Compartment Fire Behavior

Fire Rescue magazine Editor in Chief Tim Sendelbach recently raised

a number of questions related to door control in his recent on-line
article, Becoming Better Informed on the Fireground(2014). This
article, has generated a fair bit of on-line discussion around the
following issue: Which is a better tactic to provide a more tenable
environment for the occupants; closing the door to limit inward air
flow and reducing heat release rate (HRR) or leaving it open to
reduce smoke logging of the space and provide an inward flow of air
to aid in occupant survivability?
The debate may be broken down into a number of more specific
question that frame the larger issue in a simpler way (or a more
complex way, depending on your perspective):
Will reducing the oxygen concentration to limit the HRR also have a
negative effect on survivability of occupants due to the oxygen
deficient atmosphere?

Which results in a more toxic atmosphere, closing the door or

leaving the door open?
Which presents the larger and most significant threat, fire
development or the toxicity of the atmosphere?
As always there are no simple answers to these questions. The
answers depend on a number of variables that are unlikely to be
known during fireground operations. However, we cannot be
paralyzed by this complexity as strategic and tactical decisions
must be made in a timely manner.
Place the Questions in Context
In order to frame the questions, consider a fire scenario which could
result in serious injury or fatality to one or more building occupants:
A fire in a one story, three bedroom, single family dwelling,
occurring in the late evening or early morning hours, resulting from
ignition of bedding as the result of contact with a cigarette (USFA,
2013a, 2013b). Bedroom 1 is the room of origin and has an open
door to a hallway leading to the remainder of the house. Bedroom 2
is immediately adjacent to Bedroom 1 and has a closed door.
Bedroom 3 is slightly further away from Bedroom 1 (than Bedroom
2) and has an open door. The home has functioning smoke alarms
and the occupant of Bedroom 3 was alerted to the fire by alarm
activation and was able to escape. The occupants of Bedrooms 1
and 2 were not alerted by the smoke alarm and remained in their
respective bedrooms.
Scenario 1: The occupant of Bedroom 3 exited the home, leaving the
front door open. Bedroom windows are closed and remain intact.
These conditions remain constant until the arrival of the first fire
company.
Scenario 2: The occupant of Bedroom 3 exited the home, closing the
front door. Bedroom windows are closed and remain intact. These
conditions remain constant until the arrival of the first fire company
In both of these scenarios, companies arrive to find one occupant
who has exited the building, and two occupants reported with a last
known location in Bedrooms 1 and 2.
Fire Development in Scenario 1

In this scenario, the open bedroom door provides an adequate

supply of oxygen to allow the fire to quickly progress from the
incipient to the growth stage and transition through flashover. This
results in untenable conditions in the fire compartment. A bidirectional air track exists in the flow path between the front door
and the fire. Hot gases will exit the fire compartment and flow
towards the front door at the upper level. Prior to flashover the fire
will become ventilation limited and will continue in this state as the
fire becomes fully developed in Bedroom 1 and flames extend into
the hallway.

Conditions will vary considerably throughout the dwelling

depending on location and height above the floor. Close to the fire,
the hot upper layer will be well defined, but radiant heat flux at
floor level will likely make conditions thermally untenable. Smoke
production will be substantial and will likely fill any areas open to
the fire (e.g., living spaces open to the hallway and bedroom with an
open door). As distance from the fire increases, smoke will cool
somewhat and smoke will be present in both the hot upper layer
and the cooler layer below. Air moving from the open front door to
the fire, will provide some cooling and a higher oxygen
concentration along the flow path. However, continued fire
development will result in increased smoke production and will
likely overwhelm the ventilation provided by the open front door,
causing increased velocity of smoke discharge and lowering of the
upper layer. Flames will extend down the hallway and towards the
front door, increasing radiant heat flux, pyrolizing fuel, and will
likely result in a growth stage fire along the flow path.
Conditions at the lower levels remote from the fire may remain
tenable for some time and even with close proximity to the fire
compartment, Bedroom 2 with the closed door is also likely to
provide tenable conditions for some time.
Fire Development in Scenario 2
In Scenario 2, the basic conditions at the start of the fire are the
same. However, in this case, the exiting occupant closes the front
door. Initially, there will be little difference in fire development as
oxygen from throughout interconnected compartments will sustain

