# N.Y. Chief Blames Fatal Fire on Lightweight Construction



## mark handler

N.Y. Chief Blames Fatal Fire on Lightweight Construction

By Kirstin Cole

WPIX-TV, New York

A devastating house fire killed four family members in Carmel on May 1.

PUTNAM COUNTY, N.Y. -- The devastating home fire that killed four family members in Carmel on May 1 is still being investigated, but details being released show the way the home was built could be exposing millions more families to the same fatal fate.

The Carmel Fire Department said the flames that early morning were unbeatable. Firefighters say it took a mere ten minutes for the Sullivan family home to catch fire, collapse, ad kill four out of five of them sleeping inside. The Carmel fire chief was quick to blame lightweight construction. It's uses inexpensive and popular building materials made of small bits of wood held together by glue and metal plates to fasten it all.

Carmel Fire Chief Bob Lipton wearily recounted the details of the home's undoing to reporters the day of the fire saying the walls gave way as metal fasteners popped off from heat. Once the walls started to buckle, the roof crashed down. It took a mere ten minutes Lipton said, and it's an all too common occurrence for homes built to code using engineered wood products.

Dave Walsh, a fire instructor at Dutchess Community College and 40 year firefighting veteran summed it up. "The structure as an entity is much more prone to collapse and fire spread when these materials are used. And with quick collapse, death to occupants and firefighters occurs."

Walsh conducted burn tests recently with his team. They compared the burn times of traditional lumber building to newer standards using lightweight building materials, and showed how deadly that choice can be.

He recounted the results of how engineered wood products failed three times quicker in his testing, "The wood I-Beam failed in 2 minutes 30 seconds, where as stick built made out of 2 x 12 lumber, took 7 minutes 11 seconds to collapse."

Walsh elaborated by indicated that the game has changed when it comes to today's firefighting techniques. "In today's building materials, in some cases, they actually promote fire production. The fire travels very quickly. Some of the lightweight construction uses OSB, or particle board and that produces a lot of thick, toxic, very flammable gas, so in effect, the material is propogating it's own demise."

AdditionaL fire companies we spoke with say they won't even put men onto the roof to try to knock flames down, fearful these new construction methods can lead to collapse in just minutes, as happened at the Sullivan family home.

Carmel's Fire Chief said the metal plates that are used instead of nails to create bonds between pieces of OSB actually heated up and popped off, causing the walls and roof to collapse. According to the Medical Examiner, the family all died from smoke inhalation--which is the other major problem with this less expensive lightweight construction.

Walsh laid it out, "The gasses that are produced as the glue is consumed by the fire is toxic as well as flammable, so as the wood is burning it produces a toxic gas that burns even more. The resulting fires are 200% to 300% hotter. Plus the fire releases heat quicker. This is just a nasty toxic recipe for killing. It really is."

80% to 85% of fire deaths happen inside people's homes, and with lightweight construction potentially adding to those numbers, the industry and states and municipalities are now pushing for greater usage of single family home sprinkler systems. In new construction, it costs $2000 -- $3000 for an average size home. Fires are generally extinguished within minutes, using just a few dozen gallons of water. And lives are spared. So far only California, much of Maryland and a smattering of towns countrywide require them in in new construction. Greenburg, NY in Westchester County is also at the forefront of fire prevention by requiring them in all new homes built.

http://www.firehouse.com/news/10710892/ny-chief-blames-fatal-fire-on-lightweight-construction


----------



## Sifu

mark handler said:
			
		

> N.Y. Chief Blames Fatal Fire on Lightweight Construction Carmel's Fire Chief said the metal plates that are used instead of nails to create bonds between pieces of OSB actually heated up and popped off, causing the walls and roof to collapse. According to the Medical Examiner, the family all died from smoke inhalation--which is the other major problem with this less expensive lightweight construction.
> 
> http://www.firehouse.com/news/10710892/ny-chief-blames-fatal-fire-on-lightweight-construction


Forgive my ignorance; what metal clips is he refering to?


----------



## mark handler

Sifu said:
			
		

> Forgive my ignorance; what metal clips is he refering to?


TRUSS PLATES







Typically 18-gauge steel plates with prongs of 3⁄8-inch penetration.


----------



## mtlogcabin

Sifu said:
			
		

> Forgive my ignorance; what metal clips is he refering to?


I thought it was just bad reporting



> saying the walls gave way as metal fasteners popped off from heat.


