fire and smoke from a small single-family residence. Firefighters reported that they had confirmed reports that two occupants of the home were still inside.

Captain Burton and Engineer Desmond advanced an attack line into the structure and flowed water on the fire. They reported that the fire had been knocked down and requested ventilation at 0155 hours. Captain Burton and Engineer Desmond exited the structure temporarily to retrieve a TIC, then re-entered the structure and went to the left toward the bedrooms with an attack line, while another crew went to the right without an attack line.

The engineer for Engine 70 placed a PPV fan at the front door. One of the civilian fire victims was located by the crew that had gone to the right; her removal was difficult and firefighters had to exit the building to ask for help. During this time, the fire inside the house advanced rapidly.

Firefighters had difficulty venting the roof due to multiple roofs, built-up roofing materials, and the type of construction.

A command officer arrived on the scene at approximately 0202 hours and began to look for Captain Burton to assume Command. The command officer tried to contact the Engine 70 crew by radio but was unsuccessful. A second alarm was requested, and a report of a missing firefighter was transmitted at approximately 0205 hours.

The fire had advanced within the structure and had to be controlled before firefighters could search for the missing crew. Captain Burton and Engineer Desmond were located and removed from the structure between 0212 and 0226 hours. The firefighters were found in a bedroom.

For additional information, see my earlier posts on this incident, the Contra Costa County Fire District Investigative Report, and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Death in the Line of Duty Report.

Contra Costa County LODD: Part 1

Contra Costa County LODD: Part 2

Contra Costa County LODD: What Happened

Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Investigation Report: Michele Drive Line of Duty Deaths

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Death in the Line of Duty Report F2007-28

Ed Hartin, MS, EFO, MIFireE, CFO

Several earlier posts (Training Fires Versus Real Fires, Live Fire Training: Important Questions) introduced the concepts of live fire training as simulation, physical fidelity, and functional fidelity. This post will dig a bit deeper into what aspects of fidelity may be important in live fire training.

Interesting Puzzle

Physical fidelity is the extent to which the simulation looks and feels real. Functional fidelity is the extent to which the simulation works and reacts realistically. In Live Fire Training: Important Questions, I presented a puzzle provided by Roy Reyes of the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency. He forwarded me the following photo (Figure 1) from a fire behavior instructor course that he had conducted in Valencia, Spain and posed two questions, one quite general and the other very specific:

1. What do you see in the photo?
2. Why are the flames in the hot gas layer in the center, and not across the entire width of the compartment?

Figure 1. Participants Conducting Fire Behavior Demonstration 2

Physical and functional fidelity are potentially quite important in developing firefighters understanding of fire behavior and skill in application of fire control techniques. The two questions that Roy asks are important (and I will get back to them). However, two more fundamental questions could be asked: 1) To what extent is the fire behavior in this container based prop reflective of conditions that would be encountered in a “real” fire? 2) Does it matter (given the learning outcomes intended for this training session)?

Physical Fidelity

Physical fidelity is important in providing visual, audible, and tactile cues that are essential to developing and maintaining situational awareness. In addition, physical fidelity is a key component in firefighters’ perception of the realism of the simulation.

The concept of physical fidelity is simple. However, when you start to think about the live fire training environment, it quickly becomes more complex. The elements of fidelity related to flight simulation discussed in Live Fire Training: Important Questions as a starting point. Physical fidelity may include the firefighters’ personal protective ensemble, tools, and equipment as well as visual, audio, and thermal aspects of the environment. As illustrated in Figure 2, a number of these elements of physical fidelity are interrelated.

Figure 2. Physical Fidelity Concept Map

This concept map is a simple and preliminary look at the elements of physical fidelity. Each of the concepts illustrated can be further refined and elaborated on to provide a clearer picture of physical fidelity in live fire training.

Functional Fidelity

While physical fidelity is important, functional fidelity; realistic functioning of the simulation, is likely even more important. Development of critical skills and the ability to read the impact of tactical action is dependent on adequate functional fidelity.

As with physical fidelity, the concept is straight forward, the simulation should function in a realistic manner. However, this is likely to be even more complex than simply looking realistic.

Roy’s puzzle provides an interesting starting point to think about the nature, function, and importance of functional fidelity.