fire growth. A bi-directional air track exists in the flow path between
uninvolved spaces and the fire compartment. Hot gases will exit the
fire compartment and flow into the hallway, filling areas open to the
fire compartment at the upper level. Prior to flashover the fire will
become ventilation limited and become more ventilation limited as
the fire becomes fully developed in Bedroom 1 and flames extend
into the hallway. As oxygen inside the house is used by the fire and
oxygen concentration decreases, HRR and flaming combustion will
be reduced. However, combustion will continue in the fire
compartment and heat transfer in adjacent areas will result in
continued pyrolysis, increasing the concentration of gas phase fuel
in the smoke.
As in Scenario 1, conditions will vary considerably throughout the
dwelling depending on location and height above the floor. However,
areas open to the fire compartment are likely to be smoke logged
(filled with smoke). Temperatures will be lower and oxygen
concentration will likely be higher in areas remote from the fire. As
the HRR continues to decrease, temperatures will slowly begin to
drop throughout the building.
Conditions at the lower levels remote from the fire may remain
tenable for some time and even with close proximity to the fire
compartment, Bedroom 2 with the closed door is also likely to
provide tenable conditions for some time.
Alternate Scenarios
The two scenarios presented are but a small fraction of possible
conditions that could exist in this building. Failure of a window,
partial closing of a door (or doors), fuel type, the specific location of
the occupants (on the bed versus on the floor) can all impact on
potential fire conditions and survivability. All of which are not fully
known to responding firefighters (who simply know that they have
persons reported, and their observation of B-SAHF (Building,
Smoke, Air Track, Heat, and Flame) indicators.
Tactical Options
This tactical discussion will focus on the issue of door control, and
as such the variable of fire control tactics will be held constant by
stating that given building configuration and access, the fastest

approach to getting water into the fire compartment is by making

access through the front door.
There are two basic decision points related to door control. Should
the position of the door be changed immediately (e.g., during 360o
reconnaissance) and should the door be open or controlled (partially
closed) from the time the hoseline is stretched to the interior until
water is effectively applied to the fire.

Each of these decisions must be made in a timely manner and

knowing when and if you will control the door should be a key
element of your firefighting doctrine. In making this decision, it is
essential to recognize that tenable conditions for trapped occupants
and control of the fire environment to permit entry for fire control
and primary search are both important considerations.
Close the Door: If the door is open, closing it will have several
impacts on fire behavior. HRR will diminish and temperature within
the building will be reduced. However, the smoke level will likely
drop lower to the floor, but this effect will vary with location.
Open the Door: If the door is closed, opening it prior to a charged
hoseline being in place will introduce fresh air (and oxygen).
However, the effects of this action will occur primarily along the flow
path between the opening and the fire (having limited effect on
occupants in any other location). In addition, the additional air will

increase the HRR from the fire. Increased HRR will likely overwhelm
the limited ventilation provided by the opening, causing the upper
layer to drop, with a small area of clear air at floor level just inside
the door.
Door Control After Entry: If the door is controlled (partially closed)
after entry, the flow of both hot smoke and air in the flow path
between the fire and the front door will be reduced, limiting the
increase in HRR and slowing fire progression in the upper layer
between the fire and the entry point. Controlling the door after
entry generally requires commitment of at least one member to
door control and aiding in movement of hose through the controlled
opening
Door Open After Entry: If the door is open after entry, flow of hot
smoke and air between the fire and the front door will increase as
the fire receives additional oxygen and HRR increases. Extension of
flames and ignition of gas phase fuel in the upper layer between the
fire and the entry point is likely and should be anticipated. Access
and egress through the door and for advancement of hose is
unimpeded if the door remains in an open position.
The outcome of each of these choices is impacted by the distance
between the entry point/ventilation opening and the fire (this
influences both the speed with which the fire reacts to additional air
and the time that it will take to advance the hoseline into a position
where a direct attack can be made on the fire).

Unanswered Questions
Research conducted by the Underwriters Laboratories Firefighter
Safety Research Institute (UL FSRI) and others have measured
temperature, heat flux oxygen concentration, carbon monoxide, and
carbon dioxide in the fire environment during full scale experiments
(Kerber, 2011, 2013). Other tests have examined the range of toxic
products in the fire environment and determined that carbon
monoxide is not an effective proxy measure for overall risk of
exposure to toxic products (Fabian, Baxter, & Dalton, 2010; Regional
Hazardous Materials Team HM 09-Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue

Office of State Fire Marshal, 2011; Bolstad-Johnson, D., Burgess, J.,

Crutchfield, C., Storment, S., Gerkin, R., &Wilson, J., 2000).

