Fire Sub-Group

1. Tall Wood Building Project Fire Sub-Group Xiao Li With, Alejandro Medina Prof. George Hadjisophocleous Andrew Harmsworth Christian Dagenais

2. Fire Risk Modeling using CUrisk • The objective is using CUrisk to compare the fire risk of the proposed combustible building with the fire risk of a non-combustible building. • Buildings for comparison: • The proposed combustible construction • 15% of total room surface area non-protected (1 wall exposed) • A comparable non-combustible construction

3. Fire Risk Modelling • In the 2nd meeting: • Results of fire risk analysis based on fires on the 2nd floor. • Fire growth in the fire room • Effects of sprinklers and fire department on fire development • Effects of CLT wall exposure areas on fire development • Effect of reliability of fire sprinklers on the fire risk of the building

4. Outline • CUrisk modeling results today • Fire Scenarios covering all the floors • Normal scenarios in the residential floors • Extreme fire scenarios (lobby fire and night fires) • Response and Evacuation process • Probability of evacuation following response • Remaining percentage of building occupants • Occupants Evacuation times

5. Floor Plan 1-BedRm Apt. 2-BedRm Apt. Commercial Rooms Commercial Rooms 2-BedRm Apt. Lobby Lobby Corridor 2-bedroom Apt. 1-BedRm Apt. 2-BedRm Apt. Commercial Rooms Commercial Rooms Residential floor plan 2nd to 20th storey Ground floor plan

6. Occupant loads 31 p 31 p • According to building code Dwellings: 2 person per sleeping room Mercantile uses: 3.7 m2 /person • Occupant loads First storey: 124 persons Residential storey: 20 persons • Totally in the building: 504 occupants First storey 31 p 31 p 2 p 4 p 4 p other storey 4 p 4 p 2 p

7. Fire Scenarios • Residential Fires in all the residential storeys • Apt 11 on 2nd floor • Apt 18 on 3rd floor • Apt 25 on 4th floor • … • Apt 137 on 20th floor • Extreme scenarios • Fire In the lobby on the first floor • Night fires without fire suppression Scissor stairs fire Apt.11

8. Occupant response to fire Probability of evacuation following occupant response time when fire occurs in room 11 on the 2nd floor No fire suppression and detection and alarms (solid and dash lines)

9. Evacuation Remaining percentage Occupant remaining percentage in the building versus time when fire occurs in room 11 on the 2nd floor No fire suppression and no detectors and alarms (red and black)

10. Occupant evacuation times Average evacuation time for each occupant (among 504) when fire occur on 2nd storey room 11 A comparison of the proposed combustible building and a non-combustible building

11. Fire risk comparison • Considering possible fire senarios on each residential floor • Same probability occurring on each floor • Considering reliability of • sprinklers, • detector/alarms and, • Fire Department actions • Totally 152 fire scenarios for each type of building • The proposed building • Comparable non-combustible building

12. Expected fire risk comparison Expected Fire Loss when a fire occur on any residential storeys in the whole building Expected Casualties when a fire occur on any residential storeys among all the occupants (504)

13. Extreme fire scenarios • Low probability of occurrence • Fires in the lobby • Night fires where fire suppressions systems are not available • Earthquake induced fires are not considered due to its complexity, but comments may be provided.

14. Fire in the lobby • CUrisk results showed that: • Fire in the lobby can cause hundreds of casualties and a lot more damages due to fire spread to adjacent heavy-loaded shops • Smoke and heat block all the exits • However, fire spread to upper storeys may be limited in the podium because of its non-combustible construction and remote window openings from upper storeys (vertical external fire spread) Lobby Lobby

15. Fires at night without fire prevention • Worst scenarios when no fire suppression and detection system • Compared with daytime fires without fire prevention • Expected overall risk by considering possible scenarios on every residential floors (19 fire scenarios) • Results show fire losses are same but night fires may cause lots more casualties than daytime fires. Comparison of Expected risk between daytime fire and night fires in the proposed building.

16. Reliability of Sprinklers • Last meeting showed that reliability of sprinklers is the most important factor in reducing the fire risks. • When sprinklers are installed and work reliably (P_Sprinkler = 1) : Risk (proposed building) ≈ Risk (Non-combustible building) • Possible solutions: • Fast response sprinklers with high reliability and suppression efficiency • Reliable fire detectors and alarms that can provide quick fire cues to occupants.

17. Summary • Possible fire scenarios are simulated on all the residential storeys, and results showed that fire risk of the proposed building is close to (or slightly higher) than the non-combustible building. • Evacuation simulation results showed that occupants can evacuate out of the building with a reasonable time frame; and occupant evacuation times in the proposed combustible building are slightly shorter than a comparable non-comb. building. • Again, high reliability sprinklers (good efficiency) can prevent the fire in its infancy, thus can avoid faster fire growth in the combustible compartment (especially in the case of wood panel exposure). • Fire in extreme scenarios may cause significant life risks and fire losses, though occurrence probabilities are low.