The first question asked, what do you see in the photo? Firefighters are engaged in a training session in a container based CFBT cell with a fire located in the front on the right side. A well defined hot gas layer has developed with flames extending through the hot gas layer at the center of the compartment.

The second question is more significant. Why are the flames extending in the hot gas layer in the center of the compartment and not across the full width of the compartment? There could be a number of possible explanations, but it is likely that the metal walls of the container are acting as thermal ballast. Energy used to increase the temperature of the metal compartment walls (which have excellent thermal conductivity) is not being used in the combustion process (preventing flaming combustion next to the walls). The same phenomenon can be demonstrated by placing a coil of copper wire into a candle flame. This causes a reduction in flaming combustion, and in many cases the wire absorbs sufficient energy to extinguish the flame.

So, the thermal conductivity of the container walls can at times influence the behavior of flaming combustion in CFBT cells. Does this present a problem or is it simply an opportunity to present the puzzle to the learners and engage in a discussion about thermal ballast?

A subsequent post will examine this concept in greater depth and present a preliminary concept map illustrating key dimensions of functional fidelity.

Ed Hartin, MS, EFO, MIFireE, CFO

In several recent posts (Training Fires and “Real” Fires and Live Fire Training in Purpose Built Structures, I emphasized that all live fire training is a simulation. Fidelity is the extent to which the simulation replicates reality.

Figure 1. Training in an Acquired Structure

Note: Ed Hartin Photo

The Questions

Some firefighters and fire officers subscribe to the belief that use of acquired structures with realistic fuel loading is the only way to develop the necessary competence and skills to operate safely and effectively on the fireground. However, current standards such as National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1403 Standard on Live Fire Training (2007) places specific constraints on fuel types and loading. Some departments are faced with environmental constraints that preclude burning Class A fuel for structural live fire training and consequently use gas fired structures (or don’t conduct live fire training at all). Most departments who have access to purpose built structures and props for structural live fire training are limited to a single type of facility (due to economic constraints). This gives rise to an interesting set of questions:

• What degree of simulation fidelity is necessary to develop the knowledge and skills necessary for safe and effective operation on the fireground?
• What are the key elements of fidelity for various learning outcomes such as 1) developing understanding of fire development in a compartment, 2) dynamic risk assessment, inclusive of recognizing critical fire behavior indicators, 3) selecting appropriate fire control techniques, 4) developing competence and confidence when operating in a hazardous environment, 5) developing skill in nozzle operation and technique, 6) evaluating the effect of tactical operations.
• Is live fire training the only or most effective simulation method for achieving these learning outcomes? If so, what type of simulation will safely provide the required degree of fidelity? If not, what other simulation method may be used in place of, or in addition to live fire training to provide the required degree of fidelity?

I believe that effective performance under stressful conditions requires substantial training in a realistic context. However, the answers to the preceding questions have not yet been determined. What we have is a great deal of strongly held opinion without supporting discipline or task specific evidence.

Dimensions of Fidelity

As discussed in Training Fires and “Real” Fires, fidelity can be examined in a number of different ways, but one simple approach is to consider physical and functional characteristics of the simulation. Physical fidelity is the extent to which the simulation looks and feels real. Functional fidelity is the extent to which the simulation works and reacts realistically.

Figure 2. Two-Dimensional Fidelity Matrix

However, this simple model provides limited guidance when examining questions related to live fire training. Here it is necessary to consider: What are the key elements of physical and functional fidelity necessary to support the specific learning outcomes intended from a given training evolution?

In A Handbook of Flight Simulation Fidelity Requirements for Human Factors Research, Rehman (1995) describes three purposes of aircraft flight simulation: 1) provide practice on specific skills, 2) reinforce acquisition and use of job-relevant knowledge, or 3) to evaluate a system or new concept. The fidelity requirements for each of these three purposes may be quite different. In addition, fidelity applies to the simulator itself, the participants, and related or events external to the simulator. In a flight simulator, each subsystem of the simulator (e.g., cockpit layout, audio, motion) has specific fidelity characteristics that must be considered as illustrated in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Flight Simulator Subsystem Fidelity Characteristics

Note: Adapted from A Handbook of Flight Simulation Fidelity Requirements for Human Factors Research.

How might these concepts be applied to evaluating fidelity requirements for live fire training? Determining the answers to the questions posed in this post will require a significant research effort (and related funding). However, the first step in this process is to clarify, refine, and tightly focus the questions that this research needs to answer.