Toxic effects resulting from exposure to products of combustion and

pyrolysis are dependent on the dose (concentration x time) and the
time over which that dose is received. However, potential survival is
also impacted by potential thermal insult which depends on
temperature, heat flux, and time. The potential variations in specific
combustion and pyrolysis products present and thermal conditions
in the fire environment is not limitless, but is nearly so. So what
actions can be taken to reduce the risk to occupants who have been
unable to egress the building prior to the arrival of fire companies?
Proactive Action Steps
While this post examines tactical options, the ideal outcomes is to
prevent the fire from occurring in the first place, to increase the
potential for occupants to escape prior to the development of
untenable conditions, or for occupants to take refuge in a manner
that will provide a tenable environment until the fire service can
remove the threat or aid the occupants in their escape. Proactive
steps would include the following:
Home safety surveys to identify fire hazards and reduce the risk of
fire occurrence as well as ensuring that homes have working smoke
detectors and a home fire escape plan.
Public education and fire code requirements to encourage or require
residential sprinklers to increase the potential time for occupants to
escape.
Public education on the value of sleeping with your door closed and
closing doors when escaping from a fire.
Dispatch protocols to prompt occupants to close doors as they exit
or to take refuge behind a closed door if they cannot escape.
Train other emergency response personnel such as law enforcement
and emergency medical services regarding the importance of not
increasing ventilation to vent limited fires.

However, once a fire occurs and the fire department responds, our
actions can have a significant impact on the outcome.
Firefighting Doctrine
The starting point for defining doctrine is to first, recognize that
there is no single answer or silver bullet that will provide an optimal
outcome under all circumstances. A second consideration is that you
will never (this is one of the only absolutes) have enough
information to clearly and definitively know exactly what is
happening, what will happen next, and what impact your actions will
have (you should have a good idea, but will not know with complete
certainty). Starting points for thinking about integrating door
control and anti-ventilation into your firefighting doctrine include:
Research (Kerber, 2011, 2013) has provided solid evidence that
when water cannot be immediately applied to the fire, closing the
door will generally improve conditions on the interior. That said,
there may be times when door control may not be necessary or may
be contraindicated.
If water can immediately be applied to the fire from the point of
entry or within close proximity to the point of entry (e.g., the fire is
not shielded), door control may not be needed prior to direct attack
(but likely will not make things worse if it is performed).
Control of doors in the flow path to confine hot smoke and fire gases
may make operations safer and improve tenability for both trapped
occupants and firefighters (think about the Isolate in Vent, Enter,
Isolate, and Search (VEIS)).
Doctrine should be based on evidence provided by research and
fireground experience. Both are necessary, but neither is sufficient.

The purpose of research is not to choose sides; its simply to

provide data to help validate the debatable points of a chosen tactic
and provide a greater degree of certainty for a recommended tactic.
Keep in mind, with facts in hand, the fireground remains a dynamic
situation and no tactic can or should ever be considered absolute.
The goal is to provide as much factual information as possible so we

can make informed decisions before, during and after the fire
(Sendelbach, 2014).
Understanding the evidence provided by fire dynamics research
cannot be developed by simply reading the Tactical Considerations
or Executive Summary of a research report. Dig a bit deeper and
examine the research questions and how the research was
conducted. Consider the evidence, as research continues additional
questions will be answered and our understanding of the fire
environment and impact of tactical operations will continue to
improve and likely have further impact on what we do on the
fireground.

References
Sendelbach, T.(2014). Becoming better informed on the fireground.
Retrieved July 5, 2015 from
http://www.firefighternation.com/article/command-andleadership/becoming-better-informed-fireground.

United States Fire Administration (USFA). (2013a). Civilian fire

fatalities in residential buildings (20092011). Retrieved July 5, 2014
from http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/statistics/v14i2.pdf

United States Fire Administration (USFA). (2013b) One- and twofamily residential building fires (2009-2011). Retrieved July 5, 2014
from http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/statistics/v14i10.pdf

Kerber, S. (2011). Impact of ventilation on fire behavior in legacy

and contemporary residential construction. Retrieved July 5, 2014
from
http://www.ul.com/global/documents/offerings/industries/buildingma
terials/fireservice/ventilation/DHS%202008%20Grant%20Report
%20Final.pdf

Kerber, S. (2013). Study of the effectiveness of fire service vertical

ventilation and suppression tactics in single family homes.
Retrieved July 17, 2013 from http://ulfirefightersafety.com/wpcontent/uploads/2013/06/UL-FSRI-2010-DHS-Report_Comp.pdf

