NIST Technical Note 1629 

Fire Fighting Tactics Under Wind Driven Fire Conditions: 

7-Story Building Experiments 

Stephen Kerber 

Daniel Madrzykowski 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Building and Fire Research Laboratory 

National Institute of Standards 

and Technology 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899 

NIST Technical Note 1629 

Fire Fighting Tactics Under Wind Driven Fire Conditions: 

7-Story Building Experiments 

 

Stephen Kerber 

Daniel Madrzykowski 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Building and Fire Research Laboratory 

National Institute of Standards 

and Technology 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899 

April 2009 

Department of Homeland Security 

Janet Napolitano, Secretary 

Federal Emergency Management Association 

Nancy Ward, Acting Administrator

United States Fire Administration 

Glenn A. Gaines, Acting Assistant Administrator

 U.S. Department of Commerce 

Otto J. Wolff, Acting Secretary 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology 

Patrick Gallagher, Deputy Director

Fire Department of New York City 

Nicholas Scoppetta, Fire Commissioner 

Salvatore Cassano, Chief of Department

Polytechnic Institute of NYU 

Jerry MacArthur Hultin, President

i

Fire Fighting Tactics Under Wind Driven Fire Conditions: 

7-Story Building Experiments 

Stephen Kerber 

Daniel Madrzykowski 

Building and Fire Research Laboratory 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Abstract 

In February 2008, a series of 14 experiments were conducted in a 7-story building to evaluate the 

ability of positive pressure ventilation fans, wind control devices and external water application 

with floor below nozzles to mitigate the hazards of a wind driven fire in a structure. Each of the 

14 experiments started with a fire in a furnished room. The air flow for 12 of the 14 experiments 

was intensified by a natural or mechanical wind.. Each of the tactics were evaluated individually 

and in conjunction with each other to assess the benefit to fire fighters, as well as occupants in 

the structure. 

The results of the experiments provide a baseline for the hazards associated with a wind driven 

fire and the impact of pressure, ventilation and flow paths within a structure. Wind created 

conditions that rapidly caused the environment in the structure to deteriorate by forcing fire gases 

through the apartment of origin and into the public corridor and stairwell. These conditions 

would be untenable for advancing fire fighters. Each of the tactics were able to reduce the 

thermal hazard created by the wind driven fire. Multiple tactics used in conjunction with each 

other were very effective at improving conditions for fire fighter operations and occupant egress. 

Fire departments that wish to implement the tactics used in this study will need to develop 

training and determine appropriate methods for deploying these tactics. Variations in the 

methods of deployment may be required due to differences in staffing, equipment, building 

stock, typical weather conditions, etc. There is uniformity however, in the physics behind the 

wind driven fire condition and the principles of the tactics examined. The data from this 

research will help provide the science to identify methods and promulgation of improved 

standard operating guidelines (SOG) for the fire service to enhance firefighter safety, fire ground 

operations, and use of equipment. 

The experiments were conducted by the National Institute of standards and Technology (NIST), 

the Fire Department of New York City (FDNY), and the Polytechnic Institute of New York 

University with the support of the Department of Homeland security (DHS)/Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) Assistance to Firefighters Research and Development Grant 

Program and the United States Fire Administration. 
ii

Disclaimer 

Certain trade names or company products are mentioned in the text to specify adequately the 

experimental procedure and equipment used. In no case does such identification imply 

recommendation or endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor 

does it imply that the equipment is the best available for the purpose. 

Regarding Non-Metric Units: The policy of the National Institute of Standards and Technology 

is to use metric units in all its published materials. To aid in the understanding of this report, in 

most cases, measurements are reported in both metric and U.S. customary units. 
iii

Acknowledgments 

Experiments of this magnitude require the assistance of many individuals and cooperation of many organizations to 

plan and execute. To list everyone that made these experiments possible by name would be impossible. The 

following organizations played an important role in bringing this study to fruition and the authors can’t express their 

gratitude enough. 

