197 - Fire spread through external walls pt. 2 with FSRI

WEBVTT

00:00:00.462 --> 00:00:02.428
Hello everybody, welcome to the Fire Science Show.

00:00:02.428 --> 00:00:10.606
Last week we probably had the longest introduction to an experimental series ever in the Fire Science Show, as I had an entire episode devoted to the rational.

00:00:10.606 --> 00:00:14.013
Why are we talking today about external fire spread?

00:00:14.013 --> 00:00:31.890
We've set up the stage, we've connected the topic to the ever-growing threat of wildland fires entering our urban habitats and causing urban conflagrations, and today we will talk about the nitty-gritty of what has been researched by my colleagues at the FSRI.

00:00:31.890 --> 00:01:01.191
I'm joined today again by the same crowd Rebecca Schroeder, joseph Willey, dan Gorham and Gavin Horn and together with them we'll go through three large-scale experiments that were performed with focus on the fire spread through external walls at different distances, through the damage done to different types of windows by the same external flame, and also on how much radiation carries on through a pane of glass.

00:01:01.191 --> 00:01:04.329
So we're discussing three different mechanisms of flame spread.

00:01:04.329 --> 00:01:07.867
If your external wall ignites, you're going to have a bad time.

00:01:07.867 --> 00:01:13.969
If your window breaks, it creates a vulnerability in your structure and you're going to have a fire spread.

00:01:13.969 --> 00:01:30.367
And also, if you have a curtain behind your window and even though the window is intact and your external wall is also intact, if that curtain behind the window ignites from the fire radiation, well, the fire will start inside the house and it's lost again.

00:01:30.367 --> 00:01:40.522
So three different mechanisms of fire spread, three different targeted experiments to answer those questions, really good ideas on how to connect those experiments.

00:01:40.522 --> 00:01:41.704
And you know what?

00:01:41.704 --> 00:01:47.022
The data that they've gathered goes beyond wildfires and this fire spread problem.

00:01:47.022 --> 00:01:53.426
I can see immense use of that data in my everyday fire safety engineering, even though I'm not really doing wee stuff.

00:01:53.426 --> 00:01:58.781
So I'm sure this is very useful to all my fellow fire safety engineers out there.

00:01:58.781 --> 00:02:01.325
So let's spin the intro and jump into the episode.

00:02:06.012 --> 00:02:07.575
Welcome to the Firesize Show.

00:02:07.575 --> 00:02:23.289
My name is Wojciech Wigrzyński and I will be your host.

00:02:23.289 --> 00:02:40.591
The FireSense Show is into its third year of continued support from its sponsor, ofar Consultants, who are an independent, multi-award-winning fire engineering consultancy with a reputation for delivering innovative, safety-driven solutions.

00:02:40.591 --> 00:02:54.347
As the UK-leading independent fire risk consultancy, ofar's globally established team have developed a reputation for preeminent fire engineering expertise, with colleagues working across the world to help protect people, property and the planet.

00:02:54.347 --> 00:03:10.451
Established in the UK in 2016 as a startup business by two highly experienced fire engineering consultants, the business continues to grow at a phenomenal rate, with offices across the country in eight locations, from Edinburgh to Bath and plans for future expansions.

00:03:10.451 --> 00:03:19.022
If you're keen to find out more or join OFR Consultants during this exciting period of growth, visit their website at ofrconsultantscom.

00:03:19.022 --> 00:03:24.569
And now back to the episode and once again, welcome to the External Firespread.

00:03:24.569 --> 00:03:32.187
I am here, joined again by my great crowd from FSRI, again with me, rebecca Schroeder.

00:03:32.187 --> 00:03:34.123
Hey, rebecca, good to have you back in the podcast.

00:03:34.123 --> 00:03:35.206
Hi, joseph Woolley.

00:03:35.206 --> 00:03:36.209
Hey, joseph, hi there.

00:03:36.409 --> 00:03:37.492
Good to be back, dan Gorham.

00:03:37.719 --> 00:03:38.504
Good to see you.

00:03:39.200 --> 00:03:40.224
And once again, gavin Horn.

00:03:40.224 --> 00:03:59.826
Thank you, great beer.

00:03:59.826 --> 00:04:07.509
There are three independent research experiments that were published already, and I know there are some more in the making.

00:04:07.509 --> 00:04:17.694
One related to the external walls and facades, one related to window pane followed and one related to heat transfer to windows.

00:04:17.694 --> 00:04:22.314
Perhaps let's start with the external fire spread on the walls.

00:04:22.314 --> 00:04:26.697
Daniel, I think you were the one primarily involved in this one.

00:04:26.697 --> 00:04:31.978
So, given that we already had the high-level introduction in the previous episode, let's talk about specific.

00:04:31.978 --> 00:04:40.507
How did this research come into play and which particular aspects of stuff we've discussed in the previous episode this was responding to.

00:04:40.879 --> 00:04:52.026
Yeah, so these were a series of experiments that use the source being a compartment fire with exterior facade, and so the thermal exposure from a close flashover compartment.

00:04:52.026 --> 00:05:01.774
So you have flames coming out of that single opening and a target facade adjacent to it, and so the thermal exposure from this flame is primarily radiative.

00:05:01.774 --> 00:05:06.437
But when they're close together at that you know six foot separation or 1.8 meters.

00:05:06.437 --> 00:05:14.432
Sometimes we're in contact and in the experiments for the target facade what we were looking at was that exterior wall assembly.

00:05:14.432 --> 00:05:21.353
So for residential structures, a lot of times we think of what we see on the outside, what is the siding, what is the cladding.

00:05:21.841 --> 00:05:25.740
We looked at three different exterior materials for these experiments.

00:05:25.740 --> 00:05:34.942
One was T111 plywood, which is a wood material and fairly common in Western stage because wood is prevalent out there.

00:05:34.942 --> 00:05:43.749
Another option is a fiber cement board, again another pretty common material and siding material for residential structures across the country.

00:05:43.749 --> 00:05:46.824
Fiber cement board is actually a non-combustible material.

00:05:46.824 --> 00:05:52.262
And the third was actually a system ETHIS Exterior Insulating Boom System.

00:05:52.262 --> 00:05:59.386
So on the exterior, most surface we had a finished coat of stucco, but the assembly or that system actually had multiple components.

00:05:59.386 --> 00:06:01.451
And this actually gets to another important part.

00:06:01.451 --> 00:06:05.872
Think about fire safety is that it's not just the outermost material.

00:06:05.872 --> 00:06:12.127
That's what we first see, but for the fire spread structure to structure, it is actually really the whole assembly.

00:06:12.127 --> 00:06:17.459
So we looked at the target from the exterior surface all the way through the stud wall.

00:06:17.459 --> 00:06:23.446
So common wall assemblies from the exterior surface through the stud walls.

00:06:23.747 --> 00:06:26.187
You're going to love it because I have like 10 follow-up questions.

00:06:26.187 --> 00:06:27.980
First, how big was it Like?

00:06:27.980 --> 00:06:29.165
Was it a compartment?

00:06:29.165 --> 00:06:30.262
Because it's interesting.

00:06:30.262 --> 00:06:34.507
You say it's a compartment fire, but I can imagine you're doing it in multiple ways.

00:06:34.507 --> 00:06:36.968
You can build a compartment, set it on a fire easy mode.

00:06:36.968 --> 00:06:41.250
You can build a small chamber, put a burner inside and calibrate it.

00:06:41.250 --> 00:06:43.625
Perhaps there are different intermediate ways.

00:06:43.625 --> 00:06:47.312
So how big was the compartment and how did you scale up the fire inside of it?

00:06:47.680 --> 00:06:52.211
So the compartment, you know you could think of it as like a small living space.

00:06:52.211 --> 00:06:57.309
You might be able to fit a kid's bed in there and inside the compartments we actually had typical fuel.

00:06:57.309 --> 00:07:02.786
So it wasn't a gas fuel burner, it was a typical residential fuel load.

00:07:02.786 --> 00:07:10.266
We had two couches, a coffee table, carpet padding and the walls were lined with a combustible material.

00:07:10.266 --> 00:07:15.343
So the fuel load in this compartment fire was typical of modern structure.

00:07:15.343 --> 00:07:25.112
The fire was initiated by a small electric match and so we have that kind of that fire growth curve up through flashover, post-flashover and then a decay.

00:07:25.112 --> 00:07:36.130
And that's what generated this repeatable exposure between experiments at multiple different separation distances and, for the case of exterior walls, for the different exterior wall assemblies.

00:07:36.660 --> 00:07:39.670
Perhaps I'm designing a very similar experiment right now.

00:07:39.670 --> 00:07:42.889
So I'm just going to, out of scientific curiosity, follow up on this one.

00:07:42.889 --> 00:07:44.682
And what were the ventilation conditions?

00:07:44.682 --> 00:07:46.084
Just going to, out of scientific curiosity, follow up on this one.

00:07:46.084 --> 00:07:47.285
And what were the ventilation conditions?

00:07:47.285 --> 00:07:51.430
Did you have another opening to the compartment, like imitating doors, or you kept the doors to your bedroom closed, like you should?

00:07:51.771 --> 00:07:55.975
So this was just a single compartment and there was only one ventilation opening.

00:07:55.975 --> 00:08:01.603
It was about the size of a sliding glass door and it was open the entire time.