Fabian, T., Baxter, C., & Dalton, J. (2010). Firefighter exposure to

smoke particulates. Retrieved July 5, 2014 from
http://www.ul.com/global/documents/offerings/industries/buildingma
terials/fireservice/WEBDOCUMENTS/EMW-2007-FP-02093.pdf

Regional Hazardous Materials Team HM 09-Tualatin Valley Fire &

Rescue Office of State Fire Marshal (2011). A study on chemicals
found in the overhaul phase of structure fires using advanced
portable air monitoring available for chemical speciation. Retrieved
July 5, 2014 from
http://www.oregon.gov/osp/sfm/documents/airMonitoringreport.pdf

Bolstad-Johnson, D., Burgess, J., Crutchfield, C., Storment, S.,

Gerkin, R., &Wilson, J. (2000). Characterization of firefighter
exposures during fire overhaul. Retrieved July 5, 2014 from
http://www.firefightercoexposure.com/CO-Risks/
Go to commentsComments (0)
Mass and Energy Balance in Fire Ventilation
Sunday, March 16, 2014, 9:15:35 PM | hartinGo to full article
Milestone! As I was preparing to upload this post, I realized that this
is the 200th CFBT-US Blog Post since its inception in August of 2008.
Quite a lot has happened since then. In 2008 there were few people
in the fire service focused on the importance of fire dynamics to
firefighting operations. Today it is a significant research focus and
an ongoing topic of discussion throughout the US fire service.
Progress is being made, but much remains to be done.

This post focuses on questions posed by firefighters in Europe and

North America. Art Arnalich, a Fire Officer from Spain recently sent
me a message asking for clarification and further explanation of the
application of conservation of mass as it relates to fire ventilation.
As always, questions form an excellent basis to examine what we
think we know and how it applies in a practical context.
In my previous post, Large Vertical Vents are Good, But, I stated:
Conservation of Mass: The mass of air entering a compartment
(single compartment or building) must equal the mass of smoke and
air exiting the building. This means that other than in the extremely
short term, if smoke is exiting the building, air must be entering.
This may be through one or more openings functioning solely as
inlets or openings may be functioning as both inlets and outlets
(with either a bi-directional flow or alternating (pulsating) flow).
However, the mass of the inflow must equal that of the outflow.

Art writes: The first condition for the Principle of Conservation of

Mass to be applied is that the physical system must be closed to all
transfers of matter and energy. While a closed compartment could
be considered as a nearly closed system, a venting structure
suffers important transfers of matter and energy. If we were to
consider a bigger system (lets say the 100x100x100m cube in which
the house and all of its fire gases are included) the PCM [principle of
conservation of mass] applies Being the structure volume
constant, any exiting gases will create an interior drop of pressure
that will instantly drag an equal volume of gases to enter. Inlets
with the bigger pressure differentials (lower side) will observe the
larger flows. Outflow volume must equal inflow volume unless
significant pressure changes can take place (not likely). Since there
is an important difference between inflow/outflow temperatures
(and densities), inflow mass (mass=density x volume) does not
equal outflow mass.
The amount of gases coming out of combustion as a result of the
new oxygen flow has been disregarded. In an actual fire, outflow
volume should be larger than inflow volume because combustion of
products generates new gases in within the interior.

But that doesnt mean that mass in = mass out if we just consider
the house. Total mass of unburned air + mass of fuel + mass of all
combustion products = constant. But to measure this we cant
consider the volume of the structure itself but the volume that
contains all fire gases, unburned gases and the house.
Art Asks: Could you please explain the implications of Principle of
Conservation of Mass applies at a molecular levelIf Mass-in=Massout then there is no mass variation over time (dm/dt=0). This would
mean that the total mass of the house before the fire equals its
mass after the fire. That doesnt make sense.
Conservation of Mass and Energy
Mass is neither created nor destroyed in chemical reactions. The
mass of any one element at the beginning of a reaction will equal
the mass of that element at the end of the reaction. If we account
for all reactants and products in a chemical reaction, the total mass
will be the same at any point in time in any closed system.
In combustion, if you consider the mass of the fuel and atmospheric
oxygen before combustion, this must be the same as the mass of
unburned fuel, unused oxygen, plus the products of combustion
(this leaves out nitrogen and other thermal ballast that are not part
of the combustion reaction). This is a bit different than the balance
of the mass of smoke exiting the compartment and the mass of air
entering.
I posed a similar question to Dr. Stefan Svensson from Lund
University concerning the difference in the volume of products of
combustion discharged and air intake from a single opening with a
bi-directional air track. I discussed Arts question with Stefan to
ensure that my answer was clear and as accurate as possible (while
maintaining a practical context).
In actuality, I should have stated that mass and energy must be
balanced. Application of the principle of conservation of mass and
energy in practical fire dynamics is an estimate and it applies on the
molecular level (i.e. molecular mass). Usually we look at the
building as a system in which the principle of conservation of mass