My next post will examine this interesting topic a bit further.

An Interesting Puzzle

Closely related to the topic of simulation fidelity, I was provided with an interesting puzzle by my friend Roy Reyes of the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency. He forwarded me the following photo (Figure 4) from a fire behavior instructor course that he had conducted in Valencia, Spain. His first question was what do you see in the photo?

Figure 4. Participants Conducting Fire Behavior Demonstration 2

Note: Roy Reyes Photo

The second question is a bit more specific, why are the flames in the hot gas layer in the center, and not across the entire width of the compartment?

The answer to this question provides an important learning opportunity related to how simulator and simulation design impact on fidelity and the importance of the instructor in establishing context.

I will come back to these questions in my next post!

Ed Hartin, MS, EFO, MIFIreE, CFO

References

National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). (2007) NFPA 1403 Standard on Live Fire Training Evolutions. Quincy, MA: Author.

Rehman, A. (1995). A handbook of flight simulation fidelity requirements for human factors research, Report Number DOT/FAA/CT-TN95/46. Retrieved July 6, 2009 from http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/000/800/858/tn95_46.pdf

In their article Realistic Live Burn Training You Can Afford published in the May 2009 issue of Fire Engineering, Kriss Garcia and Reinhard Kauffmann extolled the advantages of constructing a panelized wood frame structure lined with several layers of 5/8″ sheetrock (see Figure 1) as an alternative to other types of structural live fire training props and facilities. I have to admit; I am intrigued by the potential advantages of this prop for demonstration of the influence of horizontal ventilation (both natural and positive pressure) and tactical training in fire attack operations. However, I am not convinced that this prop is universally superior to other types of purpose built structures used for live fire training. Choice of live fire training facilities needs to consider a range of factors including intended learning outcomes, cost (both initial and life-cycle), and environmental considerations and constraints.

Figure 1. Build and Burn Single Family Dwelling

Photo provided by Kriss Garcia (positivepressureattack.com)

Response to Garcia and Kauffmann

The most important factor to consider in design, selection, and use of live fire training props and facilities is that all live fire training is a simulation. The fire is real, but the fuel load and conditions are managed to create a specific effect (unlike in the “real world”). This does not necessarily mean that the training is ineffective, simply that each evolution is intended to provide the participants with a specific opportunity to learn and develop skills.

Having conducted a substantial number of live fire training exercises in purpose built props and acquired structures, I have found that each has its advantages. Kriss and Reinhard are particularly critical of props constructed from steel containers. They state that these type of props do not provide a realistic context for showing fire development or honing fire tactical skills. I would respectfully disagree with several caveats. 1) A single compartment prop (such as a demonstration or attack cell) is not designed or intended for tactical training. This type of prop is designed to provide a safe and effective environment to demonstrate fundamental fire development in a compartment and the opportunity for learners to practice nozzle technique. 2) Multi-compartment container-based props do provide a reasonable context for tactical training with interior doors, obstructions, potential for varied fire location, etc. However, as with all other types of prop using Class A fuel (including the build and burn structure), the fuel load and configuration is considerably different than in an actual dwelling or commercial structure. Kriss also points to the severe fire conditions and damage to both equipment and participants when working in container based props. This is the result of inappropriate use, not a defect in the type of prop used. Conditions are set and controlled by the instructors.

I have greater agreement with Kriss’s and Reinhard’s observations on high-tech gas fired props in that they often fail to replicate key fire behavior indicators and may not respond appropriately to ventilation and application of water, providing poor feedback to the learners on their performance.

I also agree with many of Kriss’s and Reinhard’s observations on acquired structures. However, their example illustrating “unpredictable fire behavior” due to medium density fiberboard that had been plastered over, resulting in ignition of pyrolysis products behind the attack crew is inaccurate. This fire behavior was entirely predictable, but unanticipated (the big difference here is that unanticipated fire behavior is simply the result of a lack of information on the part of the instructors, not by random action by the fire). Kriss states that when working with acquired structures, you need to strictly adhere to the requirements of NFPA 1403. This may be a bit misleading in that this standard applies to all live fire training (including use of the build and burn structure).