00:08:01.603 --> 00:08:05.093
So this wasn't a multi-compartment structure, just a single compartment with a single opening.

00:08:05.093 --> 00:08:15.290
So the kind of fire development in that compartment is simple insofar as fire dynamics is simple, but it was repeatable across all of the experiments.

00:08:15.290 --> 00:08:17.708
So you'd have a bidirectional flow through that opening.

00:08:17.708 --> 00:08:20.709
Correct, right, you had bidirectional flow through the opening.

00:08:21.380 --> 00:08:22.867
Another question was about the targets.

00:08:22.867 --> 00:08:25.007
So how did the target work?

00:08:25.007 --> 00:08:27.348
You said you were placing some targets away.

00:08:27.348 --> 00:08:32.631
Were you interested about the effects of the fire at a distance?

00:08:32.631 --> 00:08:37.908
Or were you also considering what's happening above the window, like if there's two stories or three stories above?

00:08:38.399 --> 00:08:45.668
So for these, experiments we were most focused on the effect of the fire on the target adjacent to or some distance away.

00:08:45.668 --> 00:08:53.326
The source compartment had a facade on it as well, but that facade was clad with non-combustible material and sealed up.

00:08:53.326 --> 00:09:04.673
So the fire jumping from coming out of that single opening did impact the source facade, but it didn't meaningfully or significantly contribute to the thermal exposure to the target.

00:09:04.673 --> 00:09:20.585
The focus of these experiments was this is a source for the purposes of a real-world scenario, it is a home that is fully involved and isn't able to be suppressed, but it's burning and causing exposure to a notation structure that is not yet ignited or is vulnerable to or susceptible to that.

00:09:20.585 --> 00:09:21.744
How did you measure that?

00:09:21.803 --> 00:09:36.899
Heat flux gauges, sorry, yeah, water-cooled heat flux gauges, embedded from the backside and flushed with the front side of the target, and so what we're molding is total, so radiative and convective incident heat flux, again at those distances.

00:09:36.899 --> 00:09:54.510
And so for the wall assembly we had an array of heat flux gauges, five columns, three rows along the center line and then evenly spaced, and so what we measure is this heat flux incident, total heat flux to the target in like a field.

00:09:54.510 --> 00:10:06.347
So it's not a single point that we're actually measuring multiple points, so we get effectively a field that's very interesting, so you could like almost map the incident heat flux on the opposing structure right.

00:10:06.639 --> 00:10:34.868
Yeah, yeah, and we did that consistently on some previous experiments inside a laboratory that motivated and informed these experiments up until the point that the target ignited, because now you have not just the flames from the source compartment but you might have, say, the burning of the wood siding or the burning of the insulation that's melted on the ground.

00:10:34.868 --> 00:10:44.326
So we can measure the source up until the point the target ignites, after which we still get measurements, but it's now the contribution of the source plus the target.

00:10:44.727 --> 00:10:57.831
One thing I wanted to ask because I think either in our prep or even in the previous episode it was brought up that during your historical research study we're also trying to map the heat fluxes that those structures could be exposed to.

00:10:57.831 --> 00:11:00.067
Maybe Joe can answer that.

00:11:00.067 --> 00:11:17.917
So, in terms of your research and the damage observed in the real world, were you able to link the heat exposure maximum, or likely maximum, that structure was exposed to with the damage or severity of the damage of the structure?

00:11:17.917 --> 00:11:22.090
The context of this question is once again, in the previous episode we discussed that.

00:11:22.090 --> 00:11:22.972
Is it binary?

00:11:22.972 --> 00:11:25.489
If it ignited, it's perhaps lost.

00:11:25.489 --> 00:11:29.410
So I wonder if just answering yes it can ignite, no, it cannot ignite.

00:11:29.410 --> 00:11:31.206
Is this far enough?

00:11:31.206 --> 00:11:37.386
Or you're interested whether it was exposed to 15, 25, or 50 kilowatts and there's a difference in the damage.

00:11:37.743 --> 00:11:43.965
Joe, if you could comment on that, yeah, so that's one of the things that we were trying to evaluate and quantify to an extent with these experiments.

00:11:43.965 --> 00:11:57.532
So we had three different separation distances across both the residential clouding assembly experiments and the window pane experiments, and we were able to quantify a range of heat flux exposures for each one of those.

00:11:57.532 --> 00:12:07.038
So the closest separation distance was 1.8 meters and we were seeing heat fluxes within the range of 75 to 125 kilowatts per meter.

00:12:07.038 --> 00:12:07.802
Okay, that's a lot.

00:12:07.802 --> 00:12:20.020
That's a lot, yeah, but then at the three meter separation distance, which is, uh, where most of our window experiments at least uh were conducted, the range was, uh, more so, 40 to 65 kilowatts per meter squared.

00:12:20.020 --> 00:12:31.365
Okay, and then we also examined 4.3 meter separation distance and at that separation distance the exposure was 25 to 35 kilowatts per meter square.

00:12:31.384 --> 00:12:33.566
That's still quite a lot.

00:12:33.566 --> 00:12:38.908
And to better create the image of experiment in my head, how big was the external assembly?

00:12:38.908 --> 00:12:47.870
Because you said that it was constructed with either T111 plywood or this foam system, or non-combustible, which perhaps is not that interesting in this case.

00:12:47.870 --> 00:12:51.572
How big was the external wall assembly compared to the window opening?

00:12:52.092 --> 00:12:57.774
So the total width and height of the wall was 4.9 meters wide by 4.3 tall.

00:12:58.075 --> 00:13:00.395
Okay, so that's a quite large assembly.

00:13:00.635 --> 00:13:07.558
And then, as we mentioned, there was a matched facade that was attached to the source compartment, so like two large spiral walls.

00:13:07.558 --> 00:13:14.703
Yeah, exactly, and then the source compartment opening was 2.4 meters by 2.1 meters.

00:13:15.407 --> 00:13:21.960
But did you not involve any like force flow in between those, or have you done a side experiment with some flows?

00:13:22.201 --> 00:13:25.365
No, and in fact in an effort to kind of help control the wind.

00:13:25.365 --> 00:13:32.448
I mean, we're conducting all these experiments outside, so they're subject to environmental conditions, but for one we measured wind speed.

00:13:32.448 --> 00:13:38.950
So if we had a particularly windy day we wouldn't test or we would move our tests to a later time where the wind had died down.

00:13:38.950 --> 00:13:52.320
But another thing we did to help kind of control the wind, if you will, was that these two structures were on casters, so we were able to orient the test structure, the setup, so then the wind was always coming from the same direction.

00:13:52.320 --> 00:13:59.840
So we oriented it so that the source compartment, the backside of the source compartment, was facing the direction from which the wind was coming.

00:14:00.182 --> 00:14:04.128
Okay, that's a good possibility to not be the victim of a wind.

00:14:04.128 --> 00:14:14.288
I once tried to research what's the minimum wind velocity at which it stops affecting my experiments, but I did not really like the outcomes because I could not find one.

00:14:14.288 --> 00:14:20.299
So it's not very helpful, especially if you have multiple openings.

00:14:20.299 --> 00:14:25.408
If you have just one opening, then it's probably less vulnerable, but if you have multiple openings opening, then it's probably less vulnerable.

00:14:25.408 --> 00:14:27.044
But if you have multiple openings then it's pretty crazy.

00:14:27.044 --> 00:14:32.023
And that that's a another fsri episode with craig vasing like plug to that episode.

00:14:32.344 --> 00:14:39.908
I'll put the link in the show notes where you can read about wind induced flows and and the flows in fire experiments in general.

00:14:39.908 --> 00:14:45.389
Dan, you've mentioned these different types of facades, so the fire inside the compartment is always the same.

00:14:45.389 --> 00:14:50.773
The doors leading to outside were open so you had ventilation to that facade.

00:14:50.773 --> 00:14:54.289
How did the experiments go with different exterior systems?

00:14:54.289 --> 00:15:01.573
I can assume that from the least flammable, the fiber cement board, which is non-combustible, it was just your baseline.

00:15:01.573 --> 00:15:05.217
But how did it look with the plywood and the foam system material?

00:15:05.538 --> 00:15:11.692
Yeah, so you know, one of the things that we had talked about was, you know, is ignition the only thing that we care about?

00:15:11.692 --> 00:15:12.854
Does it or doesn't it light?

00:15:12.854 --> 00:15:20.945
And these experiments and post-fire analysis kind of suggest that, yes, ignition is very important and that was something that we studied.

00:15:20.945 --> 00:15:25.740
But we also looked at other reactions to fire events for the various different components.

00:15:25.740 --> 00:15:34.274
You know, looking at kind of paralysis components like off gassing and discoloration for some of the exterior wall and cladding materials.

00:15:34.274 --> 00:15:41.620
You look at components like cracking and spalling some of the exterior wall assemblies, the cladding actually detached Right.

00:15:41.620 --> 00:15:48.390
So now we're talking about not just what is on the exterior but what is inside, what are the different layers of the assembly.

00:15:48.390 --> 00:15:53.807
And then, you know, you think about relating this to real world and how does this matter?

00:15:54.307 --> 00:16:08.249
We looked at both fire propagation, you know, not just ignition of a point, but fire spread across the surface of the exterior wall facade, and that's both horizontal and vertical, and fire penetration through to the backside, which I just want to mention.