Truss plate have been around for decades. Not new by any means


----------



## conarb

I just wish the fire service had spent the time and money they spent on sprinklers in an effort to ban all lightweight construction, flake board, and toxic plastics including plastic insulation.

There are other reasons to ban the gang-nail plates, lightweight roof trusses I put up in the 50s had plywood gussets and have done just fine, in the 60s the truss industry started using the gang-nail plates and I've had to rebuild several roofs I built with them and this with no fire, just heat and weight popping them off. I've pointed out in the past that the City of Elmhurst Illinois has an excellent residential code, if a permittee wants to use roof trusses he has to cover them with glued and nailed plywood gussets, if he wants to use I Joists he has to install sprinklers, I talked to the CBO in Elmhurst a few years ago, he said at that time nobody had elected to use I Joists not wanting to install sprinklers. I asked him how he came up with such a good set of amendments to the IRC, he said he had a very knowledgeable cooperative fire marshal.

The very thread of sprinklers alone is enough for any knowledgeable builder to substantially upgrade the quality of his construction to avoid them.


----------



## mark handler

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Truss plate have been around for decades. Not new by any means


Since the fifties.


----------



## incognito

Gee, another unbiased(not) opinion from the fire cartel trying to "sell" rfs. Who would have guessed it?


----------



## fireguy

I am not the best person to respond to the previous post, as in 20 + years as a volunteer, paid on call, full time firefighter, and wearing the white hat, I never saw a residential fire sprinkler.  I only saw residential sprinklers after I left the fire service.  But the few commercial fires I responded to, when the building was equipted with sprinklers, 1 or 2 sprinklers controlled the fire.  I think it will be several years before we see the benefit of residential sprinklers.  Then we will wonder why it took so long to install sprinklers in homes.  In the meantime, we will see more homes burn because of the cheap, fast burning homes that are being built.

In the early sixties, I helped Dad build a spec house per year. We built trusses on the job site.  I remember nailing those plates on because they would pop-off before we could get the trusses in place.  In the early 70's, I built my young family a new house.  the trusses were built off-site and delivered to the job.  I put plywood over the truss plates before putting them on the walls.  I also remember venting houses with the truss plates, and working off a ladder because soon after being on scene, the roof was too spongy to walk on.

Those who hate sprinklers, and claim they do not work seem to have no problem with light construction, flammable glues, truss plates that fail minutes into a fire.  Some time ago, a video of a light construction fire was on this site.  You should see that video.  Maybe someone will post it again.

I freely admit, I like sprinklers.  They work.  To set the record straight,  my company does not install sprinklers.  We do test, inspect, and repair sprinkler systems, along with other life and safety systems.  Sprinklers do work, and they do save life and property.


----------



## tmurray

When I worked at a fire engineer consultant firm we had a discussion at length with code officials on lightweight construction. When we evaluated the data for residential fires it showed us that after a dwelling has been on fire for 4 minutes the chances of someone getting out alive drop to almost nothing. Lightweight construction can under typical conditions withstand fire for about 8 minutes. We thought the way fire responders were looking at it at the time was flawed; non-lightweight construction would allow responders to enter the home and remove the occupants, but the resuscitation rate was around 4% at that time. However, if you were to install sprinklers they would at the worst case scenario deploy a couple heads and control the fire until occupants could evacuate the dwelling. At the time we recommended mandating sprinklers in houses rather than prohibiting light construction, but here in Canada we have yet to see that.


----------



## steveray

"Carmel's Fire Chief said the metal plates that are used instead of nails to create bonds between pieces of OSB actually heated up and popped off,"

.......................Hunh?...Never seen metal plate connected OSB.....bad reporting? Smoke detectors anyone?

No doubt (in my mind)that the eng wood products should be protected...but at least give people a choice to use passive protection (drywall, etc...) Don't introduce another system that will not be maintained and still has no guaranty of working....

"Greenburg, NY in Westchester County is also at the forefront of fire prevention by requiring them in all new homes built."..........................................Supression is a failure in prevention........A wise man once told me that.......


----------



## Builder Bob

Are residential fire sprinklers an option - yes, is requiring passive construction methods to protect the lightweight framing an option - yup.

Does this discussion do anything for the four family members killed inn the fire - Nope.

I truly believe in residential fire sprinklers....however, i also feel that each person should have the right to choose the type of protection that they want in their castle --

Are the sprinklers a solve all for all fires... absolutely not..

