Decreasing URBAN INTERFACE ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS AND FIRE LOSSES THROUGH STRUCTURAL FIREBRAND PROTECTION Joseph W. Mitchell, Ph. D. M-bar Technologies and Consulting Ramona, California jwmitchell@mbartek.com third International Fire Ecology and Management Congress
Slide 2What if the WUI didn't make a difference? Imagine a scenario where wildland firefighters & foresters could oversee wildland fires, as opposed to taking part in structure insurance, on the grounds that the structures ensured themselves. Consider the possibility that safety net providers evaluated scope and costs in light of survivability instead of "brush freedom. Imagine a scenario where property holders in the WUI assumed liability for securing their structures, and had the way to do as such. third International Fire Ecology and Management Congress
Slide 3Reliance on faultless space California "Hollingsworth Bill" – SB 841. Freedom to 300 ft. for a few offices "Favored back up plans" require 250' to 500' separation from fills. [Insurance Journal, 2004] General view of wildland as foe third International Fire Ecology and Management Congress
Slide 4Wildland fire misfortunes in California are driven by cataclysmic wind-driven occasions Intense winds Rapid spread Firefighter mediation far-fetched. High thickness of brands Extreme fire conduct . - Oct 2003: Cedar + others - 4,443 structures Oct 1991: Oakland (Tunnel)– 2,886 structures June 1990: Paint – 641 Sept 1923: Berkeley - 624 Nov 1961: Bel Air – 505 Sept. 1970: Laguna – 382 third International Fire Ecology and Management Congress
Slide 5Firebrands are the main source of structure misfortune G.C Ramsay, 1987 – investigation of 1148 structures Chen & McAneney, 2004 – half structure start at 45 m or more (satellite examination) Cohen examinations of structure start potential Plus numerous others… As dictated by: Structures too a long way from shoot front Observed starts (rooftop, storage room, decks, wall) Civilian insurance exceedingly viable Observed thickness of brands Forensic confirmation Structure start by torches third International Fire Ecology and Management Congress
Slide 6Idea: Separate the issue of brilliant warmth & fire security (reply: remove from fuel) from the issue of torch assurance… third International Fire Ecology and Management Congress
Slide 7Firebrand Protection from torch section Structural attributes (Australian construction regulations; Ramsay & Rudolph; CA SFM Interface Fire Building Standards ) Only in the same class as the weakest point/support Not useful for existing at-hazard structures Protection from optional start Vegetation administration/leeway contiguous structure Accumulation of litter & leaves in canals, corners. Coal smothering Water frameworks/gels Subject to wind interruption Roof insurance enhances Class A rooftops Massive water utilize/undependable supplies Gels require manual application third International Fire Ecology and Management Congress
Slide 8Wind-Enabled Ember Dousing (WEEDS) CONCEPT : ACHIEVE WIND-RESILIENT BRAND PROTECTION BY DIRECTING COARSE WATER SPRAY OUTWARD FROM THE STRUCTURE The wind blows it back onto the structure Spray amasses where ashes do Low shower densities expected to shield from brands (rather than brilliant warmth) third International Fire Ecology and Management Congress
Slide 9Low stream rate (~120 l/min) Agricultural splash spouts 5000 US gl water tank (in addition to city supply) 12kW generator (propane) 1.5 kW pump 3-4+ hour security window Potential changes: gravity bolster, 10k lady tank, robotized or remote activating WEEDS Design Features third International Fire Ecology and Management Congress
Slide 10Crib tests propose 1.5-4.0 gm/m 2 sec is adequate to stifle lodgings (surveys: Novozhilov et al., Grant et al.) Simulation of bead in wind Used comparative spout for drop estimate dissemination Able to accomplish extinguishment zone around the structure at ostensible outline Is it adequate? third International Fire Ecology and Management Congress
Slide 11Wind flexibility of splash Results traditionalist – don't consider. Cover of shower examples to 50 km/hr 40% of splash onto rooftop/overhang at high wind speed. Wind speed = 20 km/hr third International Fire Ecology and Management Congress
Slide 12Testing of framework October 26, 2003 Cedar Fire Nominal operation Apparent achievement Structures lost on all contiguous properties. 60-70% misfortune rate/no expert fire assurance Forensic proof of brands on property. Not confirmation, but rather a contextual analysis (Fire Safety Journal, Sept. 06) third International Fire Ecology and Management Congress
Slide 13Summary Low volume water shower frameworks that make up for wind can be viable. Structures can withstand outrageous out of control fire conditions without expert intercession Approach brilliant warmth and torches as discrete issues Design for WIND! third International Fire Ecology and Management Congress
Slide 14Thank you third International Fire Ecology and Management Congress
Slide 15third International Fire Ecology and Management Congress
Slide 16third International Fire Ecology and Management Congress
SPONSORS
SPONSORS
SPONSORS