Posts Tagged ‘firefighter fatality’

This post continues examination of the incident that took the life of Firefighter Brian Carey and seriously injured Firefighter Kara Kopas on the evening of March 30, 2010  while they were operating a hoseline in support of primary search in a small, one-story, wood frame dwelling with an attached garage at 17622 Lincoln Avenue in Homewood, Illinois.

This post focuses on firefighting operations, key fire behavior indicators, and firefighter rescue operations implemented after rapid fire progression that trapped Firefighters Carey and Kopas.

Firefighting Operations

After making initial assignments, the Incident Commander performed reconnaissance along Side Bravo to assess fire conditions. Fire conditions at around the time the Incident Commander performed this reconnaissance are illustrated in Figure 7. After completing recon of Side B, the Incident Commander returned to a fixed command position in the cab of E-534 (in order to monitor multiple radio frequencies).

Figure 7. Conditions Viewed from Side C during the Incident Commander’s Recon

Note: John Ratko Photo from NIOSH Death in the Line of Duty Report F2010-10.

Engine 1340 (E-1340) arrived and reported to Command for assignment. The five member crew of this company was split to assist T-1220 with vertical ventilation, horizontally ventilate through windows on Sides B and D, and to protect Exposures D and D2.

One member of E-1340 assisted T-1220 and the remaining members vented the kitchen windows on SidesD and B, while the E-1340 Officer stretched a 1-3/4” (45 mm) hoseline from E-534 to protect exposures on Side D. However, this line was not charged until signficantly later in the incident (see Figure 14). Figure 8 (a-c) illustrates changing conditions as horizontal ventilation is completed on Sides B and D.

Figure 8. Sequence of Changing Conditions Viewed from the A/B Corner

At 2105 Command reported that crews were conducting primary search and were beginning to vent.

Note the B-SAHF indicators visible from the A/B Corner in Figure 8a: Dark gray smoke from the door on Side A with the neutral plane at approximately 18” (0.25 m) above the floor. Velocity and turbulence are moderate and a bidirectional air track is evident at the doorway.

As the 2-1/2” (64 mm) handline reached the kitchen, flames were beginning to breach the openings in the Side C wall of the house and thick black smoke had banked down almost to floor level. As noted in Figure 3 (and subsequent floor plan illustrations), there were doors and windows between the house and addition in the Utility Room and Bedroom 2 . The Firefighter from E-534 had a problem with his protective hood and handed the nozzle off to Firefighter Carey and instructed him to open and close the bail of the nozzle quickly. After doing so, the Firefighter from E-534 retreated along the hoseline to the door on Side A to correct this problem (he is visible in the doorway in Figure 8c).

As E-1340 vents windows on Sides B (see Figure 8b) and D, the level of the neutral plane at the doorway on Side A lifts, but velocity and turbulence of smoke discharge increases. Work continues on establishing a vertical vent, but is hampered by smoke discharge from the door on Side A.

After horizontal ventilation of Sides B and D, velocity and turbulence of smoke discharge continues to increase and level of the upper layer drops to the floor as evidenced by the neutral plane at the door on Side A (see Figures 8b and 8c)

The photo in Figure 8c was taken just prior to the rapid fire progression that trapped Firefighters Carey & Kopas. The Firefighter from E-534 is visible in the doorway correcting a malfunction with his protective hood.

As T-1220B reached the hallway leading to the bedrroms, they felt a significant increase in temperature and visibility worsened. After searching Bedroom 2 and entering Bedroom 1 temperature contiued to increase and T-1220B observed flames rolling through the upper layer in the hallway leading from Bedroom 2 and the Bathroom. Note: NIOSH Death in the Line of Duty Report 2010-10 does not specify if T-1220B searched Bedroom 2, but this would be consistent with a left hand search pattern. They immedidately retreated to the Living Room looking for the hoseline leading to the door on Side A. As they did so, they yelled to the crew on the 2-1/2” (64 mm) handline to get out.

Extreme Fire Behavior

Firefighter Kopas felt a rapid increase in temperature as the upper layer ignited throughout the living room and the fire in this compartment transitioned to a fully developed stage. She yelled to Firefighter Carey, but received no response as she turned to follow the 2-1/2” (64 mm) hoseline back to the door on Side A. She made it to within approximately 4’ (1.2 m) of the front door when her protective clothing began to stick to melted carpet and she became stuck. T-1220B saw that she was trapped, reentered and pulled her out.

Figure 12. Position of the Crews as the Extreme Fire Behavior Phenomena Occurred

Note: It is unknown if T-1220B searched Bedroom 2 before entering Bedroom 1. However, this would be consistent with a left hand search pattern.

Figure 13. Conditions Viewed from the Alpha/Bravo Corner as the Extreme Fire Behavior Occured

Note: Warren Skalski Photo from NIOSH Death in the Line of Duty Report F2010-10.

Figure 14. Conditions Viewed from the Alpha/Delta Corner as the Extreme Fire Behavior Occured

Note: Warren Skalski Photo from NIOSH Death in the Line of Duty Report F2010-10.

Following the transition to fully developed fire conditions in the living room, the Incident Commander ordered T-1220 off the roof. As illustrated in Figure 14, the exposure protection line stretched by E-1340 was not charged until after Firefighter Carey was removed from the building.

Figure 15. Position of Search and Fire Control Crews after Rapid Fire Progress

Firefighter Rescue Operations

The Incident Commander and Firefighter from E-534 (who had retreated to the door due to a problem with his protective hood), pulled a second 1-3/4” (45 mm) line from E-534. T-1220B re-entered the house with this hoseline to locate Firefighter Carey.

While advancing into the living room, T-1220B discovered that E-534’s 2-1/2” (64 mm) handline. They controlled the fire in the living room using a direct attack on burning contents and advanced to the kitchen where they discovered Firefighter Carey entangled in the 2-1/2” (64 mm) handline. Firefighter Carey’s helmet and breathing apparatus facepiece were not in place.

T-1220B removed Firefighter Carey from the building where he received medical care from T-1145. A short time later, Firefighter Carey became apenic and pulseless. After the arrival of Ambulance 2101 (A-2101), Firefighter Carey was transported to Advocate South Suburban Hospital in Hazel Crest, IL where he was declared dead at 10:03 pm.

According to the autopsy report, Firefighter Carey had a carboxyhemoglobin (COHb) of 30% died from carbon monoxide poisoning. The NIOSH Death in the Line of Duty Report (2010) did not indicate if the medical examiner tested for the presence of hydrogen cyanide (HCN) or if thermal injuries were a contributing factor to Firefighter Carey’s death.

Timeline

Review the Homewood, Illinois Timeline (PDF format) to gain perspective of sequence and the relationship between tactical operations and fire behavior.

Contributing Factors

Firefighter injuries often result from a number of causal and contributing factors. NIOSH Report F2010-10 identified the following contributing factors in this incident that led to the death of Firefighter Brian Carey and serious injuries to Firefighter Kara Kopas.

• Well involved fire with trapped civilian upon arrival.
• Incomplete 360^o situational size-up
• Inadequate risk-versus-gain analysis
• Ineffective fire control tactics
• Failure to recognize, understand, and react to deteriorating conditions
• Uncoordinated ventilation and its effect on fire behavior
• Removal of self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) facepiece
• Inadequate command, control, and accountability
• Insufficient staffing

Questions

The following questions focus on fire behavior, influence of tactical operations, and related factors involved in this incident.

1. What type of extreme fire behavior phenomena occurred in this incident? Why do you think that this is the case (justify your answer)?
2. How did the conditions necessary for this extreme fire behavior event develop (address both the fuel and ventilation sides of the equation)?
3. What fire behavior indicators were present in the eight minutes between arrival of the first units and occurrence of the extreme fire behavior phenomena (organize your answer using Building, Smoke, Air Track, Heat, and Flame (B-SAHF) categories)? In particular, what changes in fire behavior indicators would have provided warning of impending rapid fire progression?
4. Did any of these indicators point to the potential for extreme fire behavior? If so, how? If not, how could the firefighters and officers operating at this incident have anticipated this potential?
5. What was the initiating event(s) that lead to the occurrence of the extreme fire behavior that killed Firefighter Carey and injured Firefighter Kopas?
6. How did building design and construction impact on fire behavior and tactical operations during this incident?
7. What action could have been taken to reduce the potential for extreme fire behavior and maintain tenable conditions during primary search operations?
8. How would you change, expand, or refine the list of contributing factors identified by the NIOSH investigators?

Introduction

While formal learning is an essential part of firefighters’ and fire officers’ professional development, informal learning is equally important, with lessons frequently shared through the use of stores. Stories are about sharing knowledge, not simply about entertainment. It is their ability to share culture, values, vision and ideas that make them so critical. They can be one of the most powerful learning tools available (Ives, 2004). “Only by wrestling with the conditions of the problem at hand and finding his own way out, does [the student] think” (Dewey, 1910, p. 188).

Developing mastery of the craft of firefighting requires experience. However, it is unlikely that we will develop the base of knowledge required simply by responding to incidents. Case studies provide an effective means to build our knowledge base using incidents experienced by others. This case is particularly significant as the circumstances could be encountered by almost any firefighter.

Aim

Firefighters and fire officers recognize and respond appropriately to the hazards of ventilation controlled fires in small, Type V (wood frame), single family dwellings.

References

National Institute for Occupationsl Safey and Health (NIOSH). (2010). Death in the line of duty: Report F2010-10. Retrieved October 22, 2010 from http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/fire/pdfs/face201010.pdf.

Ives, B. (2004) Storytelling and Knowledge Management: Part 2 – The Power of Stories. Retrieved May 6, 2010 from http://billives.typepad.com/portals_and_km/2004/08/storytelling_an_1.html

Dewey, J. (1910) Democracy and education. New York: McMillan

Learning Activity

Review the incident information and discuss the questions provided. Focus your efforts on understanding the interrelated impact of ventilation and fire control tactics on fire behavior. Even more important than understanding what happened in this incident is the ability to apply this knowledge in your own tactical decision-making.

The Case

This case study was developed using NIOSH Death in the Line of Duty: Report F2010-10 (NIOSH, 2010).

On the evening of March 30, 2010, while operating at a fire in a small single family dwelling, Firefighter/Paramedic Brian Carey and Firefighter/Paramedic Kara Kopas were assigned to assist in advancement of a 2-1/2” handline for offensive fire attack and to support primary search. Shortly after entering the building conditions deteriorated and they were trapped by rapid fire progression. Firefighter Kopas suffered 2^nd and 3^rd degree burns to her lower back, buttocks, and right wrist. Firefighter Carey died from carbon monoxide poisoning and inhalation of smoke and soot. A 84 year old male civilian occupant also perished in the fire.