00:16:08.249 --> 00:16:17.501
One other component these facade walls also had an eave component, so kind of like the gable end of a home, so the eave stuck out at the top.

00:16:17.501 --> 00:16:20.837
So when we're looking at building susceptibility and vulnerability.

00:16:20.837 --> 00:16:28.005
I think it's really important to recognize it's the mechanisms radiant heat, direct flame contact in embers, it's a combination of them.

00:16:28.005 --> 00:16:47.312
But also we need to think about not just individual components, not just the exterior wall, not just the windows, not just the roof, but where those components interface and these experiments actually shed some insight on not just having a non-combustible exterior, but where that exterior cladding meets the eave and fire spread up.

00:16:47.312 --> 00:16:56.254
So again, it kind of shows some of the things that you might suspect, and doing it in a repeatable and a controlled way can help us better understand and build back better.

00:16:56.500 --> 00:17:08.603
Yeah, I also understand from the paper that it's not just about finding the maximum heat flux on the opposite facade, but it was also about finding that in kind of a time integrated fashion.

00:17:08.603 --> 00:17:11.991
So can you tell me about the time component in that research?

00:17:12.440 --> 00:17:20.222
Yeah, so we use the time integrated heat flux or term, we use heat load, and so this is the amount of energy per unit area.

00:17:20.222 --> 00:17:32.772
So integrated heat flux, kilowatts gives us kilojoules and we oftentimes report in megajoules per meter squared, and so this is a way to kind of understand that amount of energy accumulation to that surface.

00:17:33.760 --> 00:17:36.468
Like a dose on the wall, heat dose kind of.

00:17:37.108 --> 00:17:38.353
Exactly, exactly.

00:17:38.353 --> 00:17:48.769
One of the things that limitation or a strength of that approach is again, it kind of integrates over time but what it gives us is that dose to the surface.

00:17:48.769 --> 00:17:50.013
Again, we talked about that.

00:17:50.013 --> 00:17:54.167
Exterior walls are oftentimes assemblies of any material.

00:17:54.167 --> 00:17:59.882
There's an interface between materials and so it doesn't necessarily give us that heat transfer through.

00:17:59.882 --> 00:18:03.105
Yet we see fire penetration through.

00:18:03.105 --> 00:18:16.376
So it's helpful for comparing across, but also recognize that there are additional heat transfer factors like conduction and convection through the wall assembly that play a role in how that wall assembly will respond.

00:18:16.819 --> 00:18:17.321
You know what.

00:18:17.321 --> 00:18:20.723
I'll ask one more follow-up question and that foam system.

00:18:20.723 --> 00:18:25.493
You really did capture my attention about this exterior insulation finishing system.

00:18:25.493 --> 00:18:36.413
So if you could tell me more about technical aspects of that material and how it behaved in fire and I'm especially curious because in Poland I'm not really sure if we would have external insulation with foam.

00:18:36.413 --> 00:18:40.040
Probably it exists on the market but I wouldn't say it's very popular In here.

00:18:40.040 --> 00:18:48.606
We would just go ethics with polystyrene mostly on everything, like we love putting polystyrene on everything in Poland up to 25 meters above that.

00:18:48.606 --> 00:18:50.163
We like putting mineral wool.

00:18:50.223 --> 00:18:53.845
For some reason, fire reasons, yeah yeah, yeah, can I talk about EFIS?

00:18:53.845 --> 00:18:56.008
And can I also mention an interesting point?

00:18:56.008 --> 00:19:01.587
I don't think I made the connection but I want to make an interesting T111, kind of the wood sodding is pretty simple.

00:19:01.587 --> 00:19:02.490
Wood ignites.

00:19:02.490 --> 00:19:11.386
I want to make a comment about the fiber cement clad and the OSB beneath it, so the T111 siding.

00:19:11.386 --> 00:19:22.323
There's been a fair amount of previous research looking at that and so the wood siding ignites at a point and then fire oftentimes propagated across the surface, so vertically and horizontally.

00:19:22.323 --> 00:19:29.095
A lot of times we would suppress and end the experiment before causing significant damage to the target.

00:19:29.095 --> 00:19:34.512
So the T111 results, while important to provide some context, were not all that interesting.

00:19:35.260 --> 00:19:37.209
A couple of interesting observations.

00:19:37.209 --> 00:19:41.250
One for the fiber cement siding, we actually looked at two different form factors.

00:19:41.250 --> 00:19:52.442
One in the panels or the sheets, which is very common to create that board and batten look, and another form factor was the lat board which kind of gives you that horizontal.

00:19:52.442 --> 00:19:55.509
It looks almost like wood siding but it's made with fiber cement.

00:19:55.509 --> 00:20:05.212
So one these non-combustible exterior wall coverings, cladding sidings meet nearly all of the codes that are specific to WU.

00:20:05.212 --> 00:20:12.413
One of the compliance option is a non-combustible cover, so that covering, again without knowing every single one.

00:20:12.413 --> 00:20:21.165
Most of the big ones NFPA, california Building Code and ICC say that if you have non-combustible covering you meet the exterior wall.

00:20:21.165 --> 00:20:34.027
But the observation at the 1.8 meter separation distance so that's about six feet and it's not uncommon you can imagine fuels being separated by that or closer was while the cladding didn't ignite.

00:20:34.409 --> 00:20:47.523
The assembly, which included OSB sheathing that the cladding was attached to, did, and so what we see is fire spreaded up this wall that's clad with a non combustible material and there's a little bit of a.

00:20:47.625 --> 00:20:48.670
I didn't expect that.

00:20:48.670 --> 00:20:51.943
Or someone would say, oh, that's non-combustible siding that won't ignite.

00:20:51.943 --> 00:20:53.730
Yet we see examples of it.

00:20:53.730 --> 00:21:08.164
And so that the thinking about the wall assembly and not just what's on the exterior what's on the exterior matters, but what's beneath it matters as well and so you think about the different form factors, the panels and where they need, and you have the batten over top of it.

00:21:08.164 --> 00:21:25.176
When you have the lap board, you actually have a lot more interfaces, a lot more intersections, and one of the experiments we actually pulled the lap siding off and you could see in the OSB and the sheathing you know where it had burned, localized where the fiber cement board was.

00:21:25.176 --> 00:21:29.549
It didn't conduct through so there wasn't burning there, but where the interfaces were is where it had burned.

00:21:29.549 --> 00:21:36.830
So again, really important to think about, not just what we see from the outside, not just the siding, but the wall assembly that cladding is.

00:21:37.380 --> 00:21:43.232
Now one another reason to really think about the systems, not just materials.

00:21:43.519 --> 00:21:45.374
And in Poland also, in many cases you would only care about the systems, not just materials.

00:21:45.413 --> 00:21:59.969
And in Poland also in many cases you would only care about the render, like external layer of the system, and it's two completely different fires if you have 10 centimeters of polystyrene or 30 centimeters polystyrene behind that render, so it creates completely different mechanisms.

00:22:00.421 --> 00:22:17.916
Anyway, let's try to make a link to the Windows, because I really enjoyed that part of the research that using this heat load would allow you to compare again the time of exposure or the length of exposure of that or the size of exposure of that wall to an external fire and then try to compare it.

00:22:17.916 --> 00:22:21.190
Is it sufficient to create this new pathway to enter the building?

00:22:21.190 --> 00:22:25.428
So let's perhaps try the window fall-off research.

00:22:25.428 --> 00:22:46.644
So, joe, that's a paper with you as the first author on, so if you can tell me about how you've approached that, what was the scale of the experiment and some general design points, and then we'll move into the findings and perhaps we'll try to find a link with the research Dan just talked about and perhaps we'll try to find a link with the research Dan just talked about Dan Heldmanis Sure.

00:22:46.663 --> 00:22:47.984
So window pane failure experiment.

00:22:47.984 --> 00:22:58.390
We're looking at a similar setup as the exterior experiments, where we had the same source compartment and the same target facade wall in terms of overall dimensions.

00:22:58.390 --> 00:23:07.650
However, the wall itself had eight window openings and within those window openings was a custom fixed frame window assembly.

00:23:07.730 --> 00:23:12.903
So, in your case, tell me how the windows were fit and what kind of assemblies did you choose.

00:23:13.049 --> 00:23:18.883
We were primarily looking at four different types of assemblies, different variations of plain glass and tempered glass.

00:23:18.883 --> 00:23:22.359
So one of the assemblies was both panes plain glass.

00:23:22.359 --> 00:23:23.830
Second one both panes plain glass.

00:23:23.830 --> 00:23:24.872
Second one both panes tempered.

00:23:24.872 --> 00:23:38.406
And then we looked at two with one pane plain glass, one pane tempered, in both orientations, so one with the plain glass on the exposed side, tempered on the backside, and vice versa, with tempered on the exposed side and plain glass on the backside.

00:23:44.710 --> 00:23:53.280
And then, as far as the windows, during the experiments within the target facade we had eight windows mounted, so two rows of four windows symmetrically spaced on the target facade, and this resulted in four different exposure conditions.

00:23:53.280 --> 00:24:05.505
So if you think about splitting the target facade in half to the left side and the right side, the uppermost, like the top row leftmost window, has the same exposure as the top row rightmost window.

00:24:05.505 --> 00:24:19.152
So we had these were double hung style windows, so we were able to get two pane assemblies per window opening and so that resulted with your two exposure conditions and then two pane assemblies per window.

