Readers need information on fireproofing
We have been evacuated from our home and are waiting to see if the San Bernardino Mountains fire has left our home standing. I have sent a letter to the editors of FH, asking if they will quickly pull together an issue devoted to all aspects of fireproofing. If you support this idea, please let the editors know. (Letter follows)
Dear Taunton Press,
We have been evacuated from our home in the San Bernardino Mountains, and now hope that when we are allowed to return our home will still be standing. I have subscribed to Fine Homebuilding since your first issue and know that you do an excellent job of researching and presenting the best in construction practices and materials- using your articles to guide us we built two homes in Alaska. I am sure that Fine Gardening and your new home interiors magazine are also very good sources of information. Please, as quickly as you can, in these publications give us articles on fire-proofing our homes, both in new construction and landscaping (for those of us who have lost our homes and grounds) and in fire-prevention renovating and landscaping (for people here and elsewhere who saw the incredible forces of fire and want to prepare their homes for such an eventuality).
If you can pull it together quickly enough, you will be doing all of us who need such information now a great service, and the information will undoubtedly be useful to builders and homeowners in the future, too. The southern California fires have made fireproofing a very timely issue, so it should sell well and introduce many new readers to your magazines.
To do the greatest good, I suggest that you address as many aspects of fireproofing as possible in a single issue (rather than having articles spread over time, in issue after issue). Though this is not your usual approach, I believe that presenting all this information in one issue (maybe later fleshed out into a book?) would be of the most use to your readers (for those of us who need the information now as well as for readers who don’t want to have search for fireproofing-related articles in various issues), and that it would sell better than a one-by-one series of articles in different issues.
And, rather than a piecemeal approach to fireproofing, broken into either the traditional elements of a house or into types of materials, what we need is a comprehensive approach to the subject. First off, what general information do we need to know about fire and homes? For example, what are the chances of any home in the United States being threatened by a wildfire or a fire originating in the home? What recommendations do scientists and firefighters make for landscape and residence design? What general conditions (characteristics of the neighborhood, zoning regulations, climate, etc.) might affect choices in home fireproofing? What measures should we encourage our local, state, and national governments to take (e.g., building codes, spacing between houses, brush removal, and dead tree removal on federal lands) to prevent wildfires?
Then we need to know the basics. The first line of defense might be landscaping choices. Perhaps Fine Gardening could do an issue on landscape design with fire-proofing in mind (fire-resistant varieties, use of ground covers and irrigation, tree spacing, etc.) and on gardening after a fire-the effect of wood ash on soil structure, texture, and quality; ameliorating erosion; short-term (bulbs, ground covers, and annuals) and long-term (trees, shrubs, and garden structures) plant replacement. Another primary consideration is the placement of the structure on the lot (e.g., fire moves 16 times faster going uphill than it does on a level surface, and canyons act as channels for wildfires, so a house at the head of a steep canyon-as ours is-is not a good choice). And, finally, a home’s design can play a very important part in fireproofing (e.g., breezeways and decks built around or next to trees may invite fire to spread to other parts of the house). What can builders and homeowners do to prevent in-house fires (e.g., structurally isolating potential sources of fire like water heaters and furnaces, preferences in design and materials, etc.)? What we can build into or add to our homes to protect them once a fire’s started, either outside or inside the structure, and how do we design for the resulting conditions (e.g., no electrical power for extended periods, very low and very high temperatures) that affect the house, its contents, and its ability to withstand a fire?
Once we have an understanding of how fire works, then we need to know a whole lot about specific materials-the fire-resistance of materials that are used in houses nowadays as well as how we can use those materials in new ways (e.g., metal roofing used as siding; sprinklers integrated into roof construction), whether some old ideas should be reintroduced (e.g., shutters for windows and doors, water storage tanks, even underground shelters), and what new products really work and should be incorporated into our homes (e.g., fire-resistant paint, fire-resistant foams/gels). Comparing all of the various building materials is especially pertinent as many products will be making claims for their fire-resistance and it may be difficult to judge between them. Both Fine Homebuilding and your new home interiors magazine could be very helpful in this respect.
While you’re at it, how about a sidebar or a spot on your web-site that gives firefighters’ answers to the questions all evacuating residents are faced with: Should we put a sprinkler on the roof or decks? Should we turn the gas or the water off at the meters? Should we put a sign up, telling you that we’ve evacuated? What can we do to make your job easier?
