Advertisement

Fire Technology

, Volume 50, Issue 1, pp 105–124 | Cite as

Characterizing Firebrand Exposure from Wildland–Urban Interface (WUI) Fires: Results from the 2007 Angora Fire

  • Samuel L. Manzello
  • Ethan I. D. Foote
Article

Abstract

This study examines the size distribution and other characteristics of firebrand exposure during the 2007 Angora fire, a severe wildland–urban interface fire in California. Of the 401 houses that received direct interface fire exposure 61% were destroyed and 30% did not burn at all. The ignition of buildings by wind-driven firebrand showers and the starting of “spot fires” in unburned vegetation ahead of wildfires have been observed for some time. Empirically quantifying the exposure severity or describing how many firebrands of what size and over what duration and distance cause ignition problems of concern has not yet been possible. However, a unique opportunity to gather empirical firebrand data from an actual interface fire evolved in the days immediately following the Angora fire. Digital analyses of burn patterns from materials exposed to the Angora fire were conducted to determine firebrand size distributions. It is probable that some burn patterns were larger in area than the firebrands due to progressive combustion or melting, but it was assumed that the overall size distributions of burn pattern areas were representative of actual firebrand sizes. This assumption was investigated by exposing sections of materials collected in the Angora fire to wind driven firebrands generated in the laboratory using the unique NIST Dragon’s lofting and ignition research facility (NIST Dragon’s LAIR facility). The firebrand size distributions reported were compared to firebrand size distributions from experimental firebrand generation in both recent laboratory building ignition studies conducted by NIST and from historical firebrand field studies. Such data is needed to form the basis of effective and appropriate interface fire hazard mitigation measures as well as modeling fire spread. Comparisons are made to current wildfire protection building construction regulations and test standards. The most salient result of this study is documentation of the consistently small size of firebrands and the close correlation of these results with the sizes of experimentally generated firebrands.

Keywords

Firebrands Wildland–urban interface (WUI) fire Firebrand exposure 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful for support on the Angora fire provided by California Interagency Incident Management Team # 1 (R. Hawkins), the County of El Dorado, the USFS Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, Lake Valley Fire Protection District, South Lake Tahoe City Fire Department. Data collection assistance was provided by Angora Damage Assessment Team staff, especially T. Robards and J. Cohen, and the able assistance of Mr. John Shields of EL-NIST is appreciated. Thanks to S. Dickey and A. Burg for help with the manuscript. The field data collection would not have been possible without the leadership of Fire Chief Bill Holmes and State Fire Marshal Kate Dargan. This research was funded by the Science and Technology Directorate of the US Department of Homeland Security. Mr. John M. Liu, a DHS intern and undergraduate student at Duke University, analyzed the burn patterns from the trampoline collected from the Angora fire; his assistance in appreciated.