Kriss and Reinhard make a good case for the ideal live fire training structure. However, it is critical to also give some thought to the intended purpose of the building or prop. Single compartment props (regardless of what they are constructed out of) may be a tremendous tool for practicing door entry and nozzle technique much like a putting green or driving range when practicing golf. The putting green and driving range are useful tools in developing specific skills, but they are not the game of golf. The ideal live fire training prop is designed to provide a means to safely, effectively, and efficiently achieve specified learning outcomes. Much the same as there is no single tactic that will solve all problems presented on the fireground, there is no single type of live fire training prop that provides the ideal context for all types of live fire training evolutions. Again, it is critical to remember that all live fire training is a simulation. The key is to provide an adequate degree of physical and functional fidelity (look real enough and behaves real enough) to achieve the intended learning outcomes.

Intended Use and Learning Outcomes

Pilots in the United States Air Force follow an exacting course of study which includes classroom instruction, simulation, and flight instruction in trainer aircraft such as theT6 and T38 before progression to more advanced aircraft such as the F22 Raptor. Each simulator and aircraft used in this progression is intended to provide the pilot with a specific learning context. After transition to high performance aircraft, pilots continue to use simulators to practice skills that may be too high risk to perform in flight.

Figure 2. T6, T38, & F22 Aircraft

The same concept can be applied to live fire training. Observing fire development and the effect of water application may require a somewhat different context than evolutions involving door entry procedures and integration of fire control and tactical ventilation. In an ideal world, fire service agencies would have access to various types of live fire training props, each suited to providing the best context for specific levels of training and learning outcomes. Container based props and burn buildings may be simple or complex dependent on their intended purpose and learning outcomes that they are designed to support (see Figures 3-5)

Figure 3. Split Level Cell, Palm Beach County Fire Rescue

Note: This prop was constructed by Fire Training Structures, LLC and is most effective for demonstrating compartment fire behavior.

Figure 4. Large Volume Container, Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency, Sandö, Sweden

Note: This prop was constructed on site and is designed to demonstrate fire behavior and the impact of tactical operations in large compartments such as found in commercial buildings.

Figure 5. Large Masonry Burn Building, British Fire Service College

Note: This is one of many live fire training facilities at the college (including container based props and other masonry burn buildings). This building provides an industrial context for advanced firefighter training.

However, for most of us it is not a perfect world. Fire departments faced with limited fiscal resources are often limited in their options for live fire training. If they are fortunate, they have or have access to a purpose built structure that provides a safe and effective environment for a variety of types of live fire training. Each of these types of structures has limitations. The major problem encountered is when instructors and learners believe that the purpose built structure is intended to fully replicate a realistic fire environment as encountered during emergency incidents. It cannot, much the same as a flight simulator cannot fully replicate flying a high performance aircraft. However, it can replicate critical elements of context that help develop knowledge, skill, and a high level of proficiency.

Instructors must 1) identify the intended learning outcomes and critical elements of context necessary to develop learner proficiency to ensure participant safety and 2) recognize both the capabilities and limitations of the props and facilities available.

Other Considerations

Fire departments often face a more difficult challenge than determining what type of prop or facility is most effective or how to best use available facilities. The cost of live fire training is a major concern and unfortunately is often a major determining factor in the availability and type of live fire training conducted. The initial cost for purpose built props and facilities can be a large hurdle with simple commercially built props and structures costing from $40,000 to hundreds of thousands of dollars (or even more for a commercial fire simulator as illustrated in Figure 5).  However, initial cost of the prop or facility is the tip of the iceberg. Ongoing costs include fuel, maintenance, as well as instructor and student costs.

While somewhat beyond the scope of this post, environmental considerations and restrictions can also have a significant impact on both design and operation of live fire training facilities and can also have a significant impact on initial and ongoing cost.

The Way Forward

In general, there has not been a concerted and scientifically based effort to determine the critical elements of context required for live fire training. As discussed in Training Fires and Real Fires, live fire training must look real enough (physical fidelity) and react realistically to tactical operations (functional fidelity). However, we have not defined to what extent this is necessary to develop critical skills.

The variety of props, structures, and facilities available for live fire training is substantial, as is the difference in initial, ongoing, and life-cycle cost. While some work has been done comparing these various options, it is often left to individual departments to sort this out without a consistent framework or methodology.

Subsequent posts will examine these two issues in a bit more depth.