When a fire hits, we may be fortunate enough to have time to grab the cat and a few mementoes, but we won’t have time to treat the wood shingles or clear out 100 years accumulation of undergrowth. How can we fireproof a 1966 Titan, where the wood beams, wood ceilings, and walls of windows seem ready-made for a huge bonfire? My husband and I and thousands of other readers need your publications’ help in learning efficient and effective ways to fireproof our homes.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Lacen
Replies
The best solution is to build where outdoor fires are not as likely as in the tinderbox areas of California.
The next best solution is to construct a home of non-combustible materials. Many of these homes have been constructed in California, and some of them not so obviously. Roofing of concrete tiles is prevalent in those areas, as are genuine stucco exterior walls.
Design details also figure into the mix. Most homes constructed to resist the exterior heat will have little or no roof overhang. An overhang gives flames, gases, and heat a chance to accumulate, rather than rising immediately away from the structure.
Even with a totally non-combustible home, there is no assurance of the home significantly surviving a major fire. With temperatures often reaching 2000 degrees in a firestorm, the heat itself is enough to damage most non-combustible construction materials. Steel will fail at that temperature. A home structure constructed completely of concrete may survive the most serious of fires, but the home will become an oven and everything inside it will be destroyed, anyway.
Using fireproofing is the last resort.
All building codes are designed to allow most people to evacuate a structure in the event of a fire disaster not to preserve a structure indefinitely. Of course, California's new building code is even less effective than the previous code, so look out.
In the final observation, the best thing to do is to live somewhere else.
Thank you for giving me such solid ideas. Those of us who lost our homes and will be rebuilding will find your ideas especially useful.
Lacen,
Just curious, if your home is lost are you planning to rebuild in the same exact place you built before? I'm really sorry for any loss you may have suffered in your home, but doesn't that seem like putting your lives at risk? This time you were able to evacuate, but in wildfire situations that is not always the case.
I always wonder when people rebuild time after time in places that are devastated by hurricanes and wildfires about the decision making process. I hope it never happens to me, but I think I'd be more like the guy in Colorado who located the next homestead somewhere else. Unless I thought that there was nothing left to burn for the next couple of decades, then I might consider rebuilding in the same location.
I am in the process of planning a cabin in an area that is periodically swept by brush fires. This is in the Columbia River Gorge in Northern Oregon. We generally have gusty winds (this area being one of the best wind surfing areas in the US) during the prime fire season and the areas that have been burned in the last decade that I have seen tend to be "patchy" - the wind will carry embers hundreds of yards and start small fires and the main fires skip around in the wind. Given the speed and patchwork pattern of the fires, I think a fire resistant home would have a good chance of surviving a typical fire here.
By regulations in the Columbia Gorge Scenic Area, which covers my property, my cabin can be only 600 sq. ft. and needs to blend into the existing foliage (so definitely it will not be a showy McMansion...). The fire resistant design elements I am looking at thus far are an "eco" or "green" roof, fire shutters for the windows (most of those listed on the Web are British sites - I wonder what that says...), cement board for exterior sheathing, and timber frame (I already have some recycled 12x12 timbers - if the carpenter ants haven't eaten them already...). I am just starting to look at precast and lightweight concrete for roof and floors, but haven't found much that's useful yet. SIPs are available with concrete board on the exterior and sheetrock on the interior, so that is a possibility. Cloud Hidden gave some links that did a pretty good job of explaining the flammability of polyurethane insulation and which seemed to indicate that while under certain situations it is highly flammable, if it is adequately covered and protected, it should be reasonably safe.
Given the moderate capacity of my well, I doubt that roof sprinklers would do much. However, if I go with the "eco" roof, I could probably soak it down pretty well if I had any advance warning on an approaching fire.
I was initially interested in ICFs, but since this is a carpenter ant convention center, I lost interest. I also would question the performance of the polystyrene on the exterior even under stucco. The concrete/styrofoam ICFs such as Rastra would probably work, but I read that they were $4.00/sq.ft. just for the ICF, so by the time you get the concrete pumped into them, that would be over my budget. I am hoping that other types of walls will be less expensive.
