Author Topic: Are modern houses more susceptible to fire?  (Read 2217 times)

just Warren

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,234
  • My DJ name is Heavy Cream.
Are modern houses more susceptible to fire?
« on: November 24, 2017, 02:59:45 PM »
Researcher says that you had more time to escape a house fire in the past then you do now.

It's not every house of course, it depends on what siding and or insulation you have.

I'm going to give anything vinyl a hard pass on any house I have built.   

Member in Good Standing of the Spontaneous Order of the Invisible Hand.

Hawkmoon

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 27,199
Re: Are modern houses more susceptible to fire?
« Reply #1 on: November 24, 2017, 04:16:16 PM »
Vinyl siding, by itself, isn't the major issue. The larger problem is that energy conservation codes are leading to the use of vinyl siding installed over plastic sheathing, with foam plastic insulation in the wall cavities. The combination of all those plastic components is a problem. Put vinyl siding over gypsum sheathing (which is inherently non-combustible) with firberglass insluation (which is inherently non-combustible) and you eliminate the problem almost entirely.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2017, 10:03:42 PM by Hawkmoon »
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
100% Politically Incorrect by Design

230RN

  • It's like swimming to shore in an ebb tide.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 18,826
  • Pushing back. Help me out, here...
Re: Are modern houses more susceptible to fire?
« Reply #2 on: November 24, 2017, 08:57:58 PM »
Wasn't there a fire about a year ago where a death was attributed to the inflammable siding?  Apartment building.  Great Britain.  I think we kicked it around here in APS for a while.

Ben

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 45,747
  • I'm an Extremist!
Re: Are modern houses more susceptible to fire?
« Reply #3 on: November 24, 2017, 09:11:01 PM »
Vinyl siding, by itself, isn't the major issue. The larger problem is that energy conservation codes are leading to the use of vinyl siding installed over plastic sheathing, with foam plastic insulation in the wall cavities. The combination of all those plastic components is a problem. Put vinyl siding over gypsum sheathing (which is inherently non-combustible) with firberglass insluation (which is inherently non-combustible) and you eliminate the pronlem almost entirely.

That's good to know. When I move, one of my options is building new. If I go that route, one of my main goals, besides single story, was as element resistant and  maintenance free as possible. I was thinking vinyl is probably the most maintenance free exterior option (Idaho climate)? Or are there actually better choices?
"I'm a foolish old man that has been drawn into a wild goose chase by a harpy in trousers and a nincompoop."

French G.

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,184
  • ohhh sparkles!
Re: Are modern houses more susceptible to fire?
« Reply #4 on: November 24, 2017, 09:34:21 PM »
My old house was Masonite siding, horsehair and lath interior plaster and hung on a frame of rough cut Cypress. Some time before me there had been a kitchen fire, bot much evidence in the structure. I think you could have run around inside with a flame thrower. Now we have plastic siding, tyvek, engineered wood full of glue, and asphalt shingles. Oh, and kiln dried pine frames. Yes, I think a modern house is second only to whatever tinder the Japanese were building with before we firebombed them. And as wood becomes more of a controlled commodity people do dumb things like steel roof trusses.
AKA Navy Joe   

I'm so contrarian that I didn't respond to the thread.

just Warren

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,234
  • My DJ name is Heavy Cream.
Re: Are modern houses more susceptible to fire?
« Reply #5 on: November 24, 2017, 10:03:56 PM »
That's good to know. When I move, one of my options is building new. If I go that route, one of my main goals, besides single story, was as element resistant and  maintenance free as possible. I was thinking vinyl is probably the most maintenance free exterior option (Idaho climate)? Or are there actually better choices?

Brick.
Member in Good Standing of the Spontaneous Order of the Invisible Hand.