The key organization to making this happen was the Fire Department of New York City. The professionalism and 

expertise of their staff and fire fighters is first class. We would especially like to thank: Fire Commissioner 

Nicholas Scoppetta, COD Salvatore Cassano, Chief of Training Thomas Galvin, Project Coordinator Deputy Chief 

Jack Mooney, Incident Management Team; Deputy Chief Joseph Saccente, Deputy Chief Michael McPartland, and 

Battalion Chief Joel Gerardi, Project Assistants and subject Matter Experts; Battalion Chief Gerald Tracy, Battalion 

Chief George Healy, Battalion Chief Joseph Cunningham, Captain Thomas Yuneman, Captain Mark Foris, 

Lieutenant John Ceriello, and FDNY Director of Grant Development Irene Sullivan. We would also like to 

acknowledge the FDNY Research and Development group especially Battalion Chief Andy Richter and Captain 

Eric Sacknoff, who were instrumental in tool testing and water flow measurement and Firefighter Paul Robinson for 

the development of FDNY’s high rise nozzle prototype. Last but not least, we would like to thank all of the FDNY 

fire fighters, fire marshals and technical specialists that participated in the experiments and made this report 

possible. 

The Polytechnic Institute of New York University played a key role in documenting the structure and monitoring the 

weather and wind conditions during the experiments. They will continue the research on the impact of wind on fires 

in structures through the use of computer modeling. This effort is being lead by Dr. Sunil Kumar. The principal 

members of the team involved in the experiments included: Prabodh Panindre, Vishal Prajapati, Susan Mousavi, 

Christopher Alvarez, and Ramirez Antonio. 

The authors would like to express their appreciation to the many Building and Fire Research (BFRL) staff members, 

who provided their technical expertise to make these experiments a success, especially; Roy McLane, Jay McElroy, 

Mike Selepak, Anthony Chakalis, Nelson Bryner and Anthony Hamins. 

Many other organizations provided assistance that was critical to the performance of this study: 

Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives, especially John Pijaca, David Sherman 

Chicago Fire Department, especially Battalion Chief Peter Van Dorpe, Battalion Chief Keith Witt and Director 

of Training Richard Edgeworth 

Delaware County (PA) Emergency Service Training Center, especially Kerby Kerber 

DHS/FEMA Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program 

Eagle Fire Suppression, especially Kevin Bourke (Capt Eng. Co. 45 FDNY retired) 

Fire Protection Research Foundation, especially Casey Grant 

Gilbert (AZ) Fire Department, especially Troy Duncan 

Governors Island Preservation and Education Corporation, especially Terry Williams 

KO Fire Curtain, especially Pat Kilduff and Tom Oswald 

Mesa (AZ) Fire Department, especially Josh Friedman 

Mink Hollow Systems, especially Todd Wilson 

Tempest Technologies, especially Dexter Coffman 

U.S. Fire Administration, especially Meredith Lawler 

While the preparation and performance of the experiments was challenging and labor intensive, the development of 

this report was also challenging and labor intensive. The authors wish to thank Jonathan Kent for the application of 

his programming talents to enabling rapid data analysis schemes and the ability to easily meld the timeline 

information with the numerical data on each graph. 

Last but not least, we would like to thank the reviewers Dr. Andrew Lock, Dr. Glenn Forney, Dr. William 

Grosshandler and Mr. Paul Reneke for their timely and thorough reviews of this report. 
iv

Nomenclature 

Text: 

gpm gallons per minute 

FBN 1 Floor below nozzle (high rise nozzle) which is angled up from the floor below 

FBN 2 Floor below nozzle (high rise nozzle) with a hook that attaches to the fire floor 

IR Infrared 

mph miles per hour 

MVU Mobile Ventilation Unit 

PPE Personal Protective Ensamble 

PPV Positive Pressure Ventilation 

SCBA Self Contained Breathing Apparatus 

WCD Wind Control Device 

Figures: 

BH Bulkhead 

BR Bedroom 

double The double window present in the bedrooms of the test apartments; unless 

otherwise specified, assume the window of the ignition apartment 

LR Living Room 

S1 Stairwell doorway on the 1st floor 

S3 Stairwell doorway on the 3rd floor 

S5 Stairwell doorway on the 5th floor 

S7 Stairwell doorway on the 7th floor 

single The single window present in the bedroom of the test apartments 
v

Table of Contents 

Abstract..........................................................................................................................................................i

Disclaimer ....................................................................................................................................................ii

Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................................... iii

Nomenclature.............................................................................................................................................iv

Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................................... v

Executive Summary............................................................................................................................... viii

1 Introduction........................................................................................................................................1

1.1 Background ..........................................................................................................................................2

1.2 Structure................................................................................................................................................6

1.3 Wind ..................................................................................................................................................... 10

1.4 Fuel Load ............................................................................................................................................ 12