and energy works as a rough estimate. If you define the system as a

large cube that contains the building, the cube becomes the system.
In considering mass balance in a compartment fire it is important to
keep in mind that solid fuel in the compartment is undergoing
pyrolysis; thermally decomposing into gas phase fuel. Some of the
fuel burns producing a range of combustion products and some
remains unburned. Smoke is comprised of air, products of
combustion, and unburned pyrolizate.
As air, products of combustion, and pyrolizate are heated, the
volume increases (but mass stays the same), cooler outside air
flowing into the building is more dense (smaller volume, but the
same mass). This results in approximate balance between of the
mass of hot air and products of combustion exiting the building and
the mass of cooler external air entering the building.

As smoke is a complex aerosol and its content varies considerably

based the fuel that is burning and combustion efficiency, its density
cannot be specified as a single value (at a given temperature).
However, since air is a large constituent of smoke, I will use density
of air for this example:

Density of Dry Air at 20o C: 1.205 kg/m3 (at Sea Level)

Density of Dry Air at 300o C: 0.616 kg/m3 (at Sea Level)
The implications of this difference in density is that if 1 m3 of hot air
and products of combustion exit the building at 300o C, they will be

replaced by approximately 0.5 m3 of cooler air (which will have the

same mass as the exiting smoke and hot air. This differential will
increase further if the temperature of the smoke is higher (resulting
in lower density). It is important to note that the volume of air is not
the same as the products of combustion and air that exit the
compartment, but the mass is the same.
Pressure Differential and Flow
Smoke movement is due to both pressure and differences in density
(gravity current). However, in general, the pressure differential
between the interior of the building and the exterior is what causes
smoke discharge. However, this pressure differential is not uniform
and will be higher in the hot upper layer than in cooler air below (if
a two layer environment exists inside the building). This is fairly
simple to visualize when considering a single compartment. As
shown in the following four photographs, hot smoke exits at the top
of the door (above the neutral plane) and air enters at the bottom of
the door (below the neutral plane). Movement of smoke in this case
is the result of both the pressure resulting from increased
temperature of the gases in the upper layer and the difference in
density between the hot smoke (less dense) and the cooler air
(more dense).

Pressure is also influenced by building geometry,

compartmentation, and external effects such as wind. Velocity,
length of the flow path, and the size of the exhaust opening(s) will
all influence flow in much the same manner as velocity, length of a
hoseline, and nozzle size influence flow rate in a hoseline.

More Questions
Mike Sullivan from Canada posed several related questions,
focusing on a video included in the Large Vertical Vents are Good,
But post. Just to get everyone back up to speed on the video, this
test was conducted by the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) in Bensenville, IL. The building is a wood frame
townhouse with a fire ignited on the first floor. The door on Floor 1,
Side Alpha is closed and the window on Side 1, Alpha is open. The
door to the second floor room where the open window is located is
also open, providing a flow path between the window and the first
floor fire.

Mike Asks: Although the Law of Conservation of Mass can be used to

explain that for a mass of smoke to exit an equal amount of mass of
oxygen must enter. But in reality is the mass of smoke inside the
townhouse not an artificial massmeaning-typically all things in
life are trying to reach an equilibrium. In this case I would think that
the interior mass of smoke also elevates interior pressures and
should continue exiting until an equilibrium with the exterior is met.

In the video the smoke does exit the window for quite a while. In
this case if we were to discuss the Law of Conservation of Mass,
would it be the mass of oxygen entering the lower part of the
window that allows the smoke to exit OR with the fire burning in the
living room is the mass of smoke being produced by the fire acting
as a replacement for the mass of smoke exiting the window?

Both good questions! As previously discussed, smoke discharge (as

well as movement on the interior) is the result of both differences in
pressure and density. If considered simply from the perspective of
higher pressure on the interior, smoke would discharge from the
building until pressure equilibrium is reached (with the same
pressure inside the building as outside). This is related to exchange
of mass and energy, but only indirectly. If you opened a cylinder of
compressed air, air would be discharged out of the cylinder into the
atmosphere (no exchange). However, with a fire burning in the
building, air must flow inward to sustain release of thermal energy,
which in turn maintains (or increases) the temperature that causes
the pressure increase.