00:24:19.152 --> 00:24:22.939
We had 16 pane assemblies that we were exposing per experiment.

00:24:23.400 --> 00:24:25.144
Okay, that's a clever design.

00:24:25.144 --> 00:24:29.413
I have the paper in front of my eyes, so it makes interpretation much easier.

00:24:29.413 --> 00:24:36.915
The papers are open access and available to anyone who wants to take a look into them, and you can find the links in the show notes.

00:24:36.915 --> 00:24:46.450
It makes following up much, much easier if you can see that, but of course, if you're driving or jogging, let's stick to the audio description.

00:24:46.450 --> 00:24:53.084
So instead of having a wall with different facade system, like Downhead, you now have a wall with four windows.

00:24:53.084 --> 00:24:57.020
The windows are fit into some sort of non-combustible frame.

00:24:57.020 --> 00:24:58.535
Did you change that as well?

00:24:58.535 --> 00:24:58.930
Yep.

00:24:59.190 --> 00:25:03.732
So the wall itself was equipped with non-combustible siding.

00:25:03.732 --> 00:25:08.016
And then we had our windows themselves were custom built frames.

00:25:08.016 --> 00:25:13.700
So they were fixed wooden frames covered with a poly ash composite trim to kind of resist burning.

00:25:13.700 --> 00:25:17.663
And the reason that well, we did the custom frames for a couple of reasons.

00:25:17.663 --> 00:25:21.425
One was so we could vary the paint assemblies between the top and bottom sashes.

00:25:21.425 --> 00:25:28.910
But then also by having this solid, rigid frame we don't get out of plane stresses that you might see with other window frames, like vinyl.

00:25:28.910 --> 00:25:33.250
When they start to warp and melt that causes additional structures on the paint assembly.

00:25:33.250 --> 00:25:34.335
That would affect failure.

00:25:34.335 --> 00:25:41.000
And then we did one-off experiment with vinyl frames to see how that compared to our custom built frames.

00:25:41.750 --> 00:25:42.530
And the frames.

00:25:42.530 --> 00:25:44.253
The custom frame structure was the timber.

00:25:44.253 --> 00:25:45.916
Was that combustible or?

00:25:46.037 --> 00:25:49.864
It was a wood base but it was covered by a composite.

00:25:49.943 --> 00:25:55.433
Okay, so now let's talk about how a window can fail.

00:25:55.433 --> 00:25:59.942
What you were looking for a cracks, a complete fall off, a hole in the window.

00:26:00.349 --> 00:26:08.038
So the way we identified window failure was the first sign of a crack with plain glass that's just in some cases a small crack.

00:26:08.038 --> 00:26:10.499
In some cases it's a long crack that propagates.

00:26:10.499 --> 00:26:25.402
Sometimes it's multiple cracks, but then, with tempered, there's a feature of tempered glass that, more so, shatters when it fails, and those were two layered windows, so you were observing just the outermost layer or the innermost layer, both.

00:26:25.890 --> 00:26:42.583
Yeah, we identified both the failure of the outer pane and the inner pane, or the backside pane, and we labeled complete failure as when both panes of a window had failed and we were able to identify this through mounting high-definition cameras on the backside of each window.

00:26:42.583 --> 00:26:57.846
This through mounting high definition cameras on the backside of each window, so then we could go back and get a time resolved indication of when each of those failure events happened for each window pane assembly so you could also look into the progression of a failure, like time from first crack into complete time was something also you're looking at uh, not not for this

00:26:58.388 --> 00:27:09.078
analysis specifically okay, cool, but again, because of your frames, you were not able to tell if the frame has failed and therefore the whole pane would fall off.

00:27:09.078 --> 00:27:11.854
Or is this something you looked into with the vinyl?

00:27:11.913 --> 00:27:12.855
frames Right.

00:27:12.855 --> 00:27:17.234
So that was not the case with the custom built frames, since they were solid material.

00:27:17.234 --> 00:27:32.692
That's one of the findings we discovered with the vinyl frame window experiments is that in the majority of cases, a three meter separation distance with the solid fixed frames, we did not have complete failure of two types of our window panes.

00:27:32.692 --> 00:27:38.349
Typically that both panes tempered and then plain glass, exposed side, tempered backside.

00:27:38.349 --> 00:27:40.640
So in the majority of those cases they survived.

00:27:40.640 --> 00:27:55.582
However, with the one vinyl frame experiment that we also ran at a three meter separation distance, we had all of them fail and that was due to the warping and melting of the frames and in some cases the whole sash would fall from the target facade onto the ground.

00:27:55.990 --> 00:28:02.218
It's an experience that I also shared, like when we were doing one timber frame building experiment at ITB.

00:28:02.218 --> 00:28:08.160
We were having like a flashover fire in that room and it had, I believe, a vinyl frame window.

00:28:08.160 --> 00:28:09.335
It was like tilted away.

00:28:09.335 --> 00:28:27.653
I was really eager to capture a video of the glass cracking for my social media purposes and I was standing like very close to that window with my phone out like an idiot for like a really long time Refused to crack and then I gave up.

00:28:27.653 --> 00:28:29.660
I hid my phone out like an idiot for like really long time refused to crack and then I gave up.

00:28:29.660 --> 00:28:31.847
I I hid my phone and then, uh, the the whole window started like sliding off.

00:28:31.847 --> 00:28:41.815
You know the glass was not damaged but it kind of like started sliding out of the frame, like the frame was like losing its strength and it just fell out completely.

00:28:42.517 --> 00:28:45.181
I'm not sure if that would make a good social media material.

00:28:45.181 --> 00:28:50.961
Definitely would drive my health and safety people crazy if I published that.

00:28:50.961 --> 00:28:52.536
Perhaps it's better I did not.

00:28:52.536 --> 00:28:57.077
But it was very interesting that the glass failure was not necessarily the failure of a window.

00:28:57.077 --> 00:28:59.538
Anyway, back to here.

00:28:59.538 --> 00:29:07.260
You were looking into time at which this happened, but also you're looking at this heat load, if I understood correctly, right.

00:29:07.550 --> 00:29:26.056
Yeah, so the way our experiments were designed was that we ran five replicates at the three meter separation distance at 16 paint assemblies per experiment.

00:29:26.056 --> 00:29:41.102
That resulted in us having 20 paired observations of each paint assembly type that we could compare, that run a statistical comparison on between the different types, and so we did that looking at the heat load measurement, which again is a integrated uh heat flux, integrated over time, similar to what dan did, okay.

00:29:41.122 --> 00:29:46.734
So we did this analysis for different failure conditions or just different means of failure.

00:29:46.734 --> 00:30:24.560
So we looked at the time and heat flux when the outer pain failed and when the backside pain failed and when we had complete failure, which again was both pains having failed, and what we found was that, unsurprisingly, the both panes tempered outperformed, both panes plain glass and, in the majority of cases, the double pane, both panes tempered did not fail at the three meter separation distance, whereas when we look at the ones that have one plain glass, one tempered glass pane, we found that the orientation of that pane assembly has a tremendous impact on when you have complete failure of that pane assembly Okay, we on.

00:30:24.560 --> 00:30:25.829
When you have complete failure of that paint assembly, okay.

00:30:25.829 --> 00:30:45.151
What we found was that if you have tempered glass on the exposed side and plain glass on the back side, that performs more like if you have double paint with plain glass, whereas if you have plain glass on the exposed side and tempered on the back side, that performed a lot more similarly to the bulk paint's tempered glass backside.

00:30:45.151 --> 00:30:46.817
That performed a lot more similarly to the bolt panes, tempered glass.

00:30:46.836 --> 00:31:00.361
And the reason that what we determined was the primary reason for this is because if you have tempered glass on the exposed side and plain glass on the backside, you have failure of that tempered glass, in some cases before, in other cases after failure of that backside plain glass.

00:31:00.361 --> 00:31:02.758
But if the backside plain glass hadn't failed yet, that tempered glass shatters.

00:31:02.758 --> 00:31:14.678
If the backside plain glass hadn't failed yet, that tempered glass shatters, the amount of protection that you had from that exposed side pane is now a lot less because the tempered pane has shattered and in some cases fallen out.

00:31:14.678 --> 00:31:23.180
But then there were other instances where we saw there was enough heat transferred through that exterior side pane to cause the backside plain glass pane to crack.

00:31:23.789 --> 00:31:25.777
And to relate this to the heat flux.

00:31:25.777 --> 00:31:30.019
So you said three meters, so 45, 65 kilowatts per square meter, more or less.

00:31:30.230 --> 00:31:36.238
Yeah, and the exposure durations that we had were anywhere from four and a half to nine minutes post-flashover.

00:31:36.558 --> 00:31:37.501
Four and a half to nine minutes.

00:31:37.501 --> 00:31:38.794
Okay, cool.

00:31:38.794 --> 00:31:44.518
And how about the results at the 1.8 meter separation and 4.3 meter separation distance?

00:31:44.518 --> 00:31:51.564
So first, like 1.8 meter, I saw in the pictures that the flame is like literally touching the adjacent walls.

00:31:51.564 --> 00:31:53.016
So how did that work out?

00:31:53.830 --> 00:32:04.342
As you mentioned, with the 1.8 meter you have a lot more heat transfer from direct flame contact and the exposures are just much more severe than the three meter separation distance.