1.5 Instrumentation............................................................................................................................... 19

1.6 Estimated Measurement Uncertainty ...................................................................................... 20

1.7 Positive Pressure Ventilation Fans ........................................................................................... 21

1.8 Wind Control Blankets/Curtains ............................................................................................... 22

1.9 Floor Below Water Application Nozzles.................................................................................. 23

2 Experimental Procedure ............................................................................................................. 26

3 Results ............................................................................................................................................... 27

3.1 Experiment 7G.................................................................................................................................. 28

3.2 Experiment 7G2 ............................................................................................................................... 54

3.3 Experiment 7E .................................................................................................................................. 86

3.4 Experiment 7A................................................................................................................................114

3.5 Experiment 7K................................................................................................................................146

3.6 Experiment 5E ................................................................................................................................173

3.7 Experiment 5E2..............................................................................................................................199

3.8 Experiment 5K................................................................................................................................221

3.9 Experiment 5A................................................................................................................................247

3.10 Experiment 5G................................................................................................................................273

3.11 Experiment 5G2 .............................................................................................................................295

3.12 Experiment 3E ................................................................................................................................317

3.13 Experiment 3A................................................................................................................................347

3.14 Experiment 3G/K...........................................................................................................................372

4 Discussion.......................................................................................................................................411

4.1 Door Control....................................................................................................................................413

4.2 PPV fans to control smoke movement ...................................................................................415

4.3 WCD to control wind driven conditions ................................................................................417

4.4 FBN to control wind driven conditons...................................................................................418

4.5 Window Failure Time ..................................................................................................................419

5 Tactical Considerations.............................................................................................................421

6 Future Research ...........................................................................................................................423

6.1 Pilot Programs................................................................................................................................423

6.2 Standard Test Methods for Equipment..................................................................................423

7 Summary.........................................................................................................................................423

8 References ......................................................................................................................................426

9 Appendices .....................................................................................................................................429
vi

9.1 Appendix A – Detailed Drawings..............................................................................................429

9.2 Appendix B – Fuel Distribution ................................................................................................447

9.3 Appendix C – Wind Measurements and Descriptions.......................................................451

9.4 Appendix D – Detailed Graphs ..................................................................................................497

9.5 Appendix E – Post Fire Images..................................................................................................567
vii
viii

Executive Summary 

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the Fire Department of New York 

City (FDNY), and the Polytechnic Institute of New York University with the support of the 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 

Assistance to Firefighters Research and Development Grant Program and the United States Fire 

Administration (USFA), have conducted a series of wind driven fire experiments in a seven story 

building on Governors Island, New York. 

The objective of this study was to improve the safety of fire fighters and building occupants by 

developing a better understanding of wind driven fires and wind driven fire fighting tactics, 

including structural ventilation and suppression. A series of 14 experiments were conducted to 

evaluate the ability of positive pressure ventilation fans (PPV), wind control devices (WCD), and 

exterior water application via floor below nozzles (FBN) also known as high rise nozzles to 

mitigate the hazards of a wind driven fire in a structure. 

Each of the 14 experiments started with a fire in a furnished room. The air flow for 12 of the 14 

experiments was intensified by a natural or mechanical wind. Each of the tools was evaluated 

individually as well and in conjunction with each other to assess the benefit to fire fighters, as 

well as occupants in the structure. The data collected used to examine the impact of the PPV 

fans, WCDs, and the exterior water application tactics were temperature, differential pressure, 

and gas velocity inside the structure. Each of the experiments was documented with video and 

thermal imaging cameras. These experiments also captured video of specific fire phenomena 

that are not typically observable on the fire ground. 

During these experiments a public corridor and stairwell area was exposed to a wind driven, 

post-flashover apartment fire. The door from the apartment to the corridor was open for each of 

the experiments. The conditions in the corridor and the stairwell were of critical importance 

because that is the portion of the building that firefighters would use to approach the fire 

apartment or that occupants from adjoining apartments or adjacent floors would use to exit the 

building. Fires in high-rise buildings create unique safety challenges for building occupants and 

fire fighters. Smoke and heat spreading through the corridors and the stairs of a building during 

a fire can limit building occupants’ ability to escape and can limit fire fighters’ ability to rescue 

them. In 2002, there were 7300 reported fires in high rise structures (seven stories or more). The 

majority of these high rise fires occurred in residential occupancies, such as apartment buildings. 