Remember the purpose of a fire sprinkler system (whether residential or commercial) is to do one of two things - either allow a person time to get out (maintain a tenable atmosphere for ten minutes) or hold the fire in check until the fire service arrives on scene. Occasionally the fire sprinkler system does put the fire out as well.

I do honestly believe that something needs to be done to protect the structures - whether passive or active systems....but preferably a combination of both.


----------



## brudgers

At approximately 100,000 in population, more people usually kill themselves each year in Putnam County than died in this fire.

    Free professional counseling would cost less the $3000 per household.

http://www.health.ny.gov/statistics/chac/mortality/suicid37.htm


----------



## Frank

In all likelyhood tenability and revivability were lost before the collapse.

Fire resistant construction creates ovens that are still standing after the fire to make body removal easier.

Examples of fire resistant buildings that survived the fire when the occupants did not include Triangle Shirtwaist, Iriqouis Theater, Coconut Grove, etc


----------



## jar546

brudgers said:
			
		

> At approximately 100,000 in population, more people usually kill themselves each year in Putnam County than died in this fire.    Free professional counseling would cost less the $3000 per household.
> 
> http://www.health.ny.gov/statistics/chac/mortality/suicid37.htm


That is a moronic statement if I ever heard one.


----------



## conarb

Jeff said:
			
		

> That is a moronic statement if I ever heard one.


I don't agree, I've posted this before but the uncontradicted Canadian National Mortgage Association (a government agency) has proven, that if the objective is to save lives, there are much better places to put the money.  In fact, if we must mandate sprinklers I'd suggest the builder/owner be given the option of contributing the same amount of money to a more worthy cause. 
	

		
			
		

		
	

View attachment 1337

	

		
			
		

		
	
  According to the Canadian study you are over three thousand time more likely to die from suicide than from a house fire.
	

		
			
		

		
	

View attachment 574


View attachment 574


/monthly_2011_03/canadian-study-2.jpg.ddedba76af13c971eedfa3f5f9c98893.jpg


----------



## permitguy

A couple of points:

1. The times given seem consistent with UL study that was done, but I believe they measured the failure time from flashover, not ignition.  This is an important distinction that I feel we should be more careful to note.  The time needed for flashover to occur will vary wildly depending on a number of factors.

2.  It is more than "occasionally" that sprinklers extinguish the fire, regardless of the installation standard.  They virtually always extinguish the fire in low or ordinary hazard environments.

We can express our dislike for lightweight construction materials all we want, but I don't see them going away.  Even if the fire service had fought these materials, they would have only been delaying the inevitable (much like contractors fighting RFS).


----------



## conarb

Permitguy:

Then why not mandate them for lightweight construction only and not quality construction?  Today's lightweight construction has a service life of 30 years, mandating sprinklers would influence many to opt for higher quality construction (like has happened in Elmhurst Illinois).  In my case with the home I'm building sprinklers would have added $200,000 to the cost and added two more ugly 5,000 gallon stainless steel tanks, one might say that is just 5% + ugly, but that $200,000 could be better put to higher quality construction and lose the ugly tanks.  From my point of view I'd rather have a Buggatti Veyron in my garage than fire sprinklers in my home.


----------



## tmurray

conarb said:
			
		

> I don't agree, I've posted this before but the uncontradicted Canadian National Mortgage Association (a government agency) has proven, that if the objective is to save lives, there are much better places to put the money.  In fact, if we must mandate sprinklers I'd suggest the builder/owner be given the option of contributing the same amount of money to a more worthy cause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 1337
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the Canadian study you are over three thousand time more likely to die from suicide than from a house fire.


The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), I'm assuming that is who you are referring to, is actually a crown corporation. This means that they get a mandate from the government and the CEO would be appointed by an elected official, but they otherwise operate as a company. This being said they do a significant amount of real world testing in partnership with the National Research Council (the organization who publish our codes). They do a significant amount of testing on alternative building techniques and building science. For instance; last year I had an applicant submit an application to build a straw bale house. He also provided the detailed CMHC report discussing straw bale construction.


----------



## permitguy

If the fire reaches flashover, the chances of survival are already gone.  Flashover is a function of the contents and compartment size, not the materials used for construction.  Sprinklers prevent flashover.  Lightweight materials may fail faster, but if you weren't out long before failure in the first place, you'll be pulled out after extinguishment.  I'm not trying to be dramatic, but that's just how it goes.

Stainless stell tanks?  That's just crazy California talk!