00:32:04.342 --> 00:32:13.862
So at the 1.8, we were looking at 75 to 125 kilowatts per meter squared and we found that even the double pane tempered glass has a limit there.

00:32:13.862 --> 00:32:29.858
And we had failure in all panes except for one which was a double pane, both panes tempered, but it was at one of the lower exposure conditions on the outside and in this case all of them fail outside of this one, in the biggest separation, 4.3 meters.

00:32:29.970 --> 00:32:33.780
So here you said 25, 35, if I'm not wrong, the heat flux, yep.

00:32:33.950 --> 00:33:00.509
So, with the 4.3 meter separation distance, we had heat fluxes in the range of 25 to 35 kilowatts per meter squared and we found that while we had failure of one pane, with the tempered-tempered pane assembly, as well as plain on the exposed side, tempered backside, none of those pane assemblies experienced complete failure, whereas the other two pane assemblies we had complete failure in all, four of each type.

00:33:00.770 --> 00:33:02.617
So it's really, really interesting.

00:33:02.617 --> 00:33:20.821
I mean you've done this research to, of course, inform the fire spread between the structures, but because the way how you tested it, especially at this 1.8 meter configuration, it perhaps is also a good source of information of how windows can fall in a flesh-overed compartment.

00:33:20.821 --> 00:33:26.398
Have you tried to look at these results, thinking about compartment fires as well?

00:33:26.549 --> 00:33:41.483
Well, actually, in terms of window failure research, there's a lot of the larger closer-to-full-scale experiments that have looked at window failure have been a fire that's inside of a compartment and when the window fails from that.

00:33:41.569 --> 00:34:04.637
But obviously with that you now have additional effects like compartment effects that could potentially impact the window failure I still think this would be an excellent reference point for for the especially growing fires in the compartments when you're yet not have a flashover, but you can still have quite significant heat fluxes or perhaps flames impinging your window to some extent.

00:34:04.637 --> 00:34:08.449
Anyway, I said there's a link between this and the Dan's part.

00:34:08.449 --> 00:34:17.525
So, dan, maybe you can explain the findings in relation of igniting the external wall and the window breakage.

00:34:17.525 --> 00:34:23.661
How did it rank what's more likely to happen your external wall igniting or window damage?

00:34:24.181 --> 00:34:27.369
Like what's more likely to happen, your external wall igniting or window damage?

00:34:27.369 --> 00:34:39.322
Yeah, so you know, we found that at the 1.8 meter separation distance we only looked at that non-combustible fiber cement siding but it had a combustible components and in all four of those experiments the combustible component, the OSB, ignited.

00:34:39.322 --> 00:34:52.394
So at that really close separation distance the intensity is so severe, so intense that even with a non-combustible exterior siding it's possible in these cases, four out of four times that the wall ignited.

00:34:52.394 --> 00:34:55.722
And then relate that to Joe's experiment.

00:34:55.722 --> 00:34:57.490
These were walls with no openings.

00:34:57.490 --> 00:35:08.295
But if you had an opening in that wall, say a window opening, we tried to look at the differences between what would have failed first, what it had been the rear wall or what have been the windows.

00:35:08.295 --> 00:35:15.599
But that really close separation distance is kind of there's so much just kind of chaoticness of you know where it ignited.

00:35:15.599 --> 00:35:26.875
But as we start to increase the separation distance to three meters and 4.3 meters, we start to see some divergence in the heat load at the time of window failure or exterior wall failure.

00:35:26.875 --> 00:35:35.456
So kind of the short answer is that sometimes the window will fail, create an opening before the exterior wall does.

00:35:35.456 --> 00:35:43.581
Sometimes the exterior wall would have ignited, or some component of it would have ignited before the window opened.

00:35:43.621 --> 00:36:00.442
But I think that this is an important time to highlight that, while the times vary and we may not have enough sample size to converge on what would have happened first or last, it's important to point out that when one failed, it created a vulnerability or an increased susceptibility of the other.

00:36:00.442 --> 00:36:03.735
So use the exterior wall igniting as an example.

00:36:03.735 --> 00:36:07.382
If the exterior wall ignited first, the window hadn't.

00:36:07.382 --> 00:36:16.621
Now you maybe have some localized flame from the burning siding or the burning wall component that is now in addition to that source exposure.

00:36:16.621 --> 00:36:18.255
You have some localized flame.

00:36:18.255 --> 00:36:19.434
So what would have caused that sooner?

00:36:19.434 --> 00:36:25.561
And then, at the same time, joe looked at the failure of the opening in the window.

00:36:25.561 --> 00:36:34.175
Now that we have a pathway for flames from that localized burning siding or embers, which wasn't a focus of these experiments.

00:36:34.175 --> 00:36:43.822
But in these urban configurations, the extra fires here also times can have firebrand embers that opening is a pathway for smoke, flames and embers into the structure.

00:36:44.791 --> 00:36:49.356
And were there configurations in which you would see a failure of window but not the failure of the wall?

00:36:49.871 --> 00:37:03.057
Yeah, so at three meter separation distance, which is where we had the most experiments in Joe's pain failure, we had the number for the other separation distance for the exterior siding, for the non-combustible siding, so that would be the fiber cement siding.

00:37:03.318 --> 00:37:13.018
We did not have ignition of the wall assembly, right, so there was still the same OSD behind it, but at three meter separation distance we saw discoloration of the fiber cement board.

00:37:13.110 --> 00:37:20.489
We might've seen some cracking, maybe some off gassing, perhaps from the OSD beneath it, but we didn't see that wall ignite at three meters.

00:37:20.489 --> 00:37:33.719
But at that same separation distance, with different experiment but similar replicate exposure source compartment for those experiments with the windows at three meters we did see that the windows could fail.

00:37:33.719 --> 00:37:47.976
And so this is an example where if you're replacing the siding on your home and you say, okay, I don't want this combustible wood siding, I want to put non-combustible on, that's great and maybe at that larger separation distance that component won't ignite.

00:37:47.976 --> 00:38:09.936
But you have to think about what also is in that exterior wall, like your windows, and if you have on that exposed side of the home windows that might be broken or fractured by that exposure, your siding doesn't ignite or your wall assembly doesn't ignite, but there is another building component, the window through it, that might fracture, as Jewish paint experiment should.

00:38:10.510 --> 00:38:21.599
One more fire engineering consideration that I would add is like where the windows are against each other, because if your window is looking at the window of your neighbor, that's perhaps the perfect configuration for fire spread.

00:38:21.599 --> 00:38:27.960
But maybe one could design it in such a way that the windows are fairly far away from each other.

00:38:27.960 --> 00:38:30.291
You also create less of those vulnerabilities, right?

00:38:30.632 --> 00:38:38.918
if I can, that might be a comment that could make you know a lot of these track built homes where you have very close separation distances here in the west.

00:38:38.918 --> 00:39:00.757
They're very common designs that are back to back to back and actually it's one thing that I see around here in oregon where you have a lot of those where windows are facing windows very near to each other because it's a very similar to the structure design, usually have maybe a handful of those layout and you can see a lot of those almost like a generic yeah, very.

00:39:01.338 --> 00:39:01.938
Very much so.

00:39:01.938 --> 00:39:17.539
Very similar looking structures with some small differences, and oftentimes that ends up with one, if you do catch one on fire a vent coming out from one that could be very near to the window, or an opening on the nearby structure.

00:39:17.909 --> 00:39:37.896
But it would be sensible to say that if you had a real non-combustible wall like a masonry structure and a tempered, tempered glass pane and a non-combustible window frame that doesn't deform at this 4.3 meter, if your window survives, it doesn't create a vulnerability, Assuming it's a completely non-combustible structure.

00:39:37.896 --> 00:39:41.083
You create no pathway for that.

00:39:41.083 --> 00:39:44.599
It seems fairly safe in that case from those two experiments, right?

00:39:45.250 --> 00:39:45.710
I think so.

00:39:45.710 --> 00:39:46.893
I think that does.

00:39:46.893 --> 00:39:53.956
There's no opening in your scenario of a non-combustible wall and non-combustible window and component that don't ignite.

00:39:53.956 --> 00:39:59.543
But one of the things that it doesn't capture is heat transmission through those opening.

00:39:59.543 --> 00:40:13.501
So the window might not have cracked or might not have failed, but there is still some amount of heat transmission through it that might cause the combustibles inside of the structure, your curtains or your furniture, the things that we have in our homes to live in.

00:40:13.501 --> 00:40:20.574
Just because you don't have the ignition on the exterior, it doesn't mean you might not have ignition on the interior components.

00:40:21.096 --> 00:40:23.621
And here comes in Rebecca with the third piece of research.

00:40:23.621 --> 00:40:33.442
So, rebecca, to your research on how the radiation through the window can create another pathway of fire spread.

00:40:33.442 --> 00:40:37.798
So again, if you could tell me, like, how did you design the experiment and what particular you were looking for in your experiments?

00:40:38.400 --> 00:40:38.641
Yeah.

00:40:38.641 --> 00:41:05.768
So for these experiments we were really focusing on heat transferred through the window, looking at varying the glass types and the number of glass types, whether or not they were coated or uncoated, looking at differences in the fill gas between double pane window assemblies, and so to do this we measured the total heat flux about five centimeters behind the back of the window assembly, about five centimeters behind the back of the window assembly.