In fires that originated in apartments, 92 % of the civilian fatalities occurred in incidents where 

the fire spreads beyond the room of origin. 

All of the fires were ignited in furnished rooms of an apartment. Due to excess fuel 

pyrolysis/generation (lack of ventilation) the room of fire origin could not transition to flashover 

until windows self-vented and introduced additional fresh air with oxygen to burn. Without a 

wind imposed on the vented window, the fire did not spread from the room of origin and never 

left the apartment of origin. Even with no externally applied wind, creating a flow path from the 

outside, through the fire apartment into the corridor and up the stairs to the open bulkhead on the 

roof increased the temperatures and velocities in the corridors and in the stairwell resulting in 
ix

hazardous conditions for fire fighters and untenable conditions for occupants on the fire floor and 

above in the stairwell. 

With an imposed wind of 9 m/s to 11 m/s (20 mph to 25 mph) and a flow path through the fire 

floor and exiting out of the bulkhead door on the roof, temperatures in excess of 400 oC (752 oF) 

and velocities on the order of 10 m/s (22 mph) were measured in the corridor and stairwell above 

the fire floor. These extreme thermal conditions are not tenable, even for a firefighter in full 

protective gear. 

These experiments demonstrated the “extreme” thermal conditions that can be generated by a 

“simple room and contents” fire and how these conditions can be extended along a flow path 

within a real structure when wind and an open vent are present. Potential tactics which could be 

implemented to interrupt and control the flow path are door control from inside the structure and 

or a WCD from the floor above the fire. From the floor below the fire, external water application 

was demonstrated to be effective in reducing the thermal hazard in the corridor and stairwell. 

Identify the Potential for Wind Driven Conditions. Wind conditions should be considered as 

part of initial size-up of the incident. Wind conditions can vary widely in an urban environment 

due to wind flows around buildings, or shielding by buildings that give the perception on the 

ground that no significant wind is present, but another side of the building or a higher elevation 

in the building may be exposed to wind conditions. Wind speeds on the order of 10 mph to 

20 mph are high enough to create a wind driven fire condition in the structure with an 

uncontrolled flow path. 

If the fire has vented a window, important information can be gained by observing the behavior 

of the flame at the window. If the fire apartment has a high pressure relative to the outside due 

to an imposed wind, the flame will “pulse” out of the window to balance the overpressure. If the 

flames are being forced out of the window a flow path has been established through the building 

and the flow direction maybe favorable to interior fire fighting. If the flames are pulsing or 

being forced into the window, condition may not be favorable to interior firefighting and caution 

should be used on the approach to the fire floor. Even if flames are being forced out of adjacent 

windows in the fire apartment with a high amount of energy, there could still be sufficient energy 

flows on the fire floor to create a hazard for firefighters. 

Wind driven fire conditions – The wind driven condition can be described as hot gases or 

flames flowing horizontally out of the room of fire origin. The wind driven fire condition has 

been described as a “blow torch” by firefighters. For our purposes, a wind driven fire condition 

exsisted when the fire gases were well mixed and of equally high temperature from the floor to 

the ceiling, on the order of at least 400 oC (752 oF). For this condition to occur inside a structure, 

the fire must be in a flow path. In these experiments the inlet to the flow path was the upwind 

window in the room of fire origin. The flow path then went through the aparatment, into the 

corridor, and exited out of the bulkhead door on the roof, via the stairwell. Without a flow path, 

the wind driven fire condition inside the structure can not occur. 

Door Control. Door control is the most basic means to interrupt or control the flow path in the 

building. The fire floor stair door should be checked for heat or hot gases flowing around the 
x

edges. The door should only be opened a few inches at first to look for rapid changes in smoke 

volume or velocity and/or thermal conditions. If the thermal environment changes quickly, close 

the door to interrupt the flowpath. In a smoke filled environment, visual changes to conditions 

may not be apparent with out a thermal imager. A similar approach would be used on the door to 

the fire apartment. 

Impact of PPV. PPV fans alone could not overcome the effects of a wind driven condition. 

However when used in conjunction with door control, WCDs, and FBNs, the PPV fans were able 

to maintain tenable and clear conditions in the stairwell. The key to successful use of PPV fans 

was to mitigate the wind driven fire condition via door control or other tactics. Then the PPVs 

can be used to clear the stair and then pressurize the stairwell to provide a safe working 

environment. Although the PPV fans, when used alone, could not reverse the flow of a wind 

driven fire, PPV fans always improved conditions in the stairwell. 