I will want some roof overhang, so I am hoping that I can use concrete board as a fascia/soffit at 45degrees or so that will deflect any updraft away from the house. While low lying limbs are supposed to be trimmed near the cabin, the Columbia Gorge Scenic Area rules indicate that we are supposed to leave as many trees as possible.
Lots more research to do...
It sounds as though there won't be much left to burn in the immediate vicinity of our house. We are on the very edge of town, at the top of a canyon that hadn't burned in over 100 years. We hear that the firefighters spent 3 days backfiring and otherwise encouraging that canyon to burn. But that news is only one of the reasons why we'll rebuild or, if the house is still standing, do some serious remodeling to increase the house's fire-resistance. (Someone made a good point about the inappropriateness of the term "fireproofing".)
Why rebuild in the same place? Well, our town is the only place in the whole of Southern California where we feel comfortable; we're from Alaska. If this town hadn't existed, we wouldn't have moved to this region, even though my husband adores his job here.
Nevertheless, I agree with you, and with the writers who talked about compromises, and siting, and et cetera. Building codes and zoning regulations, government support (e.g., for alternative energy sources and methods), contractor education, home-buyer education--all of these and many other things have to be addressed. How can we encourage appropriate building siting, construction, and landscaping?
I don't have much confidence that governments can address these problems in a timely or thorough or nuanced manner. (For example, we have been told that just getting a building permit in this area takes from 2-4 months. I find this unbelievable, but several local builders have said that it's true.) I put my faith in the carrot rather than the stick--let's build and remodel homes using the best fire-resistant designs and materials, advertise them in every way we can, and let the public and local builders see for themselves what works. I would even offer seminars for local owners and builders on how to incorporate fire-resistant design and technologies in their homes/projects. (I'm going to go before our local city council and ask that they consider doing something like this. I wish that my husband and I had the money to rebuild or remodel--whichever is appropriate--our home in such a way that it could be such a model. But it will certainly incorporate whatever ideas we can afford!) This approach could involve governments, local businesses of all kinds, schools and universities (especially architecture and building trades students and the Cooperative Extension Service), and probably others that I'm not thinking of right now. In Alaska there's a special certificated training program for builders on super-insulated construction; maybe a certificated fire-safe training program would be appropriate for builders everywhere. (Maybe such a thing already exists?)
[Sorry that I got so long-winded there. All the messages that have been sent so far have made me realize that since I choose to live in an area that has a higher potential for certain kinds of situations, it's incumbent on me to consider what I can do to cause as few problems as possible for firefighters, police, and my fellow taxpayers.]
First, sorry for your loss. I have never had any kind of house fire, but I can imagine it is very traumatic and devastating.
I think I saw an in-depth article in FHB after the Oakland fires a couple of years ago. One picture stands out in my mind, of one house on a block that was singed but fully intact, whilre the rest of the neighborhood was ashes. Apparently that HO had built with fire in mind and it payed off. See if you can do a search of past articles.
Do it right, or do it twice.
That's a great idea. I should have thought of it myself. Thank you.
Issue #96, July 1995. It's not as in-depth as I had remembered, but still has some useful information.
Do it right, or do it twice.
Thank you! Once we are allowed back in the house (if there still is a house), I will find that issue.
I imagine that the editors already feel a need to address the home building aspect of these fires.
Trying to build a fireproof home brings a number of conflicts (just look at the threads already up here <g>). Some of the posts here point out some of the problems. Not having overhangs for fire safety runs completely counter to the shading needed for the southern California climate. So, which becomes more important? A house that requires less of the state's energy resources, or one that lasts a few hours longer in a fire? Alternative building strategies may also be needed (check out the "cinder block" thread). I'm not one to say that any should be barred from living in an area that has been devastated by wild fires. I don't want to pay for federally supplied (or mandated) wildfire insurance, either. Yet another compromise is wanted.
The 2000° and 3000° temperatures in a wildfire really defy any sort of fire proofing. However there are probably a number of ideas that could help a house last longer ins a "graze" event. This is similar to the tornado protection one can build--in the face of a direct hit by an F5, there is little that can be done. Which is not to say that nothing should be done.