Hawkmoon

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 27,199
Re: Are modern houses more susceptible to fire?
« Reply #6 on: November 24, 2017, 10:09:19 PM »
That's good to know. When I move, one of my options is building new. If I go that route, one of my main goals, besides single story, was as element resistant and  maintenance free as possible. I was thinking vinyl is probably the most maintenance free exterior option (Idaho climate)? Or are there actually better choices?

HardieBoard siding. https://www.jameshardie.com/products/hardieplank-lap-siding

It's cementitious, so it's completely non-combustible. It's not maintenance free, but it is pre-finished and the finish is guaranteed for 15 years. Even vinyl looks pretty shabby after 15 years.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
100% Politically Incorrect by Design

Ben

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 45,747
  • I'm an Extremist!
Re: Are modern houses more susceptible to fire?
« Reply #7 on: November 24, 2017, 10:21:46 PM »
HardieBoard siding. https://www.jameshardie.com/products/hardieplank-lap-siding

It's cementitious, so it's completely non-combustible. It's not maintenance free, but it is pre-finished and the finish is guaranteed for 15 years. Even vinyl looks pretty shabby after 15 years.

Oh, thanks. For some reason I thought hardiboard was just a brand/type of vinyl siding. Also, I should have said "low maintenance". I hate dealing with stuff like dry rot. Bad enough keeping up with it on faceboards and decks and whatnot. Paint every 10-15 years is no big deal.
"I'm a foolish old man that has been drawn into a wild goose chase by a harpy in trousers and a nincompoop."

Sideways_8

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 197
Re: Are modern houses more susceptible to fire?
« Reply #8 on: November 25, 2017, 12:09:09 PM »
HardieBoard siding. https://www.jameshardie.com/products/hardieplank-lap-siding

It's cementitious, so it's completely non-combustible. It's not maintenance free, but it is pre-finished and the finish is guaranteed for 15 years. Even vinyl looks pretty shabby after 15 years.

Just need the right fire starter.

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2015/07/chlorine-trifluoride-aka-chemical-can-set-fire-glass/

Hawkmoon

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 27,199
Re: Are modern houses more susceptible to fire?
« Reply #9 on: November 25, 2017, 12:47:33 PM »
Oh, thanks. For some reason I thought hardiboard was just a brand/type of vinyl siding. Also, I should have said "low maintenance". I hate dealing with stuff like dry rot. Bad enough keeping up with it on faceboards and decks and whatnot. Paint every 10-15 years is no big deal.

Hardie makes good stuff, and it's available to replicate horizontal, bevel siding (clapboards); vertical board siding; and shingles.

The house my parents had built in 1950 (and in which I now live) used an early type of gypsum sheathing, and cedar single siding. The problem with that is that you can't just nail to gypsum, so they used a special kind of "nail" that works sort of like those brass paper clip things that you push through holes and then fold out the prongs. These "nails" open up as they're hammered into the gypsum. But ... make that past tense, because those "nails" haven't been available for thirty or forty years. So gypsum sheathing isn't good for shingles, but it is good with clapboard siding, because that can be nailed at/to the studs. And there needs to be a sheet of plywood at least at every corner to provide bracing. (Depending on the design, more bracing may be needed -- the International Residential Code significantly increased the requirements for braced walls in recent editions.)
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
100% Politically Incorrect by Design

MillCreek

  • Skippy The Wonder Dog
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 19,964
  • APS Risk Manager
Re: Are modern houses more susceptible to fire?
« Reply #10 on: November 25, 2017, 03:38:08 PM »
My house in Mukilteo, built in 1988, had cedar lapboard siding over oriented strandboard.  It required painting every five years or so.

My house in Mill Creek, built in 1998, had vinyl siding over oriented strandboard.  I had to paint the wood trim every five years or so, but only had to pressure wash the siding about every three years to keep it looking sharp. It was a two day project to pressure wash the two story house.  I did it all from the ground using extension lances.