Figure 1. Side A Post Fire

Note: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)

Building Information

This incident involved a 950 ft² (88.26 m²), one-story, single family dwelling constructed in 1951. The house was of Type V (wood frame) construction with a hip roof covered with asphalt shingles. The roofline of the hip roof provided a small attic space. Sometime after the home was originally constructed an addition C was built that attached the house to a garage located on Side C. Compartment linings were drywall. The house, garage, and addition were all constructed on a concrete slab.

There were several openings between the house and addition, including two doors, and two windows (see Figure 3).

Note: The number and nature of openings between the garage and addition is not reported, but likely included a door and possibly a window (given typical garage construction). NIOSH investigators did not determine if the doors and windows between the house, addition, and garage were open or closed at the time of the fire as they were consumed by the fire and NIOSH did not interview the surviving occupant (S. Wertman, personal communication, November 17, 2010). The existence and position of the door shown in the wall between the addition and garage is speculative (based on typical design features of this type of structure).

Figure 2. Plot Plan and Apparatus Positioning

Figure 3. Floor Plan 17622 Lincoln Avenue

The Fire

Investigators believe that the fire originated in an addition that was constructed between the original home and the two-car garage. The surviving occupant reported that she observed black smoke and flames from underneath the chair that her disabled husband was sitting in.

The addition was furnished as a family room and fuel packages included upholstered furniture and polyurethane padding. The civilian victim also had three medical oxygen bottles (one D Cylinder (425 L) and two M-Cylinders (34 L). It is not know if the oxygen in these cylinders was a factor in fire development. The garage contained a single motor vehicle in the garage and other combustible materials.

After calling 911 and attempting to extinguish the fire, the female occupant exited the building. NIOSH Death in the Line of Duty Report 2010-10 did not specify this occupants egress path or if she left the door through which she exited open or closed (NIOSH did not interview the occupant, she was interviewed by local fire and law enforcement authorities). The NIOSH investigator (personal communications S. Wertman, November 17, 2010) indicated that the occupant likely exited through the exterior door in the addition or through the door on Side A. Give rapid development through flashover in the addition, it is likely that the exterior door in the addition or door to the garage was open, pointing to the likelihood that the occupant exited through this door. Subsequent rapid extension to the garage was likely based on design features of the addition and garage or some type of opening between these two compartments. As similar extension did not occur in the house, it is likely that the door and windows in the Side C wall of the house were closed.

In the four minutes between when the incident was reported (20:55 hours) and arrival of a law enforcement unit (20:59), the fire in the addition had progressed from the incipient stage to fully developed fire conditions in both the addition and garage.

Dispatch Information

At 2055 hours on March 30, 2010, dispatch received a call from a resident at 17622 Lincoln Avenue stating that her paralyzed husband’s chair was on fire and that he was on oxygen. The first alarm assignment consisting of two engines, two trucks, a squad, and ambulance, and fire chief was dispatched at 2057.

Table 1. On-Duty and Additional Unit Staffing of First Alarm Resources

Note: This table was developed by integrating data from Death in the Line of Duty Report 2010-10 (NIOSH, 2010).

Weather Conditions

The weather was clear with a temperature of 12^o C (53^o F). Firefighters operating at the incident stated that wind was not a factor.

Conditions on Arrival

A law enforcement officer arrived prior to fire companies and reported that the house was “fully engulfed” and that the subject in the chair was still in the house.

Truck 1220 (T-1220) arrived at 2101, observed that the fire involved a single family dwelling, and received verbal reports from law enforcement and bystanders that the male occupant was still inside. Note: The disabled male occupant’s last known location was in the addition between the house and garage, but it is unknown if this information was clearly communicated to T-1220 or to Command (E-534 Lieutenant).

Engine 534 (E-534) arrived just behind T-1220 and reported heavy fire showing. E-534 had observed flames from Side C during their response and discussed use of a 2-1/2” (64 mm) handline for initial attack.

Firefighting Operations

Based on the report of a trapped occupant, T-1220B (Firefighter and Apparatus Operator) prepared to gain entry and conduct primary search. Note: Based on data in NIOSH Death in the Line of Duty Report 2010-10, it is not clear that this task was assigned by the initial Incident Commander (Engine 534 Lieutenant). It appears that this assignment may have been made by the T-1220 Lieutenant, or performed simply as a default truck company assignment for offensive operations at a residential fire.

Upon arrival, the E-534 Lieutenant assumed Command and transmitted a size-up report indicating heavy fire showing. The Incident Commander(E-534 Lieutenant) assisted the E-534 Firefighter with removal of the 1-3/4” (45 mm) skid load from the solid stream nozzle on the 2-1/2” (64 mm) hose load and stretching the 2-1/2” (64 mm) handline to the door on Side A. The E-534 Apparatus Operator charged the line with water from the apparatus tank and then hand stretched a 5” supply line to the hydrant at the corner of Lincoln Avenue and Hawthorne Road with the assistance of a Firefighter from T-1220.

Figure 4. Initiation of Primary Search

The Incident Commander (E-534 Lieutenant) assisted T-1220B in forcing the door on Side A. T-1220B made entry without a hoseline and began a left hand search as illustrated in Figure 4, noting that the upper layer was banked down to within approximately 3’ (0.9 m) from the floor).

Arriving immediately after E-534, the crew of A-564 donned their personal protective equipment and reported to the Incident Commander at the door on Side A, where he and the E-534 Firefighter were preparing to make entry with the 2-1/2” hoseline. The Incident Commander then assigned A-564 to work with the E-534 Firefighter to support search operations and control the fire.

T-1220 initiated roof operations and began to cut a ventilation opening on Side A near the center of the roof. Note: Based on data in NIOSH Death in the Line of Duty Report 2010-10, it is not clear that this task was assigned by the initial Incident Commander (Engine 534 Lieutenant). It appears that this assignment may have been made by the T-1220 Lieutenant, or performed simply as a default truck company assignment for offensive operations at a residential fire.

As illustrated in Figure 5, a large body of fire can be observed on Side C and a bi-directional air track is evident at the point of entry on Side A with dark gray smoke pushing from the upper level of the doorway at moderate velocity. All windows on Sides A and B were intact, with evidence of soot and/or condensed pyrolizate on the large picture window adjacent to the door on Side A.

Figure 5. Conditions Viewed from the Alpha/Bravo Corner at Approximately

Note: Warren Skalski Photo from NIOSH Death in the Line of Duty Report F2010-10.

The Firefighter from E-534 took the nozzle and assisted by Firefighters Carey and Kopas (A-564) stretched the 2-1/2” (64 mm) handline through the door on Side A and advanced approximately 12’ (3.66 m) into the kitchen. As they advanced the hoseline, they were passed by T-1220B, conducting primary search. The E-534 Firefighter, Firefighter Kopas (A-564), and T-1220B observed thick (optically dense), black smoke had dropped closer to the floor and that the temperature at floor level was increasing.

Figure 6. Primary Search and Fire Control Crews

Questions

Take a few minutes and consider the answers to the following questions. Remember that it is much easier to sort through the information presented by the incident when you are reading a blog post, than when confronted with a developing fire with persons reported!

1. What B-SAHF (Building, Smoke, Air Track, Heat, & Flame) indicators were observed during the initial stages of this incident?
2. What stage(s) of fire and burning regime(s) were present in the building when T-1220 and E-534 arrived? Consider potential differences in conditions in the addition, garage, kitchen, bedrooms, and living room?
3. What would you anticipate as the likely progression of fire development over the next several minutes? Why?
4. How might tactical operations (positively or negatively) influence fire development?

Ed Hartin, MS, EFO, MIFireE, CFO

My last two posts (Hazards Above, Hazards Above: Part 2)examined a series of incidents involving firefighter injuries or near miss incidents involving fires occurring in or extending into void spaces in wood frame, residential structures. Yesterday, two members of the Bridgeport, Connecticut Fire Department lost their lives under similar circumstances.

Bridgeport, CT LODD

At 1553 hours on Saturday, July 24, 2010, the Bridgeport, Connecticut Fire Department was dispatched for a residential fire at 41 Elmwood Avenue. First arriving companies found heavy smoke from Floors 2 and 3 of a 2-1/2 story, wood frame, multi-family dwelling. Lieutenant Steven Velazquez and Firefighter Michael Baik were performing a search of the third floor when they transmitted a Mayday. Lieutenant Velazquez and Firefighter Baik were located on Floor 3 by the Rapid Intervention Team (RIT), but were not breathing and in cardiac arrest when removed from the building. CPR was initiated and they were transported to Bridgeport and St. Vincent’s Hospitals where they were pronounced dead.

More information on this tragic incident will be provided as it becomes available.

FBI and Ventilation Controlled Fires-the UL Experiments

As discussed in Hazards Above: Part 2, obvious smoke and air track indicators of a ventilation controlled fire may become diminished as the fire transitions from growth to decay stage. The decay stage ventilation controlled fire may present similar (but not identical) indicators to an incipient or early growth stage fire.

Underwriters Laboratories (UL) recently conducted a study of the effects of horizontal, natural ventilation on fires in residential structures (see Did You Ever Wonder. The results of this research will be released this fall along with a free on-line training program through UL University. During this research 15 experiments were conducted in two different residential structures. Fuel loading was consistent and the point of origin was a couch in the living room for each of the tests. The variable was the location, size, and sequence of horizontal ventilation. Interestingly, one observation remained remarkably consistent throughout the tests: Diminished smoke and air track indicators as the ventilation controlled fire transitioned from growth to decay stage. This is illustrated by a series of screen captures from video shot from Side A of the one-story structure used in these experiments.

Figure 1. Early Growth Stage

Figure 2. Growth Stage (Peak HRR Prior to Ventilation)

Figure 3. Decay Stage (Reduced HRR)

Figure 4. Conditions Immediately Following Ventilation (HRR Increasing)

Another commonality between each of the experiments was a fairly rapid and significant increase in HRR after ventilation was performed. In no case did ventilation (alone) improve conditions at any location or level inside the test buildings. Horizontal, natural ventilation (tactical or unplanned) with a delay in application of water to the seat of the fire will result in worsening conditions.