Impact of WCDs. In these experiments, the WCDs reduced the temperatures in the corridor and 

the stairwell by more than 50 % within 120 s of deployment. The WCDs also completely 

mitigated any velocity due to the external wind. The WCDs were exposed to a variety of 

extended thermal conditions without failure. 

Impact of externally applied water. In these experiments, the externally applied water streams 

were implemented in different ways; a fog stream inserted into the fire room window, a fog 

stream flowed from the floor below into the fire room window opening, and a solid water stream 

flowed from the floor below into the fire room window opening. In all cases, the water flows 

suppressed the fires, thereby causing reductions in temperature in the corridor and the stairwell 

of at least 50 %. The water flow rates used in these experiments were between 125 gpm and 

200 gpm, demonstrating that a relatively small amount of water applied directly to the burning 

fuels can have a significant impact. 

Stored Energy. Wind driven fire conditions can generate and transfer energy throughout the 

flow path. When doors or WCDs are used to stop the wind driven fire conditions, energy and 

fuel may be trapped on the fire floor. These experimental results indicate that the thermal 

conditions due to the residual heat on the fire floor were still of a level which could pose a 

hazard to firefighters in full PPE. However, when used in combination with PPV fans to force 

cool air into the stairwell and out through the fire floor, and or with the cooling effect from water 

streams, the fire floor temperatures were reduced to tenable conditions for fire fighters in full 

PPE in minutes. 

The data from this research will help provide the science to identify methods and promulgation 

of improved standard operating guidelines (SOG) for the fire service to enhance firefighter 

safety, fire ground operations, and use of equipment. If the demonstrated technologies continue 

to prove effective in the field trials and pilot programs, the next step may be to examine the need 

for standards and standardized test methods to define a minimum level of acceptable 

performance of these devices. 
1

1 Introduction

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the Fire Department of New York City 

(FDNY), and the Polytechnic Institute of New York University with the support of the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS)/Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Assistance to Firefighters 

Research and Development Grant Program and the United States Fire Administration (USFA), have 

conducted a series of wind driven fire experiments in a seven story building on Governors Island, New 

York. The experiments were conducted in February 2008. 

The objective of this study was to improve the safety of firefighters and building occupants by enabling 

a better understanding of wind driven firefighting tactics, including structural ventilation and 

suppression. This was achieved by investigating technical issues that address the teaching of the 

dynamics of fire phenomena and prediction of fire intensity and growth under wind driven conditions. 

The data from this research will also help to identify methods and promulgation of improved standard 

operating guidelines (SOG) for the fire service to enhance firefighter safety, fire ground operations, and 

use of equipment. 

A series of 14 experiments were conducted in a seven story building to evaluate the ability of positive 

pressure ventilation fans (PPV), wind control devices (WCD) and floor below nozzles (FBN) to mitigate 

the hazards of a wind driven fire in a structure. Each of the 14 experiments started with a fire in a 

furnished room. The air flow for 12 of the 14 experiments was intensified by a natural or mechanical 

wind.. Each of the tools was evaluated individually as well and in conjunction with each other to assess 

the benefit to fire fighters, as well as potential occupants in the structure. 

These field experiments followed a series of experiments that were conducted in NIST’s Large Fire 

Facility from November 2007 through January 2008. The NIST laboratory experiments demonstrated 

and quantified the impact of wind on a fire in a structure and the impact of WCDs and externally applied 

water streams on mitigating the hazard from a wind driven fire. The experiments were conducted in a 

laboratory in order to provide the best levels of control on the experiments and have the capability of 

making heat release rate and high quality gas concentration measurements which would be difficult and 

cost prohibitive to make in an acquired structure in the field. The laboratory experiments are fully 

documented in the report, “Fire Fighting Tactics Under Wind Driven Conditions: Laboratory 

Experiments”[1]. 

As implied by the title, the laboratory experiments were only one portion of the research needed to fully 

analyze the impact of wind on a fire resistive structure fire and demonstrate potential methods (tactics) 

for improving firefighter safety and effectiveness. The experiments on Governors Island were required 

to examine the effects of natural ventilation (door control) and PPV on the fire and the means of egress 

in the building alone and in conjunction with the use of WCDs and FBNs. Tactics incorporating 

devices, such as WCDs, to control the ventilation conditions or the use of a special fire nozzle from the 

floor below the fire floor have been tried by the fire service under “real fire” conditions with varying 

levels of success. Unfortunately, there is no data to understand the capabilities and limitations of these 

fire fighting approaches. This study provides real scale data, to guide the development of appropriate 

tactical operations for use under wind driven conditions. 
2

1.1 Background

Fires in high-rise buildings create unique safety challenges for building occupants and fire fighters. 