My house in Arlington, built in 2015, has Hardieplank cedarmill siding over oriented strandboard.  Hardieplank now seems to be ubiquitous on new home construction at all price levels in the Pacific NW.  I rarely see vinyl on new construction and only see cedar on very high end new homes.  I am told that the Hardieplank will not need painting for five years.  The contractors use the primed Hardieplank and then paint on site.  I don't see a lot of the pre-painted Hardieplank used.
_____________
Regards,
MillCreek
Snohomish County, WA  USA


Quote from: Angel Eyes on August 09, 2018, 01:56:15 AM
You are one lousy risk manager.

Viking

  • ❤︎ Fuck around & find out ❤︎
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 7,207
  • Carnist Bloodmouth
Re: Are modern houses more susceptible to fire?
« Reply #11 on: November 25, 2017, 07:51:18 PM »
Wasn't there a fire about a year ago where a death was attributed to the inflammable siding?  Apartment building.  Great Britain.  I think we kicked it around here in APS for a while.
Not even a year ago. Was early in the summer of this year. Grenfell Tower.
“The modern world will not be punished. It is the punishment.” — Nicolás Gómez Dávila

230RN

  • It's like swimming to shore in an ebb tide.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 18,826
  • Pushing back. Help me out, here...
Re: Are modern houses more susceptible to fire?
« Reply #12 on: November 26, 2017, 03:27:11 AM »
Oh, right, thanks Viking.

Quote
The rapid growth of the fire is thought to have been accelerated by the building's exterior cladding, which is of a common type in widespread use.[11] An independent review of building regulations and fire safety is in progress.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenfell_Tower_fire

        

And "a death" was actually 71 of them.

Firethorn

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,789
  • Where'd my explosive space modulator go?
Re: Are modern houses more susceptible to fire?
« Reply #13 on: November 26, 2017, 06:11:42 AM »
I'll note that Grenfell is more a failing of the British fire safety codes that allowed cladding good for a single story building to be installed on buildings more than a dozen tall.  

Grenfell itself was pretty old, and was almost as safe before it's retrofit as, say, modern US skyscrapers, and MORE safe than a lot of modern British construction due to their little fire code problem.

After, of course, it was a disaster waiting to happen.  They're busily ripping similar cladding off of a couple hundred similar buildings.  

As I understand it, the rules were you either used a fireproof cladding material, or if it wasn't rated, you built a fake wall out of it and tested it to make sure it met the standard as a full assembly.

Somebody, somewhere skipped the testing part.  Then everybody else were just good little lemmings and followed along the with the assumed type accreditation of the building before them.

I think that a home today can be built more fireproof than ever.  They have homes today that can survive being in a raging forest fire.

You want a fireproof home and are willing to pay $1 more a foot for it?  You'll get a fireproof house.  You want the cheapest possible?  Your home won't be as fireproof.

You could have a fireproof house back in they day, it just involved more sacrifice and expense.

Remember, we used to have really bad fires back in the day, take out whole city blocks.
« Last Edit: November 26, 2017, 06:44:55 AM by Firethorn »

Hawkmoon

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 27,199
Re: Are modern houses more susceptible to fire?
« Reply #14 on: November 26, 2017, 10:10:13 AM »
I'll note that Grenfell is more a failing of the British fire safety codes that allowed cladding good for a single story building to be installed on buildings more than a dozen tall.  

Grenfell itself was pretty old, and was almost as safe before it's retrofit as, say, modern US skyscrapers, and MORE safe than a lot of modern British construction due to their little fire code problem.

After, of course, it was a disaster waiting to happen.  They're busily ripping similar cladding off of a couple hundred similar buildings.  

As I understand it, the rules were you either used a fireproof cladding material, or if it wasn't rated, you built a fake wall out of it and tested it to make sure it met the standard as a full assembly.

I looked up the cladding used on Grenfall Tower. It was a foam plastic with a thin aluminum facing bonded to it. The manufacturer offered two grades, one with a fire-resistant foam and one without. The fire-resistant type cost almost double what the standard grade cost, so guess which one was used on Grenfall Tower.