Situational Awareness

As illustrated in Figure 3, lack of obvious indicators can be deceptive. The structure used in the UL tests did not have normal window glazing as this would have resulted in less predictability in the exact location and sequence of ventilation. However, in an actual structure fire, observation of smoke conditions through windows, condensation on window glazing (incipient or early growth stage) and condensed pyrolizate (decay stage), and heat effects on window treatments (e.g., curtains, blinds) can provide important cues related to the stage of fire development and burning regime.

It is critical to take a holistic approach to observation of fire behavior indicators, to begin this process from the exterior, and to continue this process while operating on the interior.

Ed Hartin, MS, EFO, MIFIreE, CFO

Finally! It has been quite some time since my last post, but the CFBT-US web site and blog have been attacked twice by hackers WordPress and ISP upgrade issues have been a major challenge and it has taken some time to get things back to normal.

A Big Improvement, But More Work is Needed

The Fire Service in the United States saw a considerable reduction in firefighter line-of-duty deaths in 2009. However, our efforts to improve firefighter safety must persist. Recent events reinforce the need to ensure understanding of practical fire dynamics and have the ability to apply this understanding on the fireground.

Three recent incidents involving extreme fire behavior present an opportunity to examine and reflect on the hazards presented by fires and accumulation of excess pyrolizate and unburned products of combustion in attics and other void spaces.

Minneapolis, MN Residential Fire

At 1130 hours on Saturday, July 3, 2010 Minneapolis firefighters responded to a residential fire at 1082 17th Avenue SE. First arriving companies observed light smoke and flames showing from a two and one-half story wood-frame home. A crew opening up the kneewall on the A/D corner of Floor 3 was trapped on the third floor by rapid fire progress.

Note: Photo by Steve Skar

A department spokesperson indicated that as they opened up the walls “it flashed over on them”. News reports indicated that the blast threw Firefighter Jacob LaFerriere, across the room and that he was able to locate a window, where he exited and dropped to the porch roof, one floor below. Capt. Dennis Mack was able to retreat into the stairwell where he was assisted to the exterior by other crews operating on the fireground (Mathews, 2010; Radomski & Theisen, 2010).

News reports also reported that a witness stated that the “flashover was quite loud and within seconds heavy fire was venting from the attic area” (Mathews, 2010). A later statements by department spokespersons indicated introduction of oxygen when the wall was opened resulted in the flashover (Porter, 2010) and that a burst of flames blew out the south side of the roof (Radomski & Theisen, 2010).

Firefighter Jacob LaFerriere suffered third degree burns on his arms and upper body. Capt. Dennis Mack suffered second degree burns (Radomski & Theisen, 2010) and are as of Sunday, July 4 were in satisfactory condition in the Hennepin County Medical Center Burn Unit.

Harrisonburg, VA Townhouse Fire

On June 24, 2010 Harrisonburg, Virginia firefighters responded to an apartment fire off Chestnut Ridge Drive. First arriving companies encountered a fire in a townhouse style, wood frame apartment. Investigating possible extension into Exposure Bravo, Firefighters Chad Smith and Bradly Clark observed smoke and then flames in the attic. They called for a hoseline, but when the pulled the ceiling, conditions worsened as the room ignited. Both firefighters escaped through a second floor window (head first, onto ladders placed by exterior crews). Four other firefighters were inside Exposure B when the extreme fire behavior occurred. Two received second degree burns, one was treated for heat exhaustion, and the fourth was uninjured (Firehouse.com News, 2010; WHSV, 2020). Department spokespersons indicated that a backdraft occurred when fire gases built up in the attic.

Note: Photo by Allen Litten

Sandwich MA Residential Fire

At around noon on Memorial Day, Sandwich, Massachusetts firefighters responded to a residential fire at 15 Open Trail Road. On arrival they found a 5,000 ft² (464 m²) wood frame single-family dwelling with a fire on Side C (exterior) with extension into the home. Firefighters Daniel Keane and Lee Burrill stretched a handline through the door on Side A, knocking down the fire and extending the line out onto a deck on Side C. Fire was extending through a void containing a metal chimney flue on the exterior of the building. The crew on the hoseline was making good progress until they hit the soffit with a straight stream and an explosion occurred. The force of the blast knocked the crew over the deck railing and caused significant structural damage. Firefighter Keane suffered fractures of his neck and back while Firefighter Burrill experienced a severely fractured ankle (Fraser, 2010; D LeBlanc personal communication June 2010).

Note: Photos by Britt Crosby (http://www.capecodfd.com/)

Questions

One of these fires occurred in an older home of legacy construction, the other two occurred in relatively new buildings. One was a large contemporary home, likely with an open floor plan and large attic/trussloft voids. The other two occurred in buildings with smaller void spaces in the attic/trussloft.

1. What is similar about these incidents and what is different?
2. Based on the limited information currently available, what phenomena do you think occurred in each of the cases? What leads you to this conclusion?
3. What indicators might have pointed to the potential for extreme fire behavior in each of these incidents?
4. How might building construction have influenced fire dynamics and potential for extreme fire behavior in these incidents?
5. What hazards are presented by fires in attics/trusslofts and what tactics may be safe and effective to mitigate those hazards?

Late Breaking Information

Two firefighters and an officer from the Wharton Fire Department were trapped by rapid fire progress in a commercial fire at the Maxim Production Company in Boling, TX on July 3, 2010. The crew had advanced a hoseline into the 35,000 ft² (3252 m²) egg processing plant to cut off fire extension when they encountered rapidly worsening fire conditions. The two firefighters were able to escape, but Captain Thomas Araguz III was trapped and killed (Statter, D., 2010). More information will be provided on this incident as it becomes available.

References

Mathews, P. (2010). Two Minn. ffs burned in flashover. Retrieved July 4, 2010 from http://www.firehouse.com/news/top-headlines/two-minneapolis-firefighters-burned-flashover

Radomski, L & Theisen, S. (2010). Firefighters hospitalized after flashover identified. Retrieved July 4, 2010 from http://kstp.com/news/stories/S1637495.shtml?cat=1

Porter, K. (2010). 2 firefighters burned in Mpls. fire ID’d. Retrieved July 5, 2010 from http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=856556&catid=396

WHSV. (2010) Harrisonburg firefighters talk about their close call. Retrieved July 5, 2010 from http://www.whsv.com/home/headlines/97127924.html

Firehouse.com News. (2010). Harrisonburg, Va. firefighters forced to bail out. Retrieved July 5, 2010 from http://www.firehouse.com/showcase/photostory/harrisburg-va-firefighters-have-bail-out

Fraser, D. (2010). Mass. firefighters thrown more than 30 Ft. by blast. Retrieved July 5, 2010 from http://www.firehouse.com/news/top-headlines/blast-throws-mass-firefighters-more-30-feet

Statter, D. (2010). Update: Captain Thomas Araguz III killed during 4-alarm fire at egg plant in Boling, Texas. http://statter911.com/2010/07/04/firefighter-killed-during-4-alarm-fire-at-egg-plant-details-from-wharton-county-texas/

As a critical friend of the NIOSH Firefighter Fatality Investigation and Prevention Program, I have provided testimony at public hearings and engaged in discussions with NIOSH staff regarding improvement of the quality of information provided in Death in the Line of Duty Reports, particularly in incidents involving extreme fire behavior. In addition, I have provided expert review on a number of Death in the Line of Duty Reports (including F2009-11). The discussion of fire dynamics, fire behavior indicators, and influence of ventilation and wind effects in Report F2009-11 is evidence that this feedback has been heard! I would like to thank Tim Merinar and the other NIOSH staff for their efforts in this area.

However, more work is needed. Just over a year ago, I read a news report about the deaths of Captain James Harlow and Firefighter Damion Hobbs of the Houston Fire Department during operations at a residential fire. I recalled Houston had seen a number of fatalities during structural firefighting over a reasonably short period of time. Curious, I reviewed reports on these incidents developed by NIOSH and the Texas State Fire Marshal�s Office. Seeing some commonality in the circumstances surrounding these incidents, I called a colleague at NIOSH and recommended that the investigation of the incident in which Captain Harlow and Firefighter Hobbs lost their lives, include review of prior incidents (and near miss data if available) to identify underlying causal or contributing factors that may not be evident from examination of a single incident.

While we often want to know the cause of a tragic event, the reality is that it is often much more complicated that we would like. Investigative reports such as those prepared by NIOSH focus a bright light on the what and how, but often leave the question of why hidden in the shadows. Observations and questions in this post are not presented as an indictment of the Houston Fire Department, or to question the commitment and bravery of Captain Harlow and Firefighter Hobbs, but simply to encourage each and every one of us to look more deeply; more deeply at our profession, at our own organizations, and at ourselves.

Epidemiology

Epidemiology is the study of factors affecting the health and illness of populations. Epidemiological research is the foundation of public health intervention and preventative medicine. This research is focused at identifying relationships between exposures and disease or death. Identification of causal relationships between exposures and outcomes is critical. However, correlation does not determine cause, and identification of causality is often complex and tentative.

For the fire service, epidemiological study has and continues to focus on heart disease, stress, and cancer (see USFA, NIOSH Launch Cancer Study). However, these same concepts can be applied to traumatic fatalities as well.

R-Fire 7811 Oak Vista, Houston TX

On April 12, 2009 Captain James Harlow and Firefighter Damion Hobbs lost their lives in a residential fire at 7811 Oak Vista in Houston, Texas. On April 9, 2010, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health released Death in the Line of Duty Report F2009-11 summarizing their investigation of this incident. Overall, this report is well written and provides an excellent examination of the events involved in this incident. The Texas State Fire Marshal�s Office also conducted an investigation of this incident and released a report a short time prior to release of NIOSH Report F2009-11.

• NIOSH Death in the Line of Duty F2009-11
• Texas State Fire Marshal�s Office Firefighter Fatality Investigation FY09-01

Contributing Factors

NIOSH identified eight items as key contributing factors in the deaths of Captain Harlow and Firefighter Hobbs:

• An inadequate size-up prior to committing to tactical operations
• Lack of understanding of fire behavior and fire dynamics
• Fire in a void space burning in a ventilation controlled regime
• High winds
• Uncoordinated tactical operations, in particular fire control and tactical ventilation
• Failure to protect the means of egress with a backup hose line
• Inadequate fireground communications
• Failure to react appropriately to deteriorating conditions.

What is missing from this list? Six of the seven items on this list relate to human action or inaction. The report points out the need for policy, procedures, and additional training to address the contributing factors. While this is undoubtedly necessary, does this provide the entire answer?

The Remaining Question

As with all NIOSH firefighter fatality investigations, the focus of this report is on the circumstances and events surrounding a single incident. In this report, there is a brief mention of investigation of the deaths of other firefighters from this department, but no analysis of commonality or underlying contributing factors is provided. This leaves the question, to what extent did organizational culture impact on the circumstances and events involved in this tragic incident?