00:41:05.768 --> 00:41:18.164
And so some of the motivation from this is we've seen in previous post-Wooey Fire case studies mention combustibles on the inside of a home igniting or having thermal deformation prior to a window failing.

00:41:18.164 --> 00:41:26.463
We've also seen this in some of our own FSRI studies that weren't necessarily even focused on wildfire exposures.

00:41:26.463 --> 00:41:48.719
One study in particular for multi-story apartments, there was an exterior fire experiment where fire went up the back of a deck to an unit that was above the apartment where the fire was ignited, above the apartment where the fire was ignited and we saw some curtains behind a sliding glass door that actually ignited prior to that slider failing.

00:41:48.719 --> 00:41:59.077
So we knew that this is definitely a threat to structure survivability and wanted to study this at more of a repeatable high level of control scale.

00:41:59.170 --> 00:42:03.456
So that's why we decided to expose windows to a radiant panel.

00:42:03.456 --> 00:42:12.192
We exposed them to heat fluxes between 10 kilowatts per meter squared and 50 kilowatts per meter squared for a consistent length of time.

00:42:12.192 --> 00:42:17.141
The windows themselves were 23 centimeters by 23 centimeters.

00:42:17.141 --> 00:42:23.521
This size was chosen so that way the entire window fit within the footprint of the radiant panel that we had.

00:42:23.521 --> 00:42:48.762
And then the six different types of windows specifically that we looked at were single pane plain glass windows, single pane tempered glass, double pane plain and tempered glass with a air gap fill in both of those two window types, and then double pane windows filled with air in both of those two window types, and then double-pane windows filled with air but had a low emissivity coating on them, and those were also tempered.

00:42:48.762 --> 00:42:54.117
And then double-pane tempered windows with a low emissivity coating but in argon fill gas.

00:42:54.117 --> 00:42:58.293
So those were the different variables that we had during these experiments.

00:42:58.875 --> 00:42:59.918
What were you looking at?

00:42:59.918 --> 00:43:06.702
So you've measured the heat flux behind the window and were you also looking through the failure mode or time or heat load at which it failed?

00:43:06.762 --> 00:43:16.981
Yeah, so we also recorded the time to glass cracking and then when the window itself failed and these experiments failure was for the tempered glass windows.

00:43:16.981 --> 00:43:19.798
Failure was defined as when the outer pane failed.

00:43:19.798 --> 00:43:28.561
Because of the mechanism of tempered glass failure the pane kind of shattered and so some glass kind of would sometimes get lodged in the radiant panel.

00:43:28.561 --> 00:43:33.746
So we shut down the experiment then, even though the backside pane was still intact.

00:43:34.391 --> 00:43:39.835
So the heat flux you were exposing to that, was it something changing in time or it's just flat exposure?

00:43:40.230 --> 00:43:41.594
It was a constant exposure.

00:43:41.936 --> 00:43:46.601
Constant exposure, and was the heat flux behind the window changing, or was it also a constant?

00:43:46.601 --> 00:43:49.317
Because you know it's radiant heat transfer, so it's like immediate.

00:43:49.317 --> 00:43:50.681
How was it looking?

00:43:51.170 --> 00:43:55.822
So initially, the heat flux measure behind the window would increase at the beginning of each experiment.

00:43:55.822 --> 00:44:01.063
Some of our experiments lasted up to 20 minutes if we didn't have any window failure.

00:44:01.063 --> 00:44:07.909
In that case we'd see the heat flux measured behind the window begin to steady out for the last little bit of the experiment.

00:44:07.909 --> 00:44:14.730
But in experiments that were ended earlier, we still saw an increase in heat flux exposure at the end of those experiments.

00:44:14.971 --> 00:44:19.737
So my question is how much of this radiant heat flux does a window actually block out?

00:44:19.737 --> 00:44:26.289
So if you asked me this question before this interview, I would say it's like pretty transparent to me, at least to the daylight.

00:44:26.289 --> 00:44:28.038
So how does it look for radiation?

00:44:28.610 --> 00:44:34.135
Yeah, so definitely it depended on whether or not there was a low emissivity coating on the window.

00:44:34.135 --> 00:44:50.302
These are some of the first experiments that we've seen where we're looking at the impact of a low E coating on how it impacts heat transfer through a window for fire exposure, not just looking at how low E coatings impact energy efficiency of a window.

00:44:50.302 --> 00:44:58.898
And so we saw a significant reduction in the heat transferred through the windows that had a low E coating compared to those that didn't have a coating on them.

00:44:59.760 --> 00:45:00.483
What's a coating?

00:45:00.483 --> 00:45:02.858
Is it like a foil that you attach to the window?

00:45:02.858 --> 00:45:03.659
How does it?

00:45:03.659 --> 00:45:04.021
What's the technology?

00:45:04.021 --> 00:45:05.000
How does it work that you attach to the window?

00:45:05.000 --> 00:45:05.302
What's the technology?

00:45:05.302 --> 00:45:05.436
How does it work?

00:45:05.550 --> 00:45:07.438
So there are different types of low-e coatings.

00:45:07.438 --> 00:45:14.561
This one was a film that was applied to the exterior side of the pane that was facing the radiant panel.

00:45:14.822 --> 00:45:15.903
Is it reflect?

00:45:15.903 --> 00:45:16.704
What's the mechanism?

00:45:16.704 --> 00:45:17.855
Does it reflect heat?

00:45:17.855 --> 00:45:18.411
So?

00:45:18.451 --> 00:45:23.342
it will reflect and then reduce the heat and light that's transmitted through the window pane.

00:45:27.190 --> 00:45:29.275
And did it influence the time to the failure of the external pane?

00:45:29.275 --> 00:45:32.782
Is there a trade-off like less transmitted, but failure occurs quicker or not?

00:45:33.010 --> 00:45:49.492
So we did see in the experiments with double-pane, low-e-coated, argon-filled windows for the fill gas filled windows for the fill gas.

00:45:49.512 --> 00:45:51.663
we did see that those windows tended to survive longer compared to those that were filled with air.

00:45:51.663 --> 00:45:53.170
Okay, now, looking through the results that you've provided, I see the table.

00:45:53.170 --> 00:45:56.920
So indeed, the reduction of heat flux is very high.

00:45:56.920 --> 00:46:03.784
I assume that the final heat flux means the heat flux at the time when the window fails.

00:46:03.784 --> 00:46:05.295
That's what I assume.

00:46:05.409 --> 00:46:07.032
At the end of each experiment.

00:46:07.032 --> 00:46:12.164
The end of each experiment did differ depending on the experiment itself.

00:46:12.164 --> 00:46:19.284
If the window did not fail over a length of 20 minutes, then we ended the experiment at 20 minutes.

00:46:19.284 --> 00:46:23.260
If the window failed beforehand, then we'd end the experiment there.

00:46:23.260 --> 00:46:40.461
So the times to each experiment end were different, but we focused our analysis on the heat flux measured behind windows 30 seconds after exposure began across all the experiments so we could have a consistent time mark to look at the difference in heat flux measured behind each window.

00:46:41.030 --> 00:46:52.114
So I see that for 10 kilowatt exposure the windows have not failed, like all of them passed and the exposure is 10 kilowatts, and for plain window you, for example, have six kilowatts.

00:46:52.114 --> 00:46:56.539
On the other side, for double, you have 38, 4.3.

00:46:56.539 --> 00:46:58.190
So that's a significant reduction.

00:46:58.190 --> 00:47:06.679
That's like 40 to 60% reduction For higher heat fluxes, though, you start observing some failures.

00:47:06.679 --> 00:47:16.777
So what would you say is the target heat flux behind the window that could lead to ignition of, let's say, curtains or whatever material can be behind the window?

00:47:19.101 --> 00:47:30.036
So we compared the heat fluxes measured behind the windows in the experiments to a couple minimum heat fluxes required for non-piloted ignition of combustible materials.

00:47:30.036 --> 00:47:40.074
So there has been some past research that has shown that we can have smoldering ignition of polyurethane foam at as little as 7 kilowatts per meter squared.

00:47:40.074 --> 00:47:43.012
Additionally, maple plywood can also have smoldering ignition around 7.5 kilowatts per meter squared.

00:47:43.012 --> 00:47:46.728
Additionally, maple plywood can also have smoldering ignition around seven and a half kilowatts per meter squared.

00:47:46.728 --> 00:47:51.224
And so those were some of the combustible materials that we looked at.

00:47:51.224 --> 00:47:53.610
There isn't a whole ton of research out there.

00:47:53.610 --> 00:48:01.684
Looking at non-piloted auto ignition of certain household materials you might see right behind a window, but those were some of the ones we could find.

00:48:01.684 --> 00:48:18.547
So we definitely saw that there is a potential for some ignition of different combustibles behind the windows that we studied over a duration of time at a constant heat flux exposure so the only values that bring that come to my attention, the ones above 10 kilowatts.

00:48:18.588 --> 00:48:20.461
I would say that that sounds very dangerous to me.

00:48:20.461 --> 00:48:28.610
I only can relate that to to experiments done with a cone calorimeter, so you could perhaps observe some flaming ignition at that point.

00:48:28.610 --> 00:48:34.072
So 10.8 kilowatts for 20 kilowatt heat flux for single tempered.

00:48:34.072 --> 00:48:42.695
At 30 kilowatt exposure for single tempered you see failure at like 12 minutes into the test and 13.7 kilowatt behind the window.