Discussing ideas can't hurt.
i took some losses in a colorado fire last year. still tryin to get back on my feet. even with insurance it totally sucks.
as far as woulda, coulda, shoulda, I remember some local yocals who stood their ground against 100 foot crown fires with nothin but a garden hose (I'm not recomending this) and saved their homes when every thing else around burnt to a crisp.
Now, they havn't gone thru the hell of losing everything in the fire, but some ended up losing every thing in the mud slides that followed and those that survived that, have spent at least one weekend shoveling a foot or three of mud out of their homes and many more building diversion dams.
rock slides (luckily only took out 1 or 2 homes) 10 feet deep and half a mile long.
unfortunatly fire proofing isn't really a great answer. concrete cooks (crown fires can burn at 5000 degrees) and has to be ripped out of the ground because it is to brittle to rebuild on, windows melt, metels melt, wood spontaniously combusts etc... You also have to take consideration of the aftermath and the huge loss in value of your property.
When you build in fire prone areas, its a gamble, but generally a good one, these fires are the result of a very rare drought and fire suppression probably has something to do with it to. When nature decides to make you accept consequences for your actions there never seems to be much you can do.
i moved to the city.(like it to)
Edited 11/3/2003 1:29:56 AM ET by headcheese
I think you're right--fireproofing a structure doesn't make any difference at all in a serious wildfire. The fire here in the S. B. mountains is evidence of that. But it may help save structures in the blowing-ember and creeping ground fires that accompany or follow the main firestorm, as does taking down dead trees and clearing out brush and dead grasses.
Dear Lacen,
I hope you discover that your home is intact, and liveable. A couple of months back we at FHB decided it was time to revisit "firewise" construction and I have been working on the article ever since. The article focuses on landscaping strategies and the best materials to use to protect your home from a wildfire. It's quite a comprehensive article slated for April's issue.
Be well.
Our thoughts are with all of you.
James Kidd
Assistant Editor
Good good good! Thanks for letting me know; I will spread the word. The article will be too late to help those of us affected by the southern California fires, but I'm sure the information will benefit many.
Maybe the words we use can be more like "fire resistance" than "fire proofing". FEMA won't classify anything with absolute terms, for example, but they will use the term "near-absolute protection."
I do hope that the book will be comprehensive, including the decision to re-invent housing design to compensate for those who insist on building in tinderboxes. For example, instead of building the typical California style home in those areas, consider a completely different style, based upon the overwhelmingly evident criteria: fire. If we look to history, climate and environment have dictated many popular home designs. The New England salt boxes were designed to shed the north east winds. The southern plantation homes were designed to encourage air circulation. Why not a specific design to resist fires.
One such design could be underground or partially underground construction. Although, with mudslides that may be impossible.
I have read in this string of people saving their homes with the garden hose. I would imagine if everyone were brave enough to do that, many more homes would be saved, but would the water supply support such a sudden drain on the supply. Is it worth considering localized fire water tanks? These could double as domestic water supply tanks with the lower limit of water supply being the amount required to fight fires for a certain period of time. Along with this, homes would be protected with OUTDOOR sprinklers, as opposed to indoor sprinklers. Of course this would add expense to living in those areas, but if a person is bound and determined to fight against nature, he should be prepared to pay for it.
chuck,
First off, I don't know of any plans for a book on building fire resistant homes. We do have a comprehensive article in the works.
James Kidd
Assistant Editor
Fine Homebuilding"I want a good clean fight. No head butts, no rabbit punches, and no hitting below the belt. Break when I say break, and protect yourself at all times."
As for people out there saving their own homes with garden hoses. While it may be true, (they were putting out fire brands as they landed) if the fire itself encroached those garden hoses would be useless. I've fought house fires, nothing like what happened in CA, where the heat was so intense that I could barely do my job as a firefighter. I can't imagine being in a environment with diminished oxygen, intense heat, poisonous gasses and physically exerting myself without the proper tools, knowledge and back-up in case things went wrong. That's an extremely dangerous position to put yourself in and I wonder why people would value their homes over their own safety. People who live in these regions must have an evacution plan, a safe place to store irreplaceble objects, and maintain proper insurance coverage."I want a good clean fight. No head butts, no rabbit punches, and no hitting below the belt. Break when I say break, and protect yourself at all times."