Smoke and heat spreading through the corridors and the stairs of a building during a fire can limit 

building occupants’ ability to escape and can limit fire fighters’ ability to rescue them. In 2002, there 

were 7300 reported fires in high rise structures (structures 7 stories or more). The majority of these high 

rise fires occurred in residential occupancies, such as apartment buildings. In fires that originated in 

apartments, 92 % of the civilian fatalities occurred in incidents where the fire spreads beyond the room 

of origin [2]. 

Changes in the building’s ventilation, such as the opening of doors or windows can increase the growth 

of the fire and allow it to spread beyond the room of fire origin. This can also increase the spread of fire 

gases through the building. In some cases, such as the Cook County Administration Building fire in 

October 2003, the fire flow into the corridors and the stairway prevented fire fighters from suppressing 

the fire from inside the structure. This fire resulted in 6 building occupant fatalities and several fire 

fighter injuries in the stairway [3]. 

The failure of a window in the fire apartment in the presence of an external wind can create significant 

and rapid increases in the heat production of a fire. Combined with open doors to corridors, stairs, or 

downwind apartments, many wind driven fire incidents have resulted in fire fighter fatalities and injuries 

[4, 5]. 

1.1.1 Historical Wind Driven Fires

Recognition of wind driven fire conditions has been taken into account in forest fires and large area 

conflagrations for more than 100 years. This is due in part to the fact that some of the most destructive 

and deadly conflagrations in the United States such as the Great Pestigo, WI fire and the Great Chicago 

fire were wind driven events. Both of these fires started on the same day, October 8, 1871. The Pestigo 

fire resulted in 1152 fatalities and more than 1.2 million acres burned. The Chicago fire resulted in more 

than 250 fatalities, and 17400 structures destroyed over a 2000 acre area [6].The magnitude of these 

fires was, in part, the result of strong south winds combined with “tinder dry” conditions [7]. 

While wildland fire managers and officers training includes weather conditions in their evaluation of 

incident conditions (size-up), typically structural firefighters and fire officers do not receive this type of 

training [8, 9, 10, 11]. Wildland fire fighter training manuals dedicate almost half of their fire behavior 

chapter to weather with significant sections on wind [12]. Structural fire fighter training manuals, which 

are approximately 1000 pages in length, dedicate a page or less to the interaction of wind and structural 

fire behavior [13, 14, 15]. As a result, structure fires that may have been affected by wind conditions 

have typically not been recognized as such or well documented, with some notable exceptions. A few 

such exceptions are presented in the following sections. 

1.1.2 Experience of the Fire Department of New York City

The Fire Department of New York City (FDNY) began to recognize that wind driven fires, particularly 

those in multiple story, residential occupancies of fire resistive construction (Class I) were challenging 
3

their resources, their tactics, and their safety. Norman and Tracy and others in the department began to 

look at the challenges and results of wind driven fires, with the goal of changing the tactics in order to 

improve the safety and effectiveness of their members [16, 17, 18]. A listing of notable FDNY wind 

driven fire incidents is given in Table 1.1-1 [16, 19]. While it might appear that the frequency of 

occurrence has increased, the reality may be that the recognition of wind driven fires has increased in the 

department. In fact, the FDNY has developed a training DVD, Fighting Wind Driven Fires in High Rise 

Multiple Dwellings, which was created in November of 2007 with the objective of developing an 

awareness for wind effects in a structure, and identifying how to control the hazard or find shelter from 

the hazard by controlling doors and preparing areas of refuge [20]. 

Another factor Norman [16] identifies is that the fire does not have to be 20 stories or more above 

ground for wind to be a factor. Table 1.1-1 demonstrates that these FDNY wind driven fire incidents 

have occurred as low as the 3rd story above ground. NFPA data shows that the majority of fires in high 

rise buildings occur below the 7th floor [2]. 

Table 1.1-1. FDNY Wind driven fire incidents. 