In his keynote presentation at the 2010 Fire Department Instructor�s Conference, Lieutenant Frank Ricci of the New Haven (CT) Fire Department indicated that the culture of the fire service is wrongly blamed for many of it�s problems. Lieutenant Ricci indicated that a large percentage of firefighter injuries and deaths are not due to inherent risks, but to an �unwillingness to take personal responsibility for safety� (Thompson, 2010). I would ask, why are firefighters unwilling to take personal responsibility? What factors influence this pattern of behavior? I suspect that it is our unquestioned assumptions about the way that things are (part of our culture). In this sense, culture is not to blame, but is simply one of a number of contributing and causal factors in many firefighter fatalities.

Common Elements

A cursory examination of the facts presented in the reports of NIOSH investigation of traumatic fatalities in the Houston Fire Department since 2000 shows a distinct pattern. Each of the fatalities involved members of the first arriving company where a fast attack was initiated without adequate size up and in most (and likely all) cases failure to assess risk versus gain. A more detailed examination of these events would likely provide a more finely grained picture of organizational expectations that make extremely aggressive fire attack without adequate size-up and risk assessment the norm, rather than the exception.

Table 1. Traumatic Line-of-Duty-Deaths in Houston, Texas 2000-2009

A Comparison

On September 11, 1991, Continental Express Flight 2574 crashed in Eagle Lake Texas killing all 14 people aboard. As with all commercial aircraft accidents, this incident was investigated by the National Transportation Safety Board.� The board identified the cause as failure of maintenance and inspection personnel to adhere to proper maintenance and quality assurance procedures. However, the board also identified failure of management to ensure compliance with approved procedures and failure of Federal Aviation Administration to detect and correct this problem as contributing factors. Board member John K. Lauber, filed a dissenting statement. �It is clear based on this record alone, that the series of failures which led directly to the accident were not the result of an aberration, but rather resulted from the normal accepted way of doing business at Continental Express� (NTSB, 1992, p. 53). Lauber advocated restating the probable cause of this accident as �the failure of Continental Express management to establish a corporate culture which encouraged and enforced adherence to approved maintenance and quality assurance procedures� (NTSB, 1992, p. 54).

It is essential to look at the five events identified in reports F2000-13, F2001-33, F2004-14, F2005-09, and F2009-11 (NIOSH, 2001, 2002, 2005a, 2005b, 2010) from a longitudinal perspective to identify in greater detail and understand the common elements and potential systemic cultural issues that influenced the actions of those involved. While the influence of organizational culture is more difficult to identify than failure to comply with good practice, failure to recognize a hazardous condition, or an error in decision-making, it has a far more pervasive influence on fire fighter safety than these specific, individual acts.

Based on limited research, it is apparent that the Houston Fire Department (like many others) places an extremely high value on rapid and aggressive offensive firefighting operations. While the outcome of this incident resulted from a wide range of interrelated contributing factors, organizational culture and lack of knowledge regarding fire behavior and the influence of tactical operations were likely the most significant.

Identification of organizational culture as a contributing factor in this incident is based on data included in the DRAFT report as well as review of NIOSH Reports F2000-13, F2001-33, F-2004-14, F2005-09, and F2009-11 (NIOSH, 2001, 2002, 2005a, 2005b, 2010) as well as review of the Houston Fire Department Strategic Plan FY2008-2012 (n.d., HFD) and Philosophy of Firefighting (2003, HFD).

A memorandum from the Office of the Fire Chief defining the Houston Fire Department�s philosophy of firefighting (HFD, 2003) after the McDonald�s (NIOSH, 2001) and Four Leaf Tower (NIOSH, 2002) fires reinforced the importance of risk assessment in selecting strategies and tactics. In this memo, the chief identified the importance of organizational culture, stating �we pride ourselves in being very aggressive interior fire fighters and look down on those that fight fire from the street� (p. 1). While this memorandum was written in 2003, lack of adequate size up and risk assessment was a contributing factor in three incidents resulting in four line-of-duty deaths involving Houston Fire Department members in subsequent six years.

The Houston Fire Department Strategic Plan for FY2008-2012 (n.d., HFD) identifies safety as a core organizational value, stating: �preservation of life remains the number one goal of the HFD beginning with the responder and extending to the public� (p. 5). This focus continues with enhancement of the health and safety of HFD members as the first goal within the strategic plan. However, while the strategic plan provides a detailed blueprint for action, no objective or action plan element addresses the predominant contributory factors that are common in the seven line-of-duty deaths of Houston Fire Department members resulting from traumatic cause between 1999 and 2009. For example, Objective 1.5 of the strategic plan focuses on National Fallen Fire fighter Initiative #1 which states �define and advocate the need for cultural change within the fire service relating to safety; incorporating leadership, management, supervision, accountability and personal responsibility (HFD, n.d., p. 8). However, the sub elements of this objective focus on near miss reporting, roadway emergency safety, and response to violent incidents.

In the incident that took the lives of Captain Harlow and Firefighter Hobbs, several elements point to the focus on speed and aggressive action. Despite his seniority and experience, the captain of the first arriving engine quickly initiated an interior attack without adequate size-up and risk assessment (or performed a size-up and failed to recognize critical fire behavior indicators). In addition, he left his portable radio on the apparatus, E-26s thermal imaging camera (TIC) was left outside the front door. Any one of these elements alone might indicate a simple error, but in combination along with the context provided by previous LODD incidents (NIOSH, 2001, 2002, 2005a, 2005b) this is likely evidence of the cultural value of speed and aggressive action over deliberate assessment of conditions and decision-making based on risk assessment.

While increased protection through the use of the reed hood has significant potential benefits (similar technology is used by the Swedish fire service), it is quite possible that this type of personal protective clothing (which is somewhat unique to the Houston Fire Department) is used to permit fire fighters to penetrate deeper into hostile environments, rather than simply to provide improved protection with the ordinary or hazardous range of conditions encountered during structural firefighting.

Recommendation

Based on these factors identified in NIOSH Report F2009-11 (2010) as well Reports F2000-13, F2001-33, F2004-14, F2005-09 (2001, 2002, 2005a, 2005b), I recommend that fire service organizations assess the impact of their organizational culture on fire fighter safety and operational performance.

Note that this recommendation is not simply focused on the Houston Fire Department. It is a global recommendation, that each of us examine the influence of culture within our respective organizations.

Ed Hartin, MS, EFO, MIFireE, CFO

References

Houston Fire Department. (2003) Philosophy of firefighting. Retrieved January 24, from http://www.houstontx.gov/fire/reports/philoff.pdf

Houston Fire Department. (n.d.) Houston Fire Department Strategic Plan FY2008-2012. Retrieved January 24 from http://www.houstontx.gov/fire/reports/SP0811.pdf

National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). Aircraft accident report: Britt Airways, Inc. d/b/a/ Contenental Express Flight 2474 in flight structural breakup, EMB-120RT, N33701, Eagle Lake, Texas, September 11, 1991, NTSB/AAR-92/04. Washington, DC: Author.

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). (2001). Death in the line of duty, Report F2000-13. Retrieved January 24, 2010 from http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/fire/pdfs/face200013.pdf.

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). (2002). Death in the line of duty, Report F2001-33. Retrieved January 24, 2010 from http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/fire/pdfs/face200133.pdf.

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). (2005a). Death in the line of duty, Report F2004-14. Retrieved January 24, 2010 from http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/fire/pdfs/face200414.pdf.

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). (2005b). Death in the line of duty, Report F2005-09. Retrieved January 24, 2010 from http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/fire/pdfs/face200509.pdf.

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). (2010). Death in the line of duty, Report F2009-11. Retrieved April 25, 2010 from http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/fire/pdfs/face200911.pdf

Thompson, J. (2010) FDIC keynote: Fire service culture not to blame for problems. Retrieved May 3, 2010 from http://www.firerescue1.com/firefighter-safety/articles/810852-FDIC-keynote-Fire-service-culture-not-to-blame-for-problems/

This post continues examination of key indicators used to recognize stages of fire development (i.e., incipient, growth, fully developed, and decay), burning regimes (i.e., fuel and ventilation controlled) with a look at indicators of the fully developed stage of fire development. Most buildings are comprised of multiple, interconnected compartments and fire conditions can vary widely from compartment to compartment. Fire in the compartment of origin may have reached the fully developed stage, while adjacent compartments may have just entered the growth stage.

Figure 1. Fully Developed Fire

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Death in the Line of Duty Report F2007-02 (2009) recommends that fire service agencies: �Train fire fighters to recognize the conditions that forewarn of a flashover/flameover [rollover] and communicate fire conditions to the incident commander as soon as possible� (p. 2). Note: flameover and Rollover are synonyms.

Flameover (Rollover): The condition where unburned fuel (pyrolyzate) from the originating fire has accumulated in the ceiling layer to a sufficient concentration (i.e., at or above the lower flammable limit) that it ignites and burns; can occur without ignition of, or prior to, the ignition of other fuels separate from the origin. (NFPA 921, 2008, 3.3.67 and 3.3.137)

Recognition of key fire behavior indicators is critical. However, communication of this information to the incident commander (as it may impact on strategies) alone is not sufficient. Companies working in the fire environment must proactively mitigate this threat through effective fire control and ventilation strategies and tactics.

Flashover

Flashover is the sudden transition from a growth stage to fully developed fire. When flashover occurs, there is a rapid transition to a state of total surface involvement of all combustible material within the compartment. Conditions for flashover are defined in a variety of different ways. In general, ceiling temperature in the compartment must reach 500^o-600^o C (932^o-1112^o F) or the heat flux (a measure of heat transfer) to the floor of the compartment must reach 15-20 kW/m² (1.32 Btu/s/ft²)-1.76 Btu/s/ft²). When flashover occurs, burning gases will push out openings in the compartment (such as a door leading to another room) at a substantial velocity (Karlsson & Quintiere, 2000).

It is important to remember that flashover does not always occur. There must be sufficient fuel and oxygen for the fire to reach flashover. If the initial object that is ignited does not contain sufficient energy (heat of combustion) and does not release it quickly enough (heat release rate), flashover will not occur (e.g., small trash can burning in the middle of a large room). Likewise, if the fire sufficiently depletes the available oxygen, heat release rate will drop and the fire in the compartment will not reach flashover (e.g., small room with sealed windows and the door closed). A fire that fails to reach a sufficient heat release rate for flashover to occur due to limited ventilation presents a significant hazard as increased ventilation may result in a ventilation induced flashover (see Understanding Flashover: Myths & Misconceptions Part 2 and The Ventilation Paradox).