Elmhurst is a 10 square mile town that is built out.  It's easy to pass restrictive building codes when nobody builds there, anyway.  Their tune would change rather quickly if they had land available for development and elected officials desired a larger property tax base . . .


----------



## brudgers

jar546 said:
			
		

> That is a moronic statement if I ever heard one.


  Fire fatalities are low.  But they make great PR.

  Just like underwear bombers.

  All four people died from asphyxiation.

  Lightweight construction didn't make a difference.

  And BTW, it would have only been three fatalities if dad hadn't gone back in.


----------



## permitguy

Somebody should take a class on Covey's Circle of Influence . . .


----------



## Sifu

mark handler said:
			
		

> TRUSS PLATES
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typically 18-gauge steel plates with prongs of 3⁄8-inch penetration.


Not a real good decsription of a truss plate "....create bonds between osb....."


----------



## mark handler

Sifu said:
			
		

> Not a real good decsription of a truss plate "....create bonds between osb....."


I don't belive it was intended as a technical document


----------



## steveray

That plate does not look like it even touches the top chord...look at the one behind it....


----------



## tmurray

steveray said:
			
		

> That plate does not look like it even touches the top chord...look at the one behind it....


I'd agree. We see trusses here on a significant portion of our projects and I have never seen a gang plate miss a chord. I would require the manufacturer to submit a letter attesting to the compliance with code.


----------



## twistr2002

when Pennsylvania ammended the IRC they Created and Enacted Act 1 of 2011, which in a nutshell says if you are using Engineered Lightweight framing members, you can only have 80sqft exposed other wise it has to be covered with not less than 1/2" gypsum or equivalent.


----------



## twistr2002

or it has to have the affected area sprinklered


----------



## Pcinspector1

steveray, yes that truss plate is not properly installed over the joint as you pointed out. Can't tell if theres one on the other side in that photo like the one behind it.

But thats not a wall nor is it attached to OSB. In the article theres a reference to 2x12s being tested vs a eng. IJ.

Im kinda confused on what the failure was?

pc1


----------



## Frank

Why stop at calling trusses and TJIs lightweight construction?

What about those thin section sawn lumber joists that are only 1-1/2 inces wide as oppossed to the traditional 3 or 4 inch width that will last alot longer under fire conditions we see around here in many older buildings?

At 1/2 inch char depth the web of a TJI is twice gone, a modern nominal 2x12 is a little over 2/3 degradeded but a 3x12 inch actual is only degraded 1/3 in the approximately 20-30 minutes it takes to get this char depth with exposure to ASTM E119 time temp curve (varies with species and moisture content).  A 2x4 nominal truss cord loses over 75% of its cross sectional area with 1/2 inch char depth on all 4 sides.  Note also that the rate of char slows down as the char layer gets thicker insulating the wood below.

IF designed with 50% safety factor char depth to 100% (2/3 originial thickness)

 3/8" TJI web-- 1/16 inch char about 4-5 minutes

1-1/2 inch 2x12  1/4 inch char about 10-15 minutes

3x8 inch actual  1/2 inch char about 20-30 minutes

2x4 truss cord 2/3 original cross section 0.2 inches char about 8 to 12 minutes


----------



## fatboy

Or, we can just go back to heavy timber construction........


----------



## TJacobs

brudgers said:
			
		

> Fire fatalities are low.  But they make great PR.
> 
> Just like underwear bombers.
> 
> All four people died from asphyxiation.
> 
> Lightweight construction didn't make a difference.
> 
> And BTW, it would have only been three fatalities if dad hadn't gone back in.


If you think the fire service, the sprinkler industry and those of us that support sprinklers like fire deaths for their PR value, then you are indeed the ***hole POS others on this site are claiming.


----------



## brudgers

TJacobs said:
			
		

> If you think the fire service, the sprinkler industry and those of us that support sprinklers like fire deaths for their PR value, then you are indeed the ***hole POS others on this site are claiming.


  The people died of asphyxiation.   The Fire Chief went on a rant about light weight construction.

  That's PR.

  The fire service should focus the public's resources where it makes a real difference, not on a long tail of diminishing returns.

  The house was old.

  As are most houses.

  Passing sprinkler legislation won't create a significant impact on life safety.

  Compared to better funding for fire departments.

  But that would probably be best achieved by raising taxes.

  Again, the agenda gets in the way.

  If I had to fault the industry, it's for taking the easy emotional approach rather than doing the real political work that actually costs something.

  The numbers are there.

  Even in this case.

  Better fire safety knowledge would have reduced deaths by 25%.