Quote
You could have a fireproof house back in they day, it just involved more sacrifice and expense.

Remember, we used to have really bad fires back in the day, take out whole city blocks.

Something built with a brick (or concrete block) masonry exterior would be pretty good. But they don't generally build houses that way. When you see a "brick" house, it's almost always a standard, wood-framed house with a brick veneer. It's better than vinyl siding, but nowhere near as resistant to fire as a wall that's constructed entirely out of masonry.

Those old houses, the ones built in the late 1800s and early 1900s, were especially susceptible to fire because they were balloon framed, not platform framed. The wall studs ran the full two stories of height, with no firestopping. I worked in one a number of years ago that was being rehabbed by Habitat for Humanity. From the basement, you could look up through the cavities in the exterior walls all the way into the attic.  
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
100% Politically Incorrect by Design

Ben

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 45,747
  • I'm an Extremist!
Re: Are modern houses more susceptible to fire?
« Reply #15 on: November 26, 2017, 10:47:49 AM »
Something built with a brick (or concrete block) masonry exterior would be pretty good. But they don't generally build houses that way. When you see a "brick" house, it's almost always a standard, wood-framed house with a brick veneer. It's better than vinyl siding, but nowhere near as resistant to fire as a wall that's constructed entirely out of masonry.


From the layman's perspective, I guess there's also weighing fireproofing vs "otherproofing". Living in earthquake country, I think masonry construction that would exceed earthquake codes would be overly expensive for most residential construction.

I guess though, as Firethorn pointed out, given enough funding, you can build something with modern materials that is "everything proof" (or more precisely, "everything resistant").
"I'm a foolish old man that has been drawn into a wild goose chase by a harpy in trousers and a nincompoop."

Hawkmoon

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 27,199
Re: Are modern houses more susceptible to fire?
« Reply #16 on: November 26, 2017, 10:54:36 AM »
From the layman's perspective, I guess there's also weighing fireproofing vs "otherproofing". Living in earthquake country, I think masonry construction that would exceed earthquake codes would be overly expensive for most residential construction.

True. To be earthquake resistant, masonry construction has to be reinforced. That doesn't add a whole lot to the cost -- if you're already starting with all-masonry construction. But the cost of an all-masonry shell compared to stick-built, even with a brick veneer, is considerably higher. Heck, in Arizona they've been doing reinforced adobe for a couple or three decades.

Quote
I guess though, as Firethorn pointed out, given enough funding, you can build something with modern materials that is "everything proof" (or more precisely, "everything resistant").

Also true. In my wife's native country in South America, even most single-story, single-family houses are poured concrete. Even the interior walls. But they have more earthquakes than California, cement is cheap, and labor is cheap.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
100% Politically Incorrect by Design

Ben

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 45,747
  • I'm an Extremist!
Re: Are modern houses more susceptible to fire?
« Reply #17 on: November 26, 2017, 11:01:35 AM »

Also true. In my wife's native country in South America, even most single-story, single-family houses are poured concrete. Even the interior walls. But they have more earthquakes than California, cement is cheap, and labor is cheap.

Yeah, US concrete costs have come up a lot in the last decade, as has the labor.  I guess I can't knock the labor cost too much. The few concrete pours I worked on or did myself were backbreaking. That's a hard job.

I recall a couple of years ago seeing a video of a 3D concrete printer.  I wonder how that has been developing? That could certainly knock down some costs at some point.
"I'm a foolish old man that has been drawn into a wild goose chase by a harpy in trousers and a nincompoop."

K Frame

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 44,014
  • I Am Inimical
Re: Are modern houses more susceptible to fire?
« Reply #18 on: November 27, 2017, 07:39:10 AM »
The building I lived in in Washington, DC, when I first moved down was build in the 1920s or 1930s. It was a steel skeleton with internal walls, floors, and ceilings of shotcrete.
Carbon Monoxide, sucking the life out of idiots, 'tards, and fools since man tamed fire.