Ed Hartin, MS, EFO, MIFireE, CFO

Reference

Garcia, K. & Kaufmann, R. (2009, 2009). Realistic live-burn training you can afford. Fire Engineering, 162(5), 89-93.

The theme for the 2009 meeting Institution of Fire Engineers (IFE) Compartment Firefighting Special Interest Group (SIG) in Sydney, Australia was Finding the Common Ground. The 15 participants represented 12 fire service organizations from Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, the UK, Spain, Croatia, China, Canada, and the United States.

Figure 1. 2009 IFE Compartment Firefighting SIG Participants

Understanding & Application

The dominant common theme identified by the participants is the need for firefighters and fire officers to have a solid understanding of fire dynamics and the ability to apply that knowledge in an operational context. Achieving this goal cannot be accomplished simply by delivering a course or training program, it requires a fundamental shift in perspective and ongoing effort to support individual and organizational learning.

Simply achieving knowledge of fire dynamics and skill in task and tactical activity is necessary but not sufficient. Achieving increased safety and effectiveness requires that firefighters and fire officers effectively apply this knowledge on the fireground. Facilitating this transfer from training to operational context is a challenge is a significant challenge.

Dr. Stefan Svensson of the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency posed the question: How do we get learners to understand the differences between training fires and “real fires”. This is an interesting question in that training conducted in a container, burn building, or acquired structure is in fact a “real fire”, but has considerably different characteristics than a fire occurring in a house, apartment, or commercial building. Improperly designed training may provide the learner with an inaccurate perspective on the fire environment which can lead to disastrous consequences. The challenge is managing risk while developing a realistic understanding of fire behavior.

What is the Difference?

Compartment fires in the training environment differ from those encountered during emergency operations differ on the basis of compartment characteristics, fuel, ventilation profile, heat release rate, and time scale. In addition to differences related to fire dynamics, firefighters and fire officers also encounter psychological stress resulting from a sense of urgency, organizational and community expectations (particularly in situations where persons are reported to be trapped in the building).

Other than acquired buildings, structures used for fire training are generally designed and built for repetitive use and not for regular human habitation. Structural characteristics that make a durable live fire training facility are considerably different than most if not all other structures in the built environment. Density, thermal conductivity, and specific heat of training structures can be considerably different than a dwelling or commercial structure, which has a significant impact on fire behavior.

The ventilation profile of a purpose built prop or burn building is also likely to have significantly different compartmentation and ventilation profile than a typical residential or commercial structure. Live fire training facilities often (but not always) are designed with burn compartments. This speeds fire development and minimizes both initial and ongoing cost. However, fire behavior and the impact of fire control tactics can be considerably different in a large area and/or high ceiling compartment. Many modern structures are designed with open floor plans that are challenging to duplicate in the training environment. Energy efficient structures limit ventilation (air exchange), while training structures are often quite leaky, particularly after extensive use. This can have a significant influence on development of a ventilation controlled burning regime and influence of ventilation on the concentration of gas phase fuel in smoke. Failure of glass windows in ordinary structures should be anticipated, as this changes the ventilation profile and resulting fire behavior. Training structures on the other hand provide a more consistent ventilation profile as durable (e.g., metal) windows do not present the same potential for failure.

While structural characteristics, compartmentation, and ventilation differ between typical structures in the built environment and those used for live fire training, one of the most significant differences lies in the types, quantity, and configuration of fuel.

National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1403 Standard on Live Fire Training is fairly explicit regarding fuel characteristics and loading for live fire training evolutions. Most of these provisions can be tied directly to incidents in which participants in live fire training exercises lost their lives. Unfortunately, there are not the same provisions in fire and building codes. Fuel load is considerably higher in most residential and commercial occupancies than is typically used in live fire training, even in advanced tactical evolutions.

Together these differences provide considerably different fire dynamics between the training and operational environments. How much and in what ways does this impact on the effectiveness of compartment fire behavior training (CFBT)?

Fidelity

As discussed, CFBT, even when conducted in an acquired structure does not completely replicate fire conditions encountered in an operational context. All CFBT involves simulation. The extent to which a simulation reflects reality is referred to as fidelity:

The degree to which a model or simulation reproduces the state and behavior of a real world object or the perception of a real world object, feature, condition, or chosen standard in a measurable or perceivable manner; a measure of the realism of a model or simulation; faithfulness… 2. The methods, metrics, and descriptions of models or simulations used to compare those models or simulations to their real world referents or to other simulations in such terms as accuracy, scope, resolution, level of detail, level of abstraction and repeatability. (Northam, n.d.)