Indicators of Flashover Potential

Recognizing flashover and understanding the mechanisms that cause this extreme fire behavior phenomenon is important. However, the ability to recognize key indicators and predict the probability of flashover is even more important. Indicators of potential or impending flashover are listed in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Indicators of Potential Flashover

If the fire in our residential scenario is nearing flashover (in the compartment of origin) what fire behavior indicators might be observed? Use the B-SAHF model to help you frame your answers.

You have responded to a fire in a one-story single family dwelling of wood frame construction. A fire which started in a bedroom on the Alpha Bravo corner of the structure is nearing flashover. A thick hot gas layer has developed in the bedroom and is flowing out the open door into the hallway. The fire has extended to the bed and flames in the plume have reached the ceiling and have begun to extend horizontally in the ceiling jet. Fuel packages below the level of the hot gas layer (e.g., furniture, carpet, and contents) are beginning to pyrolize.

• What conditions would you expect to see from the exterior of the structure?
• What indicators may be visible from the front door as you make entry?

Remember that fire conditions will vary throughout the building. While the fire is in the growth stage and nearing flashover in the bedroom, conditions may be different in other compartments within the building.

• What indicators would you anticipate observing as you traveled through the living room to the hallway leading to the bedroom?
• What conditions would you find in the hallway outside the fire compartment?
• After making entry, consider if conditions are different than you anticipated?
• Why might this be the case?
• What differences in conditions would be cause for concern?
• How might your answers to the preceding questions have differed if the bedroom door was closed and fire growth limited by ventilation?

Fully Developed Fire

At this post-flashover stage, energy release is at its greatest, but is generally limited by ventilation (more on this in a bit). Unburned gases accumulate at the ceiling level and frequently burn as they leave the compartment, resulting in flames showing from doors or windows. The average gas temperature within a compartment during a fully developed fire ranges from 700^o-1200^o C (1292^o-2192^o F)

Remember that the compartment where the fire started may reach the fully developed stage while other compartments have not yet become involved. Hot gases and flames extending from the involved compartment transfer heat to other fuel packages (e.g., contents, compartment linings, and structural materials) resulting in fire spread. Conditions can vary widely with a fully developed fire in one compartment, a growth stage fire in another, and an incipient fire in yet another. It is important to note that while a fire in an adjacent compartment may be incipient, conditions within the structure are immediately dangerous to life and health (IDLH).

Indicators of a Fully Developed Fire

Remember that a fully developed fire refers to conditions within a given compartment or compartments. It does not necessarily mean that the entire building is fully involved. Figure 3 lists indicators of fully developed fire conditions.

Figure 3. FBI-Fully Developed Stage

If the fire in our residential scenario has progressed to the fully developed stage (in the compartment of origin) what fire behavior indicators might be observed? Use the B-SAHF model to help you frame your answers.

You have responded to a fire in a one-story single family dwelling of wood frame construction. A fire which started in a bedroom on the Alpha Bravo corner of the structure has reached the fully developed stage and now involves the contents of the room and interior finish of this compartment.

• What conditions would you expect to see from the exterior of the structure?
• What indicators may be visible from the front door as you make entry?

Remember that fire conditions will vary throughout the building. While the fire is fully developed in the bedroom, conditions may be different in other compartments within the building.

• What indicators would you anticipate observing as you traveled through the living room to the hallway leading to the bedroom?
• What conditions would you find in the hallway outside the fire compartment?
• After making entry, consider if conditions are different than you anticipated?
• Why might this be the case?
• What differences in conditions would be cause for concern?

Ventilation Controlled Fires

When the fire is burning in a ventilation controlled state, any increase in the supply of oxygen to the fire will result in an increase in heat release rate. Increase in ventilation may result from firefighters making entry into the building (the access point is a ventilation opening), tactical ventilation (performed by firefighters), or unplanned ventilation (e.g., failure of window glazing due to elevated temperature).

It is essential to recognize when the fire is, or may be ventilation controlled, and the influence of planned and unplanned changes in ventilation profile on fire behavior. Most compartment fires in the late growth stage or which are fully developed are ventilation controlled when the fire department arrives. Even if the fire has not entered the decay stage due to limited ventilation, the increased oxygen provided by increases in ventilation (such as that caused by opening the door to make entry) will increase heat release rate. This is not to say that increased ventilation is a bad thing, but firefighters should be prepared to deal with this change in fire behavior.

Remember the Past

Line of duty deaths involving extreme fire behavior has a significant impact on the family of the firefighter or firefighters involved as well as their department. Department investigative reports and NIOSH Death in the Line of Duty reports point out lessons learned from these tragic events. However, as time passes, these events fade from the memory of those not intimately connected with the individuals involved. It is important that we remember the lessons of the past as we continue our study of fire behavior and work to improve firefighter safety and effectiveness on the fireground.

October 29, 2008
Firefighter Adam Cody Renfroe
Crossville Fire Department, Alabama

The Crossville Fire Department was dispatched to a fire in a single-family residence. was on the first engine to arrive on the scene to find thick, black smoke from the roof and a report that all occupants were out of the house.

Firefighter Renfroe and another firefighter advanced a hoseline to the front door of the residence. He sent the other firefighter back to the fire truck for a tool. When the firefighter returned, Firefighter Renfroe was gone and the nozzle remained by the doorway. At about the same time, the fire inside of the structure intensified. Firefighter Renfroe transmitted a distress message from the interior. Firefighters were not immediately able to enter the structure due to fire conditions.

Firefighters discovered Firefighter Renfroe about 4 feet from the home�s back door, but By the time firefighters reached him, he was deceased. The cause of death was smoke inhalation and thermal burns.

For more information on this incident, see NIOSH Death in the Line of Duty Report F2008-34.

Ed Hartin, MS, EFO, MIFireE, CFO

References

Karlson, B. & Quintiere, J. (2000) Enclosure fire dynamics. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). (2009). Death in the Line of Duty Report F2007-02. Retrieved October 22, 2009 from http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/fire/pdfs/face200702.pdf .

Open Enrollment CFBT Level I & Instructor Courses

CFBT-US, LLC and the Northwest Association of Fire Trainers (NAFT) will be offering CFBT Level I and Instructor Courses at the Clackamas County (OR) Fire District I CFBT facility.

CFBT Level I
7-9 November 2009
Course Fee: $335

CFBT Instructor
9-13 November 2009
Course Fee: $915

Instructor course participants receive a copy of 3D Firefighting: Training, Techniques, & Tactics and an extensive 2-DVD library of CFBT resources including the CFBT Level I curriculum. For information on these courses download a NAFT CFBT Brochure and the CFBT Level I and CFBT Instructor Course Information Sheets.

CFBT Workshop in Sand�, Sweden

From 12-16 October 2009, I will be participating in a CFBT workshop in Sand�, Sweden along with a small group of instructors from around the world. We will be studying the compartment fire behavior curriculum at the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency (Myndigheten f�r samh�llsskydd och beredskap (MSB)) College in Sand�.

Figure 1. Fire Behavior Training in Sand�

In January of 2009 MSB replaced the Swedish Rescue Services Agency, the Swedish Emergency Management Agency, and the Swedish National Board of Psychological Defense. The MSB maintains two fire service colleges, one in Sand� (see Figure 2) and the other in Revinge.

Figure 2. MSB College in Sand�

The International Conference of Fire and Rescue, Valdivia – Chile 2010 CIFR

My brothers with Company 1 �Germania� of the Valdivia, Chile Fire Department have taken on a tremendous task with delivery of the first International Conference of Fire & Rescue in Valdivia. The conference will be held 23-27 January 2010.

Conference presenters include a diverse cadre of instructors from around the world. I will be presenting a series of seminars on fire behavior as well as a hands-on CFBT workshop. Presentations will be simultaneously translated into English and Spanish (as applicable). Have a look at the Conference Web Site for more information on this tremendous learning opportunity.

NIOSH Death in the Line of Duty F2007-02

On November 23, 2006, Firefighter Steven Solomon, a 33-year-old career fire fighter was seriously injured during a ventilation induced flashover or related fire behavior event in an abandoned single story duplex in Atlanta, GA; he died as a result of these injuries 6 days later.

NOSH Report F2007-02 provides an excellent description of fire behavior indicators observed prior to the occurrence of extreme fire behavior and correctly identifies that increased ventilation without coordinated fire attack resulted in worsening fire conditions.

Several conclusions in the report were based on computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling using the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Fire Dynamics Simulator software. As discussed in a previous post computer modeling is an excellent tool, but it is important to understand both its capabilities and limitations (see Townhouse Fire-Washington, DC: Computer Modeling)

It is crucial to bear in mind that fire models do not provide a reconstruction of the reality of an event. They are simplified representation of reality that will always suffer from a certain lack of accuracy and precision. Under the condition that the user is fully aware of this status and has an extensive knowledge of the principles of the models, their functioning, their limitations and the significance attributed to their results, fire modeling becomes a very powerful tool (Dele�mont & Martin, J., 2007, p. 134).

Review NIOSH Report F2007-02 and see if you agree or disagree with the conclusions regarding the type of extreme fire behavior phenomena involved in this incident.

Ed Hartin, MS, EFO, MIFireE, CFO

This post continues study of an incident in a townhouse style apartment building in Washington, DC with examination of the extreme fire behavior that took the lives of Firefighters Anthony Phillips and Louis Mathews. As discussed in Townhouse Fire: Washington, DC-Computer Modeling Part I, this was one of the first cases where the NIST Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS) software was used in forensic fire scene reconstruction (Madrzykowski and Vettori, 2000).

Quick Review

As discussed in prior posts, crews working on Floor 1 to locate the fire and secure the door to the stairwell were trapped and burned as a result of rapid progression of a fire in the basement up the open interior stairway after an exterior sliding glass door was opened to provide access to the basement. For detailed examination of incident operations and fire behavior, see:

• Fire Behavior Case Study Townhouse Fire: Washington, DC
• Townhouse Fire: Washington DC-What Happened
• Townhouse Fire: Washington DC-Extreme Fire Behavior
• Townhouse Fire: Washington DC-Computer Modeling

Figure 1. Conditions at Approximately 00:28

Note: From Report from the Reconstruction Committee: Fire at 3146 Cherry Road NE, Washington DC, May 30, 1999, p. 29 & 32. District of Columbia Fire & EMS, 2000.

