Fire Behaviour

[johno67]

Could anyone recommend a good book on the subject of fire behaviour. I have the Fire Service Manual on Compartment Fires and Tactical Ventilation, but I was after something that goes into more detail, preferably with examples of fires that have occured showing how they started and more importantly how they spread.

Many thanks.

[kurnal]

I assume that you are looking at fire behaviour from a fire safety engineering point of view rather than an operational viewpoint? If so the following thread may be of interest:

http://www.fire.org.uk/punbb/upload/viewtopic.php?id=2393

[Dominic]

A book I used a number of years ago during my studies was 'Buildings and Fire' by Prof Jim Shields and Gordon Silcock. I think its still in print.

[johno67]

Thanks both,

I am looking to produce a lesson which can be given to new inspecting officers, especially those from a non-operational background, on how fire behaves and spreads.

It forms an important part of what needs to be looked at when carrying out a fire risk assessment and I believe it is important for those carrying out audits to have a good appreciation. So any advice on something that may be suitable would be great.

If not I will have to trawl through all the old case histories and journals.

[kurnal]

I would suggest a few video presentations- the BRE video "Your office fire", station nightclub, Bradford city football club would be on my list of essential viewing for these people.

[cbfire999]

Have you tried the case studies on Blaina and Sleigh Drive etc?  They can be found at www.moosh.co.uk

[johno67]

Looks a good sight cb, many thanks.

[Centurion]

Down the fire engineering route im afraid and not too many real fire examples but packed with fundamentals:
Enclosure fire dynamics Karlson & Quintierre
Fundamentals of fire phenomena Quintierre
An introduction to fire dynamics D Drysdale

Heavy reading at first but essntial redaing for "full" understanding of fire dynamics

[Ricardo]

Hi johnjo

Can I recommend you have a look at "Smoke Burns" written by John Taylor, a relatively newly published book, it may not be exactly what you are looking for, but its a great read, covering what John describes as the mechaniism of fire, hot and cold conditions,, free flaming stage, and the rule of 5.

See www.smokeburns.com for further details

[Colin Meech]

There are some good recommendations here, but for the simplistic guide needed, I would recommend you consider starting with one word "unpredictably"!

We can model fire dynamics (usually poorly), we can predict the behaviour of buiding structure (if it is 'as-new'), we can make assumptions about the actions of people and the nature of risk, but at the end of the day, the reason fire continues to hurt people is that it is essentially unpredictable.

Let's be ruthlessly honest, predictable fires are under control, the fires that hurt people are out of control.  If fire was predictable we could ring up the next potential fire death and tell them when the fire was due to occur so they could arrange to be elsewhere.

I don't mean to be flippant, but rather than introduce 'beginners' to the idea that we can predict, I would prefer to introduce them to the concept that it is always a gamble, a 'percentage game' if you prefer.  then you can move on to whatever level of more technical advice you choose.

[johno67]

I don't mean to be flippant, but rather than introduce 'beginners' to the idea that we can predict, I would prefer to introduce them to the concept that it is always a gamble, a 'percentage game' if you prefer.  then you can move on to whatever level of more technical advice you choose.

Interesting thoughts. I wasn't looking to predict fire growth. I was looking to show how fires start in the first place and how they can spread, with examples of fires that have occurred in the past.

Seeing as the principles of fire safety seem to be based on the way fires are likely to start and spread, and that fire investigation appears to be based on the way we expect particular materials to burn and fire to spread through a building, I'm slightly alarmed that I might be looking at it the wrong way!

[johno67]

Hi Ricky,

Thanks for the recommendation. Nice to hear from you.

[Colin Meech]

Johno,
i don't think you're looking at it 'the wrong way', it's just that fire is complex.
try setting a sofa on fire with a fag-end.  it is 'theoretically' impossible, that is to say only one attempt in 500 or 600 will even cause smouldering and of those only one or two will flame, even then prbably self-extiinguish.  that leaves a 1:2000 chance of a developing fire.  now one in two thousand are not odds you would want crossing the road are they?
I know of experiments attaching a cigarette to rubber tube and waving the glowing end around in petrol vapour, carefully monitored, can you set fire to petrol vapour by smoking, no.  however, if you clicked a lighter, woof!
fires begin simply, although fewer children handle fire daily today than 50 years ago.  the spread, as you suggest, should be predictable, but how many variables are there?  Answer, too many!
Bob Fitzgerald, well known fire engineer from Worcester polytechnic Int.  Mass. USA has a wonderfully practical take on this sort of thing.
Take a waste paper bin, put 'stuff' in it, but paper to act as 'item first ignited', ignite.
look at the growth; probably within a minute there will be a flame the size of the bin itself, it will then, probably, diminish.  But, if there is some other, higher energy fuel, the flame height may increase, but for how long?  The fuel is limited, will it touch surrounding material, will it 'spread'?  He reasons, with evidence, that if the flame rising from the bin get to the size of a standing person, you have a fire that will spread.
The majority of potential fires self extinguish.  The question that research has not yet answered to my knowledge is, "what makes the fire that will spread and do damge different from the fire that fails and self extinguishes; what is the defining characteristic?"

[novascot]

try setting a sofa on fire with a fag-end.  it is 'theoretically' impossible, that is to say only one attempt in 500 or 600 will even cause smouldering and of those only one or two will flame, even then prbably self-extiinguish.  that leaves a 1:2000 chance of a developing fire.  

Hello Phlogisten,
similar  tests were carried out at the Dalmarnock experiment and they all needed a reasonably "hot fire" to get sustained growth.

Yet careless disposal of smoking materials is still the second highest cause of fire in the UK.

Some use these tests to argue the case for sprinklers in domestic dwellings but as you say it is a 1:2000 chance of a fire developing to an extent where sprinklers would actuate.

With these odds, is it reasonable to ask for the installation of sprinklers in dwellings (or schools for that matter).

A certain F&RS in Scotland are demanding sprinklers throughout a flat because the owner wanted to have a wee den (wife escape) in the roof space. All the doors were FDs30 fitted with self closers.

Reasonable in the circumstance?

[Mike Buckley]

Look at the stats in a different way. How many smokers are there? How often could they leave a fag on a sofa?

(The following figures are made up) 1,000,000 smokers, on average they leave 1 fag a month on the sofa, 12,000,000 fags per year, 1:2000 chance of a fire = 6,000 fires!

Yes the chances are small but the number of attempts is huge someone is going to get unlucky!