CFBT can involve a wide range of simulations, from the use of photos and video, non-fire exercises, small scale props such as doll’s houses, single and multi-compartment props, and burn buildings, and acquired structures. Each provides differing degrees of fidelity.

Fidelity can be described in a number of different ways. One fairly simple approach is to examine physical and functional fidelity (see Figure 2). Physical fidelity is the extent to which the simulation looks and feels real. Functional fidelity is based on the extent to which the simulation works and reacts realistically.

Figure 2. Two-Dimensional Fidelity Matrix

Note: Adapted from Fidelity Versus Cost and its Effect on Modeling & Simulation (Duncan, 2007)

While describing fidelity of a simulation as low, moderate, or high, this is likely to be inadequate. A more useful description of fidelity includes both qualitative and quantitative measures on multiple dimensions. But what measures and what dimension? In a compartment firefighting simulation, key elements of physical fidelity will likely include fire behavior indicators such as Building, Smoke, Air Track, Heat, and Flame (B-SAHF). Important aspects of physical fidelity would include the characteristics of doors and windows (e.g., opening mechanism), hose and nozzles, and influence of tactics such as gas and surface cooling on fire behavior.

On the surface it makes sense that increased fidelity would result in increased effectiveness and transfer of knowledge and skill. However, it is important to remember that “All models are wrong, but some models are useful” (Box & Draper, 1987, p. 424). The importance the various aspects of fidelity depend on the intended learning outcome of the simulation. In fact, a simulation that focuses on critical contextual elements may be more effective than one that more fully replicates reality.

Figure 3. Door Entry Drill

For example, teaching the mechanics and sequence of door entry procedures (see Figure 3) might be more effectively accomplished using a standard door without smoke and flame than under more realistic live fire conditions. On the other hand, reading fire behavior indicators at the door and effectively predicting interior conditions is likely to require substantively different elements of context. However, at this point, we simply have unsupported opinion and in some cases anecdotal evidence of the effectiveness or lack of effectiveness of current training practices. The key to this puzzle is to clearly define the intended learning outcomes and identify the critical elements of context that are required.

Questions Remain

The IFE Compartment Firefighting SIG identified the need for a greater emphasis on fire behavior training at all levels (e.g., entry level firefighters, incumbent firefighters, and fire officer) as well as ongoing professional development and skills maintenance. However, a number of interesting questions remain, including:

• What are the most effective methods of developing firefighters understanding of compartment fire behavior?
• What is necessary to effectively facilitate transfer of this knowledge from training to the operational context?
• What level of fidelity is necessary in live fire training do develop and maintain critical skills?
• How can technological simulation (computer or video based) simulation be used to augment live fire training to maintain proficiency?
• To what extent might non-live fire simulation (e.g., CFBT for the Wii) be used to develop compartment firefighting competencies?

Professor David Morgan of Portland State University observes that “A successful research project requires two things: Meaningful research questions and appropriate means to answer those questions” (Morgan, 2005, p. 1-2). One of the greatest potential benefits resulting from collaboration between members of the IFE Compartment Firefighting SIG is the integration of the skills of academics and practitioners, scientists and firefighters. During the 2009 workshop, SIG member Steve Kerber from Underwriters Laboratory (formerly with the National Institute for Standards and Technology) emphasized the importance of scientists and engineers doing research with, not simply for the fire service. This has the potential to not only identify meaningful questions, but also to provide the knowledge and skills necessary to answer them.

Ed Hartin, MS, EFO, MIFireE, CFO

References

Northam, G. (n.d.). Simulation fidelity – Getting in touch with reality. Retrieved May 2, 2009 from http://www.siaa.asn.au/get/2395365095.pdf

Box, G. & Draper, N. (1987). Empirical model-building and response surfaces. San Francisco: Wiley.

Duncan, J. (2007). Fidelity versus cost and its effect on modeling & simulation. Paper presented at Twelfth International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium (12^th ICCRTS), 19-21 June 2007, Newport, RI.

Morgan, D. (2005). Introduction [to integrated methods] (Unpublished Manuscript). Portland, OR: Portland State University.