Good points, Jim, but I wasn't proposing that people fight the fires themselves. I was repeating information I had read in the thread. I suppose I was unclear about the fire fighting water. I should have said automatic sprinklers that would work without human aid. The inhabitants could go ahead and leave, with the sprinkler system taking over. It may sound puny in the face of a fire storm, but has anything been tested where a whole neighborhood was covered in a heavy wet fog with an approaching fire? Would the lower temperature and reduced amount of oxygen have an effect on an approaching fire?
What makes this very good idea invalid is the wind, at near hurricane force at times, will redirect the water. While the water will act as a temporary heat shield, you'd be pumping thousands of gallons of water into the air that is needed else where. You need power to pump the water and in a fire of this magnitude the reliability of a power source is questionable at best. And finally, where does the water come from, and where does it get stored? When you have months without rain, an abundant supply of water is pretty hard to come by. I do wish there were some clear-cut, easy answers.
James Kidd"I want a good clean fight. No head butts, no rabbit punches, and no hitting below the belt. Break when I say break, and protect yourself at all times."
Maybe I was a little simplistic in my explanation. In the industrial world it is not uncommon to provide a firewater tank on site. Usually, these tanks are associated with fire water pumps, driven by diesel engines specifically for that purpose. There is a maintenance issue with this concept, in that the engines are usually required to operate for a certain length of time on a regular basis. Depending on the value of the building and its contents, life safety, and other factors, a 100% backup may be required. In areas where water supply is an issue, the domestic water tank is combined with the fire water tank. Domestic water is drawn off the top and the level is never allowed to drop below that required for firefighting.
I would forego the fire water pumps in favor of gravity and place the tank at a point higher than any use point. Then, the only electronics needed are those to initiate the firewater flow.
If everything were saturated in advance of these firestorms, there must be some advantage to that, whether it is the most critical effort of allowing safe evacuation or saving the structures themselves.
I agree with you, though, that there is little use of attempting to save a structure after the fire is upon it. In my scenario, the water would pretty much be expended before the fire gets close. I also realize this is very expensive, but if you want to live and save lives in such a danger prone area, you must be willing to pay for it.
I live in town in Utah, so wildfires are certainly an issue here. In spite of the investments I've made in my home and stuff, I would NEVER want a firefighter to risk health and safety just to protect my property. There is nothing I own that is worth a life. And for stupid people who want to risk their lives to save the twigs and rock they call shelter, I sure hope the firefighters are allowed to consider that natural selection at work - I'd hate to think of them risking their own lives to save a bozo like that when they could be working to allow the safe evacuation of the rest of us.
I sincerely hope your home made it through ok.
I watched hours of fire coverage on MSNBC last night. This particular program was well done, and the interviews were very compelling. Regular soundbite news does not get across the enormity of the devastation.
One interview stood out in this regard. A firefighter in the field was talking frankly about deciding which structures were defensible, and which ones were not worth directing their limited resources towards attempting to save. He mentioned existing fire breaks, landscaping, wooden decks, and such.
Also, siting relative to natural topography. For example, a home perched on a steep hillside was dismissed as having no chance. Another group of homes in a 'trough' (small valley up high) was easily defended by 'backburning' the sides of the trough. I'm sure the views are not as good, but they are in tact.
My sense is that no construction technique can overcome vulnerable siting. The heat is simply too intense. It would appear that some construction materials and techniques will prevent secondary ignition from blowing sparks. That seemed to be a big factor in some neighborhoods, where certain homes were spared. Wooden roofs, landscaping, and such...
Excellent idea for an article, as thousands of homes obviously need to be rebuilt.
Lacen, that is a great idea, except that article should be the beginning of a book. I am not being facetious; I would buy a book from Taunton Press on this subject in a heartbeat. Here is a reply to aCalifornia
Some homes in theOakland Carlsbad California
It is common practice in normal house fires for firefighters to check the neighbor's attics after the main fire is controlled.
A cathedral ceiling (no attic) made from concrete or SIPs with standing seam metal roofing meets these conditions. I understand that wind in a firestorm reaches "hurricane" speed, though I have not seen MPH numbers. Firestorms can reach 2000° F, but that temperature lasts a very sort time in brush fueled wildfires. This is demonstrated by the few surviving houses. All the windows were intact.