  That's not to say I'm not an ***hole.

  Just that those who are using these deaths to push their agendas are too.


----------



## tmurray

Does the IRC allow sprinkler heads to be fed from a domestic water supply? In Canada we can feed fewer than 9 heads from a domestic water supply. Keeping in mind most fires start in the kitchen, wouldn't it be a nice compromise to fire a couple sprinkler heads in the kitchen? This would cover over 33% of residential fires with a significantly reduced cost when compared with sprinklering an entire dwelling.


----------



## Min&Max

So what percentage of fires that originate in the kitchen result in fatalities? Isn't it the idea to protect people when they are most vulnerable, such as when they are asleep in their beds?


----------



## brudgers

A plurality of fatal fires start from someone falling asleep while smoking.

  Kitchen fires are most common but result in a lower rate of fatalities.

  NFPA 13D systems can be fed entirely from domestic water supply.

  All that said, this was an older house and new sprinkler requirements would not have saved any lives.


----------



## conarb

The last thing anyone should do is put a sprinkler head over a cooking facility, at least not until they ban frying food and cooking with grease.  I built a school cafeteria once and the engineer wouldn't even let me run a black iron pipe within 20 feet of the halogen protected hood over the range, I had to go way around it to feed sprinklers downstream from the range.


----------



## fatboy

@tmurray, yes,  a IRC P2904 RFS is completely fed from the domestic water supply.


----------



## fireguy

conarb said:
			
		

> The last thing anyone should do is put a sprinkler head over a cooking facility, at least not until they ban frying food and cooking with grease.  I built a school cafeteria once and the engineer wouldn't even let me run a black iron pipe within 20 feet of the halogen protected hood over the range, I had to go way around it to feed sprinklers downstream from the range.


Halogen protected hood?

Halon is  poor choice to protect cooking appliances.  Halon evaporates at, 30°F?  Anyway, the halon would evaporate and dissapate.  Maybe you used BC dry chem or if the job was after 1991, probably UL300 Wet Chem?


----------



## conarb

Fireguy:

All commercial buildings I built had them in the 60s & 70s, I even did one house with it in the early 80s, the owner was an inventor/engineer and he specified the commercial hood along with a full 13 black iron sprinkler system, but you did make me look it up:



> *W*hen halon 1301 came on  the market in the 1960s it was rightly seen as the most effective  gaseous fire fighting agent ever developed. It found widespread  application in the protection of data processing rooms,  telecommunications switches, art and historical collections, process  control rooms, and many others. However, by the late 1980s a great deal  of scientific evidence indicated that the agent was an ozone depleting  chemical and the Montreal Protocol of 1987 required a phaseout of new  production. The fire protection industry began the search for halon alternatives. Current regulations on can be monitored at the HARC website: http://www.harc.org/, or at the EPA website:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Current Status of Halon 1301 Systems*
> 
> *I*f you have halon  systems currently installed in your company facilities and they are  located in the United States, you need to know the following facts:
> 
> 
> You are under no legal obligation to remove systems from service.
> 
> There is no federal legal requirement to remove systems from service by any specific date.
> 
> You may legally recharge your system in the event of a discharge
> 
> Recycled agent is still commonly available for fire system recharge.
> 
> No new agent 1301 is being manufactured
> 
> You should plan the replacement of your systems with a halon alternative.¹


¹ http://www.reliablefire.com/halon/halon.html


----------



## tmurray

Min&Max said:
			
		

> So what percentage of fires that originate in the kitchen result in fatalities? Isn't it the idea to protect people when they are most vulnerable, such as when they are asleep in their beds?


According to a study conducted by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation the majority of deaths result from kitchen fires, second is when someone falls asleep with a cigarette. for the second case by the time the heat would deploy a sprinkler head the occupant is already dead.


----------



## tmurray

fireguy said:
			
		

> Halogen protected hood? Halon is  poor choice to protect cooking appliances.  Halon evaporates at, 30°F?  Anyway, the halon would evaporate and dissapate.  Maybe you used BC dry chem or if the job was after 1991, probably UL300 Wet Chem?


Halon was the fire suppression gas used anywhere water would be detrimental. When I was working for a fire engineering firm we mostly saw them in server farms, archive rooms, ect. The main problem with halon is that you need an area that is reasonable air tight because the halon displaces the air so the fire has no fuel to burn. The other problem is you typically need a two stage alarm because once the halon is deployed in the fire area any occupants would become asphyxiated.


----------