Smokeview

Smokeview is a visualization program used to provide a graphical display of a FDS model simulation in the form of an animation or snapshot. Snapshots illustrate conditions in a specific plane or slice within the building. Three vertical slices are important to understanding the fire dynamics involved in the Cherry Road incident: 1) midline of the door on Floor 1, Side A, 2) midline of the Basement Door, Side C, and midline of the Basement Stairwell (see Figure 2). Imagine that the building is cut open along the slice and that you can observe the temperature, oxygen concentration, or velocity of gas movement within that plane.

Figure 2. Perspective View of 3146 Cherry Road and Location of Slices

Note: From Simulation of the Dynamics of the Fire at 3146 Cherry Road NE Washington D.C., May 30, 1999, NISTR 6510 (p. 15) by Dan Madrzykowski and Robert Vettori, 2000, Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute for Standards and Technology.

In addition to having an influence on heat release rate, the location and configuration of exhaust and inlet openings determines air track (movement of smoke and air) and the path of fire spread. In this incident, the patio door providing access to the basement at the rear acted as an inlet, providing additional air to the fire. The front door and windows on the first floor opened for ventilation served as exhaust openings and provided a path for fire travel when the conditions in the basement rapidly transitioned to a fully developed fire.

Figures 3-10 illustrate conditions at 200 seconds into the simulation, which relates to approximately 00:27 during the incident, the time at which the fire in the basement transitioned to a fully developed stage and rapidly extended up the basement stairway to Floor 1. Data is presented as a snapshot within a specific slice. Temperature and velocity data are provide for each slice (S1, S2, & S3 as illustrated in Figure 2).

Figure 3. Temperature Along Centerline of Basement Door Side C (S1) at 200 s

Note: From Simulation of the Dynamics of the Fire at 3146 Cherry Road NE Washington D.C., May 30, 1999, NISTR 6510 (p. 17) by Dan Madrzykowski and Robert Vettori, 2000, Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute for Standards and Technology.

Figure 4. Vector Representation of Velocity Along Centerline of Basement Door Side C (S1) at 200 s

Note: From Simulation of the Dynamics of the Fire at 3146 Cherry Road NE Washington D.C., May 30, 1999, NISTR 6510 (p. 18) by Dan Madrzykowski and Robert Vettori, 2000, Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute for Standards and Technology.

Figure 5. Oxygen Concentration Along Centerline of Basement Door Side C (S1) at 200 s

Note: From Simulation of the Dynamics of the Fire at 3146 Cherry Road NE Washington D.C., May 30, 1999, NISTR 6510 (p. 23) by Dan Madrzykowski and Robert Vettori, 2000, Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute for Standards and Technology.

Figure 6. Temperature Slice Along Centerline of Basement Stairwell (S2) at 200 s

Note: From Simulation of the Dynamics of the Fire at 3146 Cherry Road NE Washington D.C., May 30, 1999, NISTR 6510 (p. 21) by Dan Madrzykowski and Robert Vettori, 2000, Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute for Standards and Technology.

Figure 7. Vector Representation of Velocity Along Centerline of Basement Stairwell (S2) at 200 s

Note: From Simulation of the Dynamics of the Fire at 3146 Cherry Road NE Washington D.C., May 30, 1999, NISTR 6510 (p. 22) by Dan Madrzykowski and Robert Vettori, 2000, Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute for Standards and Technology.

Figure 8. Oxygen Concentration Along Centerline of Basement Stairwell (S2) at 200 s

Note: From Simulation of the Dynamics of the Fire at 3146 Cherry Road NE Washington D.C., May 30, 1999, NISTR 6510 (p. 24) by Dan Madrzykowski and Robert Vettori, 2000, Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute for Standards and Technology.

Figure 9. Temperature Slice Along Centerline of Floor 1 Door Side A (S3) at 200 s

Note: From Simulation of the Dynamics of the Fire at 3146 Cherry Road NE Washington D.C., May 30, 1999, NISTR 6510 (p. 19) by Dan Madrzykowski and Robert Vettori, 2000, Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute for Standards and Technology.

Figure 10. Vector Representation of Velocity Along Centerline of Floor 1 Door Side A (S3) at 200 s

Note: From Simulation of the Dynamics of the Fire at 3146 Cherry Road NE Washington D.C., May 30, 1999, NISTR 6510 (p. 20) by Dan Madrzykowski and Robert Vettori, 2000, Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute for Standards and Technology.

Figure 11. Perspective Cutaway, Flow/Temperature, Velocity, and O₂ Concentration

Figure 12. Thermal Exposure Limits in the Firefighting Environment

Note: Adapted from Measurements of the firefighting environment. Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council Research Report 61/1994 by J.A. Foster & G.V. Roberts, 1995. London: Department for Communities and Local Government and Thermal Environment for Electronic Equipment Used by First Responders by M.K. Donnelly, W.D. Davis, J.R. Lawson, & M.J. Selepak, 2006, Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology.

Compartment Fire Thermal Hazards

The temperature of the atmosphere (i.e., smoke and air) is a significant concern in the fire environment, and firefighters often wonder or speculate about how hot it was in a particular fire situation. However, gas temperature in the fire environment is a bit more complex than it might appear on the surface and is only part of the thermal hazard presented by compartment fire.

Tissue temperature and depth of penetration determine the severity of a thermal burn. Temperature and penetration are dependent on the amount of energy absorbed and the duration of the thermal insult as well as the properties of human tissue. In a compartment fire, firefighters absorb energy from any substance that has a temperature above 37^o C (98.6^o F), including hot compartment linings, contents, the hot gas layer, and flames. The dominant mechanisms of heat transfer involved in this process are convection and radiation (although conduction through personal protective equipment is also a factor to be considered).

The total thermal energy received is described in joules per unit area. However, the speed or rate of energy is transferred may be more important when assessing thermal hazard. Heat (thermal) flux is used to define the rate of heat transfer and is expressed in kW/m² (Btu/hr/ft²).

One way to understand the interrelated influence of radiant and convective heat transfer is to consider the following scenario. Imagine that you are standing outside in the shade on a hot, sunny day when the temperature is 38^o C (100^o F). As the ambient temperature is higher than that of your body, energy will be transferred to you from the air. If you move out of the shade, your body will receive additional energy as a result of radiant heat transfer from the sun.

Convective heat transfer is influenced by gas temperature and velocity. When hot gases are not moving or the flow of gases across a surface (such as your body or personal protective equipment) is slow, energy is transferred from the gases to the surface (lowering the temperature of the gases, while raising surface temperature). These lower temperature gases act as an insulating layer, slowing heat transfer from higher temperature gases further away from the surface. When velocity increases, cooler gases (which have already transferred energy to the surface) move away and are replaced by higher temperature gases. When velocity increases sufficiently to result in turbulent flow, hot gases remain in contact with the surface on a relatively constant basis, increasing convective heat flux.

Radiant heat transfer is influenced by proximity and temperature of the radiating body. Radiation increases by a factor of four when distance to the hot material is reduced by half. In addition, radiation increases exponentially (as a function of the fourth power) as absolute temperature increases.

Thermal hazard may be classified based on hot gas temperature and radiant heat flux (Foster & Roberts, 1995; Donnelly, Davis, Lawson, & Selpak, 2006) with temperatures above 260^o C (500^o F) and/or radiant heat flux of 10 kW/m² (3172 Btu/hr/ft²) being immediately life threatening to a firefighter wearing a structural firefighting ensemble (including breathing apparatus). National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) experiments in a single compartment show post flashover gas temperatures in excess of 1000^o C (1832^o F) and heat flux at the floor may exceed 170 kW/m² (Donnelly, Davis, Lawson, & Selpak, 2006). Post flashover conditions in larger buildings with more substantial fuel load may be more severe!

Figure 11 integrates temperature, velocity, and oxygen concentration data from the simulation (Figures 3-10). Detail and accuracy is sacrificed to some extent in order to provide a (somewhat) simpler view of conditions at 200 seconds into the simulation (approximately 00:27 incident time). Note that as in individual slices, data is presented as a range due to uncertainty in the computer model.

Alternative Model

In addition to modeling fire dynamics based on incident conditions and tactical operations as they occurred, NIST also modeled the incident with a slightly different ventilation profile.

The basic input for the alternate simulation was the same as the simulation of actual incident conditions. Ventilation openings and timing was the same, with one exception; the sliding glass door on Floor 1, Side C was opened at 120 s into the simulation. Conditions in the basement during the alternative simulation were similar to the first. However, on Floor 1, the increase in ventilation provided by the sliding glass door on Side C resulted in a shallower hot gas layer and cooler conditions at floor level. A side-by-side comparison of the temperature gradients in these two simulations is provided in Figure 13.

Figure 13. Comparison of Temperature Gradients Along Centerline of Basement Stairwell (S2) at 200 s

Note: Adapted from Simulation of the Dynamics of the Fire at 3146 Cherry Road NE Washington D.C., May 30, 1999, NISTR 6510 (p. 21 & 27) by Dan Madrzykowski and Robert Vettori, 2000, Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute for Standards and Technology.

The NIST Report (Madrzykowski & Vettori, 2000) identified that the significant difference between these two simulations is in the region close to the floor. In the alternative simulation (Floor 1, Side C Sliding Glass Door Open) between the doorway to the basement and the sofa, the temperatures from approximately 0.6 m (2 ft) above the floor, to floor level are in the range of 20 �C to 100 �C (68�F to 212 �F), providing at least an 80 �C (176 �F) temperature reduction.

While this is a considerable reduction in gas temperature, it is essential to also consider radiant heat flux from the hot gas layer. Given the temperature of the hot gases from the ceiling level to a depth of approximately 3′ (0.9 m), the heat flux at the floor would likely have been in the range of 15-20 kW/m² (or greater).