00:48:42.695 --> 00:48:46.846
But in general the values don't don't seem that high behind the window.

00:48:46.846 --> 00:48:50.699
So can you comment like on some final findings of the study?

00:48:50.699 --> 00:49:01.911
How did you rank those windows and how likely is this scenario of having your window survive the external heat flux and the ignition behind the window being likely?

00:49:01.951 --> 00:49:04.297
let's say yeah, so we definitely saw.

00:49:04.297 --> 00:49:16.989
Our overall conclusions are that double-pane windows obviously perform better than single-pane windows and the use of a low E-coating also significantly reduces the heat flux that's transferred behind the window.

00:49:16.989 --> 00:49:29.780
In terms of the heat flux measure behind the window, when we noted failure in these experiments, it is important to note that for the double pain windows that were tempered at that time, the back pain was still intact.

00:49:29.780 --> 00:49:39.186
So realistically, in a fire scenario you're still going to have an increased heat transfer through that second back pain prior to it failing.

00:49:39.186 --> 00:49:43.552
Just, with the limitations of this study, we weren't able to quantify that.

00:49:43.552 --> 00:49:54.688
So we definitely did see that there is a risk for heat transfer through a window impacting the inside of a home prior to it failing and then, obviously, once it fails.

00:49:54.688 --> 00:50:02.853
Now we have an opening for direct flames and embers to enter, which will further decrease the survivability chance of structure.

00:50:03.179 --> 00:50:08.525
Yeah, but again I think you've reached a point in which you would not have a fire spread to the external facade.

00:50:08.525 --> 00:50:23.306
By Dan's research you would not have window destruction as in Joe's research, and again from your research you would find the conditions in which the heat flux is perhaps insufficient to ignite the stuff on the other hand of your window.

00:50:23.306 --> 00:50:32.579
So a combination of all three probably results in quite a resilient infrastructure for a given distance between the structures.

00:50:32.579 --> 00:50:33.021
Of course.

00:50:33.021 --> 00:50:39.733
If you put them 1.8 meters from each other with windows looking at each other, then perhaps it's not so optimistic anymore.

00:50:40.235 --> 00:50:40.840
Yes, absolutely.

00:50:41.561 --> 00:50:43.148
One more thing that's going through my head.

00:50:43.148 --> 00:50:45.054
Not so optimistic anymore, yes, absolutely.

00:50:45.054 --> 00:50:54.813
One more thing that's going through my head Is it possible to actually apply the low E coating to windows that already exist, or is it technology at the factory that you can only do when purchasing new windows?

00:50:54.813 --> 00:50:59.748
Is it something you can retrofit actually, because the difference is really big in your research.

00:51:00.000 --> 00:51:04.371
They do make films that you can retrofit some of your windows with.

00:51:04.371 --> 00:51:05.300
Yeah and with that.

00:51:05.300 --> 00:51:16.545
There are many different types of low emissivity coatings that we are currently conducting some research on to see if changing the type of low E-coating impacts failure through EvoWindow.

00:51:16.885 --> 00:51:17.286
Really cool.

00:51:17.286 --> 00:51:27.713
I think all of this combined creates some really nice and interesting actionable knowledge that people can actually use in creating fire resilient houses.

00:51:27.713 --> 00:51:30.849
So let's perhaps try to summarize.

00:51:30.849 --> 00:51:32.706
Where are you going further with that?

00:51:32.706 --> 00:51:36.099
I've been teased that there are still papers to be published.

00:51:36.099 --> 00:51:38.601
So what's more to expect from this?

00:51:38.862 --> 00:51:39.702
Yeah, sure, yeah sure.

00:51:39.702 --> 00:51:50.771
So with the window paint assembly experiments, as I mentioned, the one-off experiment that we did with vinyl frames showed that the impacts that frame materials could have on window failure.

00:51:50.771 --> 00:51:58.077
You could have the best paint assemblies in the world, but if they're mounted in vinyl frames that are going to deform and melt, then you're going to have window failure.

00:51:58.077 --> 00:52:01.163
You're going to have an opening into a structure.

00:52:01.163 --> 00:52:11.483
So based on that, we decided our next topic of research, or one of our next topics of research, would be examining different types of window frame assemblies and how they fail.

00:52:11.483 --> 00:52:14.911
So we're currently in the writing phase of those experiments.

00:52:14.911 --> 00:52:19.130
They've been conducted and we'll be submitting to a journal here shortly.

00:52:19.130 --> 00:52:25.010
So those results will hopefully be out within six months or so for people to view.

00:52:25.400 --> 00:52:35.793
But I mean, the long and short of it is that we looked at vinyl, fiberglass, wood and aluminum frame windows and overall the aluminum frame windows performed best.

00:52:35.793 --> 00:52:39.610
But we still found different mechanisms of failure with the aluminum frames.

00:52:39.610 --> 00:52:48.288
We saw cases where the aluminum frames would actually ignite and it wasn't the actual aluminum frame members that was burning, it was more so different components.

00:52:48.288 --> 00:53:04.427
Specifically the aluminum frame windows, had a rubber gasket around it that would ignite, and we also saw sometimes it wouldn't fail, but different components of the assembly would melt or deform to where the top sash would drop down, and again that's failure, causing a large opening to form.

00:53:05.039 --> 00:53:10.853
And have you considered those, let's say, vulnerable solutions, but at larger separation distances?

00:53:10.853 --> 00:53:18.268
So let's say a vinyl frame, single pane, but at six meter or 10 meter separation, would that be also something sufficient?

00:53:18.679 --> 00:53:25.847
I think that'd definitely be an interesting topic to conduct experiments on in the future, but at the moment we haven't focused on it.

00:53:26.201 --> 00:53:32.414
Yeah, but still, if you're a fire safety engineer, you know how to calculate heat flux at the distance from an opening.

00:53:32.414 --> 00:53:33.865
You can do some simulations.

00:53:33.865 --> 00:53:42.914
You can calculate the heat flux field, create the heat loads then relate it to the body of experimental research that's already there.

00:53:42.914 --> 00:53:45.237
Loads then related to the body of experimental research.

00:53:45.237 --> 00:53:45.759
That's already there.

00:53:45.759 --> 00:53:49.101
So it's still.

00:53:49.101 --> 00:53:52.469
Even though you have not tested such a scenario, given the knowledge you've published, it's already usable for such an exercise.

00:53:52.469 --> 00:53:53.552
Dan, you wanted to add something.

00:53:54.059 --> 00:54:03.172
Well, I was going to add that I think you know the question that you're posing there, votek, is a really good one to relate what we're doing in these controlled experiments to real world.

00:54:03.273 --> 00:54:18.387
I mean, these controlled experiments are fixed separation distances and maybe your separation between structures isn't those or is outside of that range, and it connects to kind of another aspect of FSRI's research work or work in the research space, particularly in this woolly field.

00:54:34.806 --> 00:55:21.231
A couple of years ago now, we did the comprehensive review and analysis for the fires on Maui in August of 2023 and really in and heat load at the failure window panes, the controlled experiments and in these post-fire analysis looking at oh look, this is an example of an annealed glass and it's tempered and right next to it happens to be a tempered glass window and it's not a perfect surrogate for water-cooled heat plus gauge measurement we can start to see some relationships between the degree of or the magnitude of damage from the controlled experiments in these post-fires and similarly we can see damage and pathways in these post-fire analysis that can inform our research or can kind of vet into that.

00:55:21.251 --> 00:55:48.753
So some of the additional work that we're hoping to do is to take the controlled experiments data that have been published and the work that we have done for Lahaina and the publishing those reports is to kind of extend that research to connect again from the controlled experiments to the real world, which we've seen several of those for again, some of the Nain fires, the Camp Fire, the Marshall Fire, looking at these dam systems and what we can contribute in that space as well.

00:55:49.239 --> 00:56:01.050
Also, like connecting the damage that you observe in the lab versus what you observe in the field allows you to backtrace the design fire scenario at the community scale to really grasp how big the fire was and where it went.

00:56:01.050 --> 00:56:05.083
It could be also very interesting like kind of a forensic reconstruction of the fire growth.

00:56:05.384 --> 00:56:12.793
So one of the other aspects of doing these reviews analysis of real world incidents is there are factors that are outside of our control.

00:56:12.793 --> 00:56:19.920
Right, for our controlled experiments we try and account for repeatable and reproducible fuel load, but in the real world that's not always the case.

00:56:19.920 --> 00:56:25.391
One of the other factors that we don't currently look at in our experiments is the effect of defensive actions.

00:56:25.391 --> 00:56:30.829
Right, so this is oftentimes an attribution of why a structure is damaged but not destroyed.

00:56:30.829 --> 00:56:39.108
In the rural world that might have been a homeowner that stomped out that small fire or pulled away the welcome mat, that charred the siding but didn't fully ignite it.

00:56:39.108 --> 00:56:51.735
And some things that we've seen in the rural world and have done some controlled experiments are things that homeowners and emergency responders can do if they have the time and the resources to protect structures from these exposures.

00:56:51.835 --> 00:57:03.652
And looking particularly at windows, we understand and recognize the vulnerabilities of windows, the glass and frames, but if the fire is approaching and it's an hour or minutes away, we don't have time to replace that window.

00:57:03.652 --> 00:57:07.920
But there are things that could be done, like covering that window opening with a protection.