MechAg94

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 33,622
Re: Are modern houses more susceptible to fire?
« Reply #19 on: November 27, 2017, 09:29:48 AM »
I have heard talk of people building Barndominiums, but does anyone use steel frame for normal houses?
“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”  ― Calvin Coolidge

K Frame

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 44,014
  • I Am Inimical
Re: Are modern houses more susceptible to fire?
« Reply #20 on: November 27, 2017, 09:43:14 AM »
Hey, Jamis has the most recently built house I know of...

Anyone want to do a meet and conflagrate at his place? :rofl:
Carbon Monoxide, sucking the life out of idiots, 'tards, and fools since man tamed fire.

Firethorn

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,789
  • Where'd my explosive space modulator go?
Re: Are modern houses more susceptible to fire?
« Reply #21 on: November 27, 2017, 04:34:38 PM »
I have heard talk of people building Barndominiums, but does anyone use steel frame for normal houses?

I've heard of it being done.  I know the local steel frame companies would love for you to give them a call.

Ben

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 45,747
  • I'm an Extremist!
Re: Are modern houses more susceptible to fire?
« Reply #22 on: November 27, 2017, 04:46:43 PM »
I've heard of it being done.  I know the local steel frame companies would love for you to give them a call.

I'm trying to figure out the cost effectiveness compared to on site stick built and modular. I'm not getting a clear picture of what the URL below includes, but it appears to be just the steel frame, which means you need exterior/interior walls, insulation, roof, etc. etc. Compared to some prices for factory built homes that I was looking at (which pretty much include the works), I'm thinking even a concrete home would be cheaper?

https://www.lthsteelstructures.com/building-types/steel-framing-kits-custom-homes

For comparison, by modular homes I mean this kind, not double wides:

http://tedevelopment.com/ourHomes.php
"I'm a foolish old man that has been drawn into a wild goose chase by a harpy in trousers and a nincompoop."

Firethorn

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,789
  • Where'd my explosive space modulator go?
Re: Are modern houses more susceptible to fire?
« Reply #23 on: November 27, 2017, 04:58:09 PM »
I'm trying to figure out the cost effectiveness compared to on site stick built and modular. I'm not getting a clear picture of what the URL below includes, but it appears to be just the steel frame, which means you need exterior/interior walls, insulation, roof, etc. etc. Compared to some prices for factory built homes that I was looking at (which pretty much include the works), I'm thinking even a concrete home would be cheaper?

List of materials included in the steel quotes:

Engineer drawings
Exterior walls (8 3/8"), 6" studs, hat channels for thermal break and stability
Load bearing and non-load bearing studs, 24" on center
window frame rough openings, door frame rough openings,
structural header studs,
Floor trusses, roof trusses, etc...

Let's see, yeah, it looks like just the framing stuff.  You still need to supply the drywall, exterior finish, insulation, flooring, wiring, etc... 

Not sure how much of the cost that stuff normally is.

French G.

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,184
  • ohhh sparkles!
Re: Are modern houses more susceptible to fire?
« Reply #24 on: November 27, 2017, 05:07:16 PM »
Problem with steel framing is you the cover it with stuff that burns and then in the fire the house all collapses at once when the steel goes soft. No jet fuel required. Firefighters do not like steel truss roofs.

Were I to do it again, house would be snap together foam mold poured concrete up to the top of the second story. Stucco exterior, probably metal roof.

Almost everything burns. We learned in WWII, don't paint the ship's for the sake of painting. We have well and truly forgotten that one, it is in the manual to remove old paint before applying new, but it doesn't happen. And the new flooring gives off all sorts of wonderful gases when it burns, as well as being pretty good shrapnel in an explosion.
AKA Navy Joe   

I'm so contrarian that I didn't respond to the thread.