Questions

1. Temperatures vary widely at a given elevation above the floor. Consider the slices illustrated in Figures 3, 6, and 9, and identify factors that may have influenced these major differences in temperature.
2. How might the variations in temperature illustrated in Figures 3, 6, and9 and location of Firefighters Phillips (basement doorway), Mathews (living room, C/D corner), and Morgan (between Phillips & Mathews) have influenced their injuries?
3. Examine the velocity of gas movement illustrated in Figures 4, 7, and 10 and integrated illustration conditions in Figure 11. How does this correlate to the photos in Figure 1 illustrating incident conditions at approximately 00:28?
4. Explain how the size and configuration of ventilation openings resulted in a bi-directional air track at the basement door on Side C.
5. How did the velocity of hot gases in the stairwell and living room influence the thermal insult to Firefighters Phillips, Mathews, and Morgan? What factors caused the high velocity flow of gases from the basement stairwell doorway into the living room?
6. Rescue 1B noted that the floor in the living room was soft while conducting primary search at approximately 00:30. Why didn’t the parallel chord trusses in the basement fail sooner? Is there a potential relationship between fire behavior and performance of the engineered floor support system in this incident?
7. How might stability of the engineered floor support system have differed if the sliding glass door in the basement had failed prior to the fire departments arrival? Why?
8. How might the double pane glazing on the windows and sliding glass doors have influenced fire development in the basement? How might fire development differed if these building openings had been fitted with single pane glazing?
9. What was the likely influence of turbulence in the flow of hot gases and cooler air on combustion in the basement? What factors influenced this turbulence (examine Figures 4, 7, and 10) illustrating velocity of flow and floor plan illustrated in conjunction with the second question)?
10. How did conditions in the area in which Firefighters Phillips, Mathews, and Morgan were located correlate to the thermal exposure limits defined in Figure 12? How did this change in the alternate scenario? Remember to consider both temperature and heat flux.

Extended Learning Activity

The Cherry Road case study provides an excellent opportunity to develop an understanding of the influence of building factors, burning regime, ventilation, and tactical operations on fire behavior. These lessons can be extended by comparing and contrasting this case with other cases such as the 1999 residential fire in Keokuk, Iowa that took the lives Assistant Chief Dave McNally, Firefighter Jason Bitting, and Firefighter Nathan Tuck along with three young children. For information on this incident see NIOSH Death in the Line of Duty Report F2000-4, NIST report Simulation of the Dynamics of a Fire in a Two Story Duplex, NIST IR 6923.and video animation of Smokeview output from modeling of this incident

Ed Hartin, MS, EFO, MIFireE, CFO

References

District of Columbia (DC) Fire & EMS. (2000). Report from the reconstruction committee: Fire at 3146 Cherry Road NE, Washington DC, May 30, 1999. Washington, DC: Author.

Madrzykowski, D. & Vettori, R. (2000). Simulation of the Dynamics of the Fire at 3146 Cherry Road NE Washington D.C., May 30, 1999, NISTR 6510. August 31, 2009 from http://fire.nist.gov/CDPUBS/NISTIR_6510/6510c.pdf

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). (1999). Death in the line of duty, Report 99-21. Retrieved August 31, 2009 from http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/fire/reports/face9921.html

This post continues study of an incident in a townhouse style apartment building in Washington, DC with examination of the extreme fire behavior that took the lives of Firefighters Anthony Phillips and Louis Mathews.

A Quick Review

Prior posts in this series, Fire Behavior Case Study of a Townhouse Fire: Washington, DC, Townhouse Fire: Washington, DC-What Happened,and Townhouse Fire: Washington, DC-Extreme Fire Behavior examined the building and initial tactical operations at this incident. The fire occurred in the basement of a two-story, middle of building, townhouse apartment with a daylight basement. This configuration provided at grade entrances to Floor 1 on Side A and the Basement on Side C.

Engine 26, the first arriving unit reported heavy smoke showing from Side A and observed a bi-directional air track at the open front door. Engines 26 and 10 operating from Side A deployed hoselines into the first floor to locate the fire. Engine 17, the second due engine, was stretching a hoseline to Side C, but had insufficient hose and needed to extend their line. Truck 4, the second due truck, operating from Side C opened a sliding glass door to the basement to conduct search and access the upper floors (prior to Engine 17’s line being in position). When the door on Side C was opened, Truck 4 observed a strong inward air track. As Engine 17 reached Side C (shortly after Rescue 1 and a member of Truck 4 entered the basement) and asked for their line to be charged. Engine 17 advised Command that the fire was small.

Conditions changed quickly after the door on Side C was opened, as conditions in the basement rapidly transitioned to a fully developed fire with hot gases and flames extending up the interior stairway trapping Firefighters Phillips, Mathews, and Morgan. Confusion about building configuration (particularly the number of floors and location of entry points on Side A and C) delayed fire attack due to concern for opposing hoselines.

Modeling of the Cherry Road Incident

National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) performed a computer model of fire dynamics in the fire at 3146 Cherry Road (Madrzykowski and Vettori, 2000) using the NIST Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS) software. This is one of the first cases where FDS was used in forensic fire scene reconstruction.

Fire Modeling

Fire modeling is a useful tool in research, engineering, fire investigation, and learning about fire dynamics. However, effective use of this tool and the information it provides requires understanding of its capabilities and limitations.

Models, such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS) relay on computational fluid dynamics (CFD). CFD models define the fire environment by dividing it into small, rectangular cells. The model simultaneously solves mathematical equations for combustion, heat transfer, and mass transport within and between cells. When used with a graphical interface such as NIST Smokeview, output can be displayed in a three-dimensional (3D) visual format.

Models must be validated to determine how closely they match reality. In large part this requires comparison of model output to full scale fire tests under controlled conditions. When used for forensic fire scene reconstruction, it may not be feasible to recreate the fire to test the model. In these situations, model output is compared to physical evidence and interview data to determine how closely key aspects of model output matched events as they occurred. If model output reasonably matches events as they occurred, it is likely to be useful in understanding the fire dynamics involved in the incident.

It is crucial to bear in mind that fire models do not provide a reconstruction of the reality of an event. They are simplified representation of reality that will always suffer from a certain lack of accuracy and precision. Under the condition that the user is fully aware of this status and has an extensive knowledge of the principles of the models, their functioning, their limitations and the significance attributed to their results, fire modeling becomes a very powerful tool (Dele�mont & Martin, J., 2007, p. 134).

FDS output included data on heat release rate, temperature, oxygen concentration, and velocity of gas (smoke and air) movement within the townhouse. As indicated above, model output is an approximation of actual incident conditions.

In large scale fire tests (McGrattan, Hamins, & Stroup, 1998, as cited in Madrzykowski and Vettori, 2000), FDS temperature predictions were found to be within 15% of the measured temperatures and FDS heat release rates were predicted to within 20% of the measured values. For relatively simple fire driven flows such as buoyant plumes and flows through doorways, FDS predictions are within experimental uncertancies (McGrattan, Baum, & Rehm, 1998, as cited in Madrzykowski and Vettori, 2000).

Results presented in the NIST report on the fire at 3146 Cherry Road were presented as ranges to account for potential variation between model output and actual incident conditions.

Heat release rate is dependent on the characteristics and configuration of the fuel packages involved and available oxygen. In a compartment fire, available oxygen is dependent on the ventilation profile (i.e., size and location of compartment openings). The ventilation profile can change over time due to the effects of the fire (e.g., failure of window glazing) as well as human action (i.e., doors left open by exiting occupants, tactical ventilation, and tactical anti-ventilation)

In this incident there were a number of changes to the ventilation profile. Most significant of which were, 1) the occupant opened the second floor windows on Side C (see Figure 3), 2) the occupant left the front door open as they exited (see Figures 1 &2 ), 3) tactical ventilation of the first floor window on Side A, and opening of the sliding glass door in the basement on Side C (see Figures 1-3). In addition, the open door in the basement stairwell and open stairwell between the Floors 1 and 2 also influenced the ventilation profile (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Cross Section of 3146 Cherry Road NE

Figure 2. Side A 3146 Cherry Road NE

Figure 3. Side C 3146 Cherry Road NE

Figure 4 illustrates the timing of changes to the ventilation profile and resulting influence on heat release rate in modeling this incident. A small fire with a specific heat release rate (HRR) was used to start fire growth in the FDS simulation. In the actual incident it may have taken hours for the fire to develop flaming combustion and progression into the growth stage. Direct comparison between the simulation and incident conditions began at 100 seconds into the simulation which corresponds to approximately 00:25 during the incident.

Figure 4. FDS Heat Release Rate Curve

Note: Adapted from Simulation of the Dynamics of the Fire at 3146 Cherry Road NE Washington D.C., May 30, 1999, NISTR 6510 (p. 14) by Dan Madrzykowski and Robert Vettori, 2000, Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute for Standards and Technology.

Questions

The following questions are based on heat release rate data from the FDS model presented in Figure 4.

1. What was the relationship between changes in ventilation profile and heat release rate?
2. What would explain the rapid increase in heat release rate after the right side of the basement sliding glass door is opened?
3. Why might the heat release rate have dropped slightly prior to opening of the left side of the basement sliding glass door?
4. Why did the heat release rate again increase rapidly to in excess of 10 MW after the left side of the basement sliding glass door was opened?
5. How does data from the FDS model correlate to the narrative description of events presented in prior posts about this incident (Fire Behavior Case Study of a Townhouse Fire: Washington, DC, Townhouse Fire: Washington, DC-What Happened,and Townhouse Fire: Washington, DC-Extreme Fire Behavior)?

More to Follow

In addition to heat release rate data the computer modeling of this incident provided data on temperature, oxygen concentration, and gas velocity. Visual presentation of this data provides a more detailed look at potential conditions inside the townhouse during the fire. The next post in this series will present and examine graphic output from Smokeview to aid in understanding the fire dynamics and thermal environment encountered during this incident.

Ed Hartin, MS, EFO, MIFireE, CFO

References

District of Columbia (DC) Fire & EMS. (2000). Report from the reconstruction committee: Fire at 3146 Cherry Road NE, Washington DC, May 30, 1999. Washington, DC: Author.

Madrzykowski, D. & Vettori, R. (2000). Simulation of the Dynamics of the Fire at 3146 Cherry Road NE Washington D.C., May 30, 1999, NISTR 6510. August 31, 2009 from http://fire.nist.gov/CDPUBS/NISTIR_6510/6510c.pdf

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). (1999). Death in the line of duty, Report 99-21. Retrieved August 31, 2009 from http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/fire/reports/face9921.html

This post continues study of an incident in a townhouse style apartment building in Washington, DC with examination of the extreme fire behavior that took the lives of Firefighters Anthony Phillips and Louis Mathews.

A Quick Review

Prior posts in this series, Fire Behavior Case Study of a Townhouse Fire: Washington, DC and Townhouse Fire: Washington, DC-What Happened examined the building and initial tactical operations at this incident. The fire occurred in the basement of a two-story, middle of building, townhouse style apartment with a daylight basement. This configuration provided an at grade entrance to the Floor 1 on Side A and at grade entrance to the Basement on Side C.