00:57:07.920 --> 00:57:15.875
So we have done some old experiments, similar setup as the windows openings, with that source compartment exposure.

00:57:15.875 --> 00:57:26.300
And we've seen in the real world where people have deployed ad hoc window protections or even purpose-built window protection, deployed ad hoc window protections or even purpose-built window protection.

00:57:26.300 --> 00:57:29.603
So these are kind of again continuing the pathway of recognizing the components, the window opening, as being a critical pathway.

00:57:29.603 --> 00:57:46.172
What can we do in the construction phase, building with materials and assemblies, but also what can be done in the days and hours before or even during a fire to reduce the vulnerability and increase the potential that a hole not ignite and not be destroyed from one of these fires.

00:57:46.559 --> 00:57:49.769
That's a really good high-level overview of the further goals.

00:57:49.769 --> 00:57:56.172
So, Gavin, can I ask you for a high-level summary of how does it look from your perspective overseeing this?

00:57:56.172 --> 00:58:00.182
Is your board happy with the research directions they've set onto?

00:58:00.182 --> 00:58:08.849
The research directions they've set onto that's an insane amount of experiments and trial burns out there that gave us a lot of knowledge that we did not have.

00:58:08.849 --> 00:58:10.371
So I hope this continues?

00:58:10.891 --> 00:58:11.572
Yeah for sure.

00:58:11.572 --> 00:58:17.237
Our board has been actively engaged with us throughout the development of the program.

00:58:17.237 --> 00:58:26.266
As we started this conversation we realized that FSRI has been involved in this work for really about four to five years.

00:58:26.266 --> 00:58:47.184
That moves from concept to the point where we're doing some of these analysis and, as Dan mentioned, where we're seeing they're directly related to some of the impacts that we're seeing out into the world, where we can understand what some of the exposures might be on structures in these large-scale fires, so we can help to understand what those pathways are into the structures and fill in that gap.

00:58:47.184 --> 00:58:54.610
So we've had excellent support from our board, some great ideas on some future work that we might continue down this path.

00:58:54.891 --> 00:59:04.469
But there's so many more questions that we still have left to address here in terms of the different failure mechanisms that windows may experience.

00:59:04.469 --> 00:59:12.907
Dan mentioned Dan, joe and Becca all just mentioned a few of those and we've got more work that we need you to understand those realistic exposures that they might face.

00:59:12.907 --> 00:59:15.661
But also what can we do to help reduce those risks?

00:59:15.661 --> 00:59:30.532
Can we translate this into a standardizable exposure system or a standardizable exposure system or standardizable exposure that we can use to test the windows that might be installed in some of these WUI areas, particularly when we have high density housing.

00:59:30.532 --> 00:59:40.251
What we need to understand from all of the work that we've done, as well as other great work around the world, is we're talking about systems, we're talking about assemblies.

00:59:40.251 --> 00:59:46.407
So Dan talked a little bit about we had a non-combustible outer surface, a non-combustible siding.

00:59:46.407 --> 00:59:52.996
But if the sheathing behind it was combustible, that system still allows a pathway for fire to enter the structure.

00:59:52.996 --> 01:00:02.356
It is certainly more resilient and more resistant than a combustible sheathing on a combustible or a combustible siding on a combustible sheathing.

01:00:02.356 --> 01:00:07.088
It helps us to improve some of the fire resistance, but it's not impermanent.

01:00:07.469 --> 01:00:12.585
We see again is joe and his beck have talked about where we have double pane tempered glass.

01:00:12.585 --> 01:00:19.423
It does a great job of reducing the impact of that thermal exposure, but it's also not perfect.

01:00:19.423 --> 01:00:27.135
There's more pieces to it the frames, the components of the, which we'll get into a little bit more in the paper that Joe was talking about.

01:00:27.135 --> 01:00:35.447
Those components that attach the frames to the sashes have an impact and many times those are plastic.

01:00:35.447 --> 01:00:42.233
Even we think about the system of how a window is put together in terms of what is the fill gas in between them.01:00:42.233 --> 01:00:45.568


Or if you have one that's tempered and one that's plain.01:00:45.568 --> 01:00:53.969


The order matters the same two paint types of glass, but the order in which one is tempered and which one is a plain glass.01:00:53.969 --> 01:00:59.260


That matters Once it gets installed into a system, once we look at the entire assembly.01:00:59.641 --> 01:01:02.831


So we have to start thinking about all of these things as assemblies.01:01:02.831 --> 01:01:04.632


There's a wall assembly, there's a window assembly.01:01:04.632 --> 01:01:05.708


So we have to start thinking about all of these things as assemblies.01:01:05.708 --> 01:01:09.851


There's a wall assembly, there's a window assembly, and when we look at the outside of structure, those assemblies come together in a further assembly.01:01:10.172 --> 01:01:18.907


So this research is hopefully helping us to understand each of those individual component pieces and, as you mentioned, we're really just looking at one component of the overall exposure.01:01:18.907 --> 01:01:25.922


We're focusing on radiant heat exposures and direct flame contact once we have this very close separation distances.01:01:25.922 --> 01:01:30.840


But those then open pathways for embers to address, for other things to come in.01:01:30.840 --> 01:01:34.329


So we're starting to pick apart these hazards.01:01:34.329 --> 01:01:41.331


We're starting to pick apart where the building envelope may start to break down in hopes that we can help to reduce some of those risks.01:01:41.331 --> 01:01:46.259


But I think it's also important for us to understand when we get to these very close separation distances.01:01:46.259 --> 01:01:54.693


When we're 1.8 meters apart, when we're six feet apart, we have limitations on what we can expect the built environment to be able to withstand.01:01:55.239 --> 01:02:44.215


There comes a point where, even with the best wall, with the best window and as good of a construction as we can possibly have, we don't have a way of completely making the buildings fireproof within the systems that we, where we were studying in these experiments yeah, and I believe, tracing those limits like, uh, you know you've just finished this, these pieces, you've uh, published your papers and here comes the fire for which it perhaps was the most relevant to you know, and I mean the lay fires, where this was evident, this was evident and I hope with research like this we can guide our communities to safety so tragedies like that are hopefully not happening realistically, are less common and we can protect our citizens even better.01:02:44.215 --> 01:02:53.889


Thanks once again for this comprehensive review of your research on external fires A huge gap with a good closure by your team.01:02:53.889 --> 01:02:59.672


So congratulations to FSRI for your ambitious fire research that you're carrying.01:02:59.672 --> 01:03:06.248


The scale is amazing, the amount like I highly recommend everyone to go through the papers the number of experiments.01:03:06.248 --> 01:03:21.027


Perhaps we did not give the justice to the number of data points that you've created, but they're all in the papers, so I can only refer the audience to look into those and I'm looking forward to hear more from FSRI on this topic.01:03:21.027 --> 01:03:24.873


Thank you guys, thank you, thank you, and that's it.01:03:25.161 --> 01:03:30.188


We're well over the length of average fire science show episode, but I think this was still worth it.01:03:30.188 --> 01:03:34.646


So much knowledge and recommendations in one single episode.01:03:34.646 --> 01:03:37.786


It's unprecedented, so much actionable knowledge.01:03:37.786 --> 01:03:48.250


Actually, that's very important because those experiments are not just interesting from the perspective of fire science, they are just damn really good for engineering.01:03:48.250 --> 01:03:50.086


They answer important questions.01:03:50.086 --> 01:04:00.072


They showcase what happens at a very wide range of heat fluxes, and those heat fluxes can be related to a lot of realistic fire spread scenarios.01:04:00.072 --> 01:04:04.621


So it's not just burning a few houses, a few facades and a bunch of windows.01:04:04.621 --> 01:04:10.943


It's about creating a really important and useful data set that allows us fire safety engineers to work with.01:04:10.943 --> 01:04:13.333


I'm not going to summarize this any further.01:04:13.434 --> 01:04:24.820


I think if you are still interested in this research after hearing this podcast episode, your next step should be to read the papers, because they're good and you will find much more details in the papers.01:04:24.820 --> 01:04:26.367


Well, that that's what papers are.01:04:26.367 --> 01:04:28.012


They're extremely detailed.01:04:28.012 --> 01:04:31.764


Explanation of what has been done by the researchers.01:04:31.764 --> 01:04:35.840


Podcast is just an introduction and a high level overview of what has been done.01:04:35.840 --> 01:04:39.248


So if you're interested, next step is in the papers.01:04:39.248 --> 01:04:40.371


They are open access.01:04:40.371 --> 01:04:40.873


You can.01:04:40.873 --> 01:04:42.023


You can find them now.01:04:42.023 --> 01:04:43.688


Right now they're in the show notes.01:04:43.688 --> 01:04:47.925


So be my guest, go take a read and let me know what you've learned from them.01:04:47.925 --> 01:04:50.065


For me, that's it for today.01:04:50.065 --> 01:04:53.141


Thank you very much for being here with me in the Fire Science Show.01:04:53.141 --> 01:04:59.387


It's Easter time, so happy Easter holidays if you're celebrating that, and have some rest with your family.01:04:59.387 --> 01:05:00.920


And guess what?01:05:00.920 --> 01:05:05.219


Next Wednesday we're coming back to the fire science show with another fire science episode.01:05:05.219 --> 01:05:06.521


Thanks, bye, bye.