References

  1. 1.
    Koo E, Pagni PJ, Weise DR, Woycheese JP (2010) Firebrands and spotting ignition in large-scale fires. Int J Wildland Fire 19:818–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pagni, PJ, Woycheese, JP (2000) Fire spread by brand spotting. In: Fifteenth meeting of the UJNR panel on fire research and safety, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Building and Fire Research Laboratory, Report # NISTR 6588, Gaithersburg, MD, pp 373–380Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fradkin PL (2006) Great earthquake and firestorms of 1906—how San Francisco nearly destroyed itself. The University of California Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Foote EID, Cole D (1993) Making a case for “The Interface”. Fire Chief Mag. 37:59Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stewart SI et al. (2007) Defining the wildland–urban interface. J For. 105:201–207Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Butler CP (1974) The urban/wildland fire interface. In: Proceedings of western states section combustion institute papers, vol 74, no 15. Washington State University, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mell WE, Manzello SL, Maranghides A, Butry D, Rehm R et al. (2010) The wildland–urban interface fire problem—current approaches and research needs. IJWF 19:238–251Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Maranghides A, Mell WE (2011) A case study of a community affected by the witch and guejito fires. Fire Technol 47:379–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wilson AAG, Ferguson IS (1986) Predicting the probability of house survival during bushfires. J Environ Manag 23:259–270Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ramsay GC, McArthur NA, Dowling VP (1986) Building survival in bushfires. In: Fire science 186: The 4th Australian national biennial conference, Adelaide 17 pGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Abt R, Kelly D, Kuypers M (1987) The Florida palm coast fire: an analysis of fire incidence and residence characteristics. Fire Technol 23(3):186–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gordon DA (2000) Structure survival in the urban/wildland interface: a logistic regression analysis of the Oakland/Berkeley tunnel fire. MS thesis, University of California at Berkeley, 447 ppGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Foote EID (1994) Structure survival on the 1990 Santa Barbara “Paint” fire: a retrospective study of urban–wildland interface fire hazard mitigation factors. MS thesis, University of California at Berkeley, p 129Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    McArthur NA, Lutton P (1991) Ignition of exterior building details in bushfires: an experimental study. Fire Mater 15:59–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Foote, EID, Martin R, Gilless JK (1991) The defensible space factor study: a survey instrument for post-fire structure loss. In: Proceedings of 11th conference on fire and forest meteorology. Society of American Foresters, Missoula, 8 pGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mitchell JW, Patashnik O (2007) Firebrand protection as the key design element for structural survival during catastrophic wildfire fires. In: Proceedings of the tenth international conference on fire and materials conference, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Manzello SL, Hayashi Y, Yoneki T, Yamamoto Y (2010) Quantifying the vulnerabilities of ceramic tile roofing assemblies to ignition during a firebrand. Fire Saf J 45:35–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Manzello SL, Shields JR, Hayashi Y, Nii D (2008) Investigating the vulnerabilities of structures to ignition from a firebrand attack. Fire Saf Sci 9:143–154. doi: 10.3801/IAFSS.FSS.9-143 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Manzello SL, Park SH, Shields JR, Suzuki S, Hayashi Y (2010) Quantifying wind driven firebrand penetration into building vents using full scale and reduced scale experimental methods. In: WUI Fires, proceedings of the 12th international conference on fire science and engineering (INTERLFAM). Interscience Communications, London, pp 1189–1200Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Manzello SL, Shields JR, Yang JC, Hayashi Y, Nii D (2007) On the use of a firebrand generator to investigate the ignition of structures. In: WUI Fires, proceedings of the 11th international conference on fire science and engineering (INTERLFAM). Interscience Communications, London, pp 861–872Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    California Building Standards Commission (2010) Final Statement of Reasons for Proposed Building Standards of the Office of the State Fire Marshal, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, 2010 California Building Code, International Code Council, 27 pGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    California Fire Chiefs Association (2008) Blue Ribbon Commission Task Force Report, (Michael Warren, Task Force Chairman), pp 80–81Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Foote, EID, Liu J, Manzello SL (2011) Characterizing firebrand exposure during wildland–urban interface (WUI) fires. In: Proceedings of fire and materials 2011 conference. Interscience Communications, London, pp 479–492Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE) (2007) Amador-El Dorado Unit, Angora [Wildland–Urban Interface Fire] Damage Assessment Report Narrative, (E. Foote, report submitter), 15 pGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    National Wildlife Coordinating Group (2006) Fireline handbook appendix B: fire behavior, publication management system, 410–2, NFES 2165. National Interagency Fire Center, BoiseGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Murphy K et al. (2007) An assessment of fuel treatment effects on fire behavior, suppression effectiveness, and structure ignition on the Angora fire. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, R5-TP-025, Washington, 26 pGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Safford HD et al. (2009) Effects of fuel treatments on fire severity in an area of wildland–urban interface, Angora fire, Lake Tahoe basin, California. For Ecol Manag 258:773–787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Suzuki S, Manzello SL (2011) On the development and characterization of a reduced scale continuous feed firebrand generator. Fire Saf Sci 10:1437–1448. doi: 10.3801/IAFSS.FSS.10-1437 Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Manzello SL, Suzuki S (2011) The new and improved Dragon’s LAIR (lofting and ignition research) facility. Fire Mater J. doi: 10.1002/fam.1123
  30. 30.
    Babrauskas V (2003) Ignition handbook. Fire Science Publishers, IssaquahGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Manzello SL et al. (2009) Mass and size distribution of firebrands generated from burning Korean pine (Pinus koraiensis) trees. Fire Mater J 33:21–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Vodvarka F (1969), Firebrand field studies—final report. Illinois Institute of Technology Research Institute, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Butler CP (1969) Operation Flambeau—civil defense experiment and support. Eyewitness accounts of a mass fire. Naval radiological defense laboratory, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tukey JW (1960) Conclusions vs. decisions. Technometrics 2(4):423–433Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Council of Standards Australia (2009) Australian Standard 3959-2009/construction of buildings in bushfire-prone areas, Standards AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    California Building Standards Commission (2010) Materials and construction methods for exterior wildfire protection, Chapt 7A. In: 2010 California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2. International Code CouncilGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    International Code Council (2009) International wildland–urban interface codeGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    National Fire Protection Association (2008) NFPA 1144 Standard for reducing structure ignition hazards from wildland fireGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    National Fire Protection Association (2006) NFPA 80A-07 recommended practice for protection of buildings from exterior fire exposuresGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    California Building Standards Commission (2010) Section 1505. In: 2010 California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2. International Code CouncilGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wilson R (1962) The devil wind and wood shingles: the Los Angeles conflagration of 1961. National Fire Protection Association, BostonGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wilson R (1965) Protecting your city from conflagrations. National Fire Protection Association, BostonGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Anonymous Advertisement, The Wood Roof Debate: Is there a Safe Choice for California Homeowners? California Journal, December 1990Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    California Redwood Association et al. (1923) Brief—submitted to the city council, Berkeley, in re the new roofing ordinanceGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC (Outside the USA) 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fire Research Division, Engineering Laboratory (EL)National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)GaithersburgUSA
  2. 2.Office of the State Fire Marshal (OSFM), California Department of Forestry and Fire ProtectionSanta RosaUSA
  3. 3.Santa RosaUSA

Personalised recommendations