Engine 26, the first arriving unit reported heavy smoke showing from Side A and observed a bi-directional air track at the open front door. First alarm companies operating on Side A deployed hoselines into the first floor to locate the fire. Engine 17, the second due engine, was stretching a hoseline to Side C, but had insufficient hose and needed to extend their line. Truck 4, the second due truck, operating from Side C opened a sliding glass door to the basement to conduct search and access the upper floors (prior to Engine 17’s line being in position). When the door on Side C was opened, Truck 4 observed a strong inward air track. As Engine 17 reached Side C (shortly after Rescue 1 and a member of Truck 4 entered the basement) and asked for their line to be charged, and Engine 17 advised Command that the fire was small.

Extreme Fire Behavior

Proceeding from their entry point on Side C towards the stairway to Floor 1 on Side A, Rescue 1B and the firefighter from Truck 4 observed fire burning in the middle of the basement room. Nearing the stairs, temperature increased significantly and they observed fire gases in the upper layer igniting. Rescue 1B and the firefighter from Truck 4 escaped through the basement doorway on Side C as the basement rapidly transitioned to a fully developed fire.

Figure 1. Timeline Leading Up to the Extreme Fire Behavior Event

The timeline illustrated in Figure 1 is abbreviated and focuses on a limited number of factors. A detailed timeline, inclusive of tactical operations, fire behavior indicators, and fire behavior is provided in a subsequent section of the case.

After Engine 17’s line was charged, the Engine 17 officer asked Command for permission to initiate fire attack from Side C. Command denied this request due to lack of contact with Engines 26 and 10 and concern regarding opposing hoselines. Due to their path of travel around Side B of the building, Engine 17 had not had a clear view of Side A and thought that they were at a doorway leading to Floor 1 (rather than the Basement). At this point, neither the companies on Side C nor Command recognized that the building had three levels on Side C and two levels on Side A.

At this point crews from Engine 26 and 10 are operating on Floor 1 and conditions begin to deteriorate. Firefighter Morgan (Engine 26) observed flames at the basement door in the living room (see Figure 8 which illustrates fire conditions in the basement as seen from Side C). Firefighter Phillips (Engine 10) knocked down visible flames at the doorway, but conditions continued to deteriorate. Temperature increased rapidly while visibility dropped to zero.

As conditions deteriorated, Engine 26’s officer feels his face burning and quickly exits (without notifying his crew). In his rapid exit through the hallway on Floor 1, he knocked the officer from Engine 10 over. Confused about what was happening Engine 10’s officer exited the building as well (also without notifying his crew). Engine 26’s officer reports to Command that Firefighter Mathews was missing, but did not report that Firefighter Morgan was also missing. Appearing dazed, Engine 10’s officer did not report that Firefighter Phillips was missing.

Figure 2. Conditions on Side C at Aproximately 00:28

Note: From Report from the Reconstruction Committee: Fire at 3146 Cherry Road NE, Washington DC, May 30, 1999, p. 32. District of Columbia Fire & EMS, 2000.

Figure 3. Conditions on Side A at Aproximately 00:28

Note: From Report from the Reconstruction Committee: Fire at 3146 Cherry Road NE, Washington DC, May 30, 1999, p. 29. District of Columbia Fire & EMS, 2000.

Firefighter Rescue Operations

After the exit of the officers from Engine 26 and Engine 10, the three firefighters (Mathews, Phillips, and Morgan) remained on Floor 1. However, neither Command (Battalion 1) nor a majority of the other personnel operating at the incident recognized that the firefighters from Engines 26 and 10 had been trapped by the rapid extension of fire from the Basement to Floor 1 (see Figure 4).

While at their apparatus getting a ladder to access the roof from Side B, Truck 4B observed the rapid fire development in the basement and pulled a 350′ 1-1/2″ (107 m 38 mm) line from Engine 12 to Side C, backing up Engine 17.

Figure 4. Location of Firefighters on Floor 1

Note: Adapted from Report from the Reconstruction Committee: Fire at 3146 Cherry Road NE, Washington DC, May 30, 1999, p. 18 & 20. District of Columbia Fire & EMS, 2000 and Simulation of the Dynamics of the Fire at 3146 Cherry Road NE, Washington D.C., May 30, 1999, p. 12-13, by Daniel Madrzykowski & Robert Vettori, 2000. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology.

Engine 17 again contacted Command (Battalion 1) and requested permission to initiate an exterior attack from Side C. However, the officer of Engine 17 mistakenly advised Command that there was no basement entrance and that his crew was in position to attack the fire on Floor 1. Unable to contact Engines 10 and 26, Command denied this request due to concern for opposing hoselines. With conditions worsening, Command (Battalion 1) requested a Task Force Alarm at 00:29, adding another two engine companies, truck company, and battalion chief to the incident.

Firefighter Phillips (E-10) attempted to retreat from his untenable position at the open basement door. He was only able to travel a short distance before he collapsed. Firefighter Morgan (E-26) heard a loud scream to his left and then a thud as if someone had fallen to the floor (possibly Firefighter Mathews (E-26)). Firefighter Morgan found the attack line and opened the nozzle on a straight stream, penciling the ceiling twice before following the hoseline out of the building (to Side A). Firefighter Morgan exited the building at approximately 00:30.

Rescue 1B entered the structure on Floor 1, Side A to perform a primary search. They crawled down the hallway on Floor 1 towards Side C until they reached the living room and attempted to close the open basement door but were unable to do so. Rescue 1 B did not see or hear Firefighters Mathews (E-26) and Phillips (E-10) while working on Floor 1. Rescue 1B noted that the floor in the living room was spongy. The Rescue 1 Officer ordered his B Team to exit, but instead they returned to the front door and then attempted to search Floor 2, but were unable to because of extremely high temperature.

Unaware that Firefighter Phillips (E-10) was missing, Command tasked Engine 10� and Rescue 1A, with conducting a search for Firefighter Mathews (E-26). The Engine 10 officer entered Floor 1 to conduct the search (alone) while instructing another of his firefighters to remain at the door. Rescue 1A followed Engine 26’s 1-1/2″ (38 mm) hoseline to Floor 1 Slide C. Rescue 1B relocated to Side B to search the basement for the missing firefighter.

The Engine 26 Officer again advised Command (Battalion 1) that Firefighter Mathews was missing. Engine 17 made a final request to attack the fire from Side C. Given that a firefighter was missing and believing that the fire had extended to Floor 1, Command instructed Engine 17 to attack the fire with a straight stream (to avoid pushing the fire onto crews working on Floor 1). At approximately 00:33, Battalion 2 reported (from Side C) that the fire was darkening down. Engine 14 arrived and staged on Bladensburg Road.

Command ordered a second alarm assignment at 00:34 hours. At 00:36, Command ordered Battalion 2 (on Side C) to have Engine 17 and Truck 4 search for Firefighter Mathews in the Basement. Engine 10’s officer heard a shrill sound from a personal alert safety system (PASS) and quickly located Firefighter Phillips (E-10). Firefighter Phillips was unconscious, lying on the floor (see Figure 4) with his facepiece and hood removed. Unable to remove Firefighter Phillips by himself, the officer from Engine 10 unsuccessfully attempted to contact Command (Battalion 1) and then returned to Side A to request assistance.

Command received a priority traffic message at 00:37, possibly attempting to report the location of a missing firefighter. However, the message was unreadable.

The Hazmat Unit and Engine 6 arrived and staged on Bladensburg Road and a short time later were tasked by Command to assist with rescue of the downed firefighter on Floor 1. Firefighter Phillips (E-10) was removed from the building by the Engine 10 officer, Rescue 1A, Engine 6, and the Hazardous Materials Unit at 00:45. After Firefighter Phillips was removed to Side A, Command discovered that Firefighter Mathews (E-26) was still missing and ordered the incident safety officer to conduct an accountability check. Safety attempted to conduct a personnel accountability report (PAR) by radio, but none of the companies acknowledged his transmission.

The Deputy Chief of the Firefighting Division arrived at 00:43 and assumed Command, establishing a fixed command post at the Engine 26 apparatus. Battalion 4 arrived a short time later and was assigned to assist with rescue operations along with Engines 4 and 14.

Firefighter Mathews was located simultaneously by several firefighters. He was unconscious leaning over a couch on Side C of the living room (see Figure 4). Firefighter Mathews breathing apparatus was operational, but he had not activated his (non-integrated) personal alert safety system (PASS). Firefighter Mathews was removed from the building by Engine 4, Engine 14, and Hazardous Materials Unit at 00:49.

Command (Deputy Chief) ordered Battalions 2 and 4 to conduct a face-to-face personnel accountability report on Sides A and C at 00:53.

Questions

1. Based on the information provided in the case to this point, answer the following questions:
2. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Death in the Line of Duty Reports examining incidents involving extreme fire behavior often recommend close coordination of fire attack and ventilation.
3. Did the fire behavior in this incident match the prediction you made after reading the previous post (Towhouse Fire: Washington DC-What Happened)?
4. What type of extreme fire behavior occurred? Justify your answer?
5. What event or action initiated the extreme fire behavior? Why do you believe that this is the case?
6. How did building design and construction impact on fire behavior and tactical operations during this incident?
7. How might a building pre-plan and/or 360^o reconnaissance have impacted the outcome of this incident? Note that 360^o reconnaissance does not necessarily mean one individual walking completely around the building, but requires communication and knowledge of conditions on all sides of the structure (e.g., two stories on Side A and three stories on Side C).
8. How might the outcome of this incident have changed if Engine 17 had been in position and attacked the fire in the basement prior to Engines 26 and 10 committing to Floor 1?
9. What strategies and tactics might have been used to mitigate the risk of extreme fire behavior during this incident?

More to Follow

This incident was one of the first instances where the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS) was used in forensic fire scene reconstruction (Madrzykowski & Vettori, 2000). Modeling of the fire behavior in this incident helps illustrate what was likely to have happened in this incident. The next post in this series will examine and expand on the information provided by modeling of this incident.

Ed Hartin, MS, EFO, MIFireE, CFO

References

District of Columbia (DC) Fire & EMS. (2000). Report from the reconstruction committee: Fire at 3146 Cherry Road NE, Washington DC, May 30, 1999. Washington, DC: Author.

Madrzykowski, D. & Vettori, R. (2000). Simulation of the Dynamics of the Fire at 3146 Cherry Road NE Washington D.C., May 30, 1999, NISTR 6510. August 31, 2009 from http://fire.nist.gov/CDPUBS/NISTIR_6510/6510c.pdf

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). (1999). Death in the line of duty, Report 99-21. Retrieved August 31, 2009 from http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/fire/reports/face9921.html