Date Location Victims Stories Fire Floor 

1/23/80 30 Montrose Avenue, Brooklyn 1 civilian fatality 16 11th

2/11/89 23 Horace Harding 

Expressway, Queens 3 civilian fatalities 16 14th

11/2/94 Park Ave, Bronx 2 civilian fatalities 20 18th

1/5/96 40-20 Beach Channel Drive, 

Queens 1 firefighter fatality 13 3rd

1/7/97 1 Lincoln Place, Manhattan 18 firefighters injured 42 28th

12/18/98 77 Vandalia Avenue, Brooklyn 3 firefighter fatalities 10 10th

12/23/98 124 West 60th st, Manhattan 4 civilian fatalities, 9 firefighters 

injured 51 19th

4/23/01 Waterside Plaza, Manhattan 30 firefighters injured, 4 civilians 

injured 37 24th

9/9/04 20 Confucious Place, 

Manhattan 12 firefighters burned 44 37th

1/26/06 40-20 Beach Channel Drive, 

Queens 3 firefighters burned 13 6th

2/26/06 20 Moshulu Parkway, Bronx 3 firefighters burned 41 24th & 25th

1/03/08 1700 Bedford Avenue, 

Brooklyn 

1 firefighter fatality 4 firefighters 

burned, 4 civilians injured 25 14th

3/28/08 Grand Avenue, Manhattan 1 civilian fatality, 45 injured 26 4th

4/2/08 Sutter Ave, Brooklyn 3 firefighters injured 22 5th

Other wind related fire fighter line of duty deaths have occurred in New York City in smaller buildings 

of ordinary construction (Type III) such as the “Black Sunday Fire.” This fire started on the third story 

of a four story apartment building. The average wind speed was 12 mph with gusts up to 45 mph. Fire 
4

fighters searching for victims on the floor above the fire reported that, “fire was blowing into the 

hallway.” The rapid spread of fire to the 4th floor left 6 firefighters trapped. Their only option was to 

deploy out of the windows to ground, resulting in the death of two of the firefighters and serious injuries 

to the other four [21]. 

Buildings and topographical features alone or in combination deflect wind and as a result cause changes 

in wind speed and direction or localized wind effects around a building. In cities, this may be referred to 

as “building-spawned” wind. All buildings, regardless of size, can block wind, which may cause “local 

areas of amplified winds around corners and enhanced turbulence in building wakes” [22]. When wind 

hits the face of a structure it will seek the path of least resistance to move around it. For a multi-story 

building with a flat face on the upwind side, it has been demonstrated that some of the wind will go over 

the building, a portion of the wind will go around the building and a portion of the wind will be 

deflected downward, and develop a vortex near the ground. [23]. 

1.1.3 U.S. Wind Driven Fire Experience

These wind driven fire incidents are not limited to New York City. Houston, TX., st. Louis, MO., and 

Prince William County, VA. are just a few of the other localities in the United States that have 

experienced losses to wind driven fires [5, 24, 25, 26]. These incidents ranged from a fire that started on 

the 5th floor of a 41 story, fire resistive building to a fire that started on the wood deck outside a two 

story, wood frame, single family home. 

Recently a near miss was documented in a wood frame Cape Cod-type house in Long Island, NY. 

Firefighters working to extinguish the fire, making entry from the front of the house, had flames pushed 

over them by the wind entering the structure from the rear [27]. 

A search of the National Fire Fighter Near-Miss Reporting system database also shows a variety of fire 

incidents and structures where wind caused a significant change in fire conditions resulting in rapid 

increases in thermal hazard to the fire fighters [28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34]. 

1.1.4 Wind Driven Tactics Research

What tactics or tools are appropriate for use with a wind driven fire and how should the tactics or tools 

be implemented? In order to answer this question, the problem has to be fully defined. The wind driven 

fire hazard that has been examined occurs in a high rise building of fire resistive construction with 

internal corridors and interior stairs. The Vandalia fire incident in which three FDNY fire fighters died 

exemplifies scenarios which result in untenable conditions in a public corridor. The door to the fire 

apartment was left open. As a result, there was nothing to keep the fire or the smoke contained in the 

apartment of fire origin. A door to a stair was opened and the stair was vented to the outside or an 

apartment on the downwind side of the building is opened. If the fire apartment was on the upwind side 

of the building and the window failed a ventilation path would be in place for flames to sweep through 

the apartment of origin and out into the corridor, making it impossible and untenable for firefighters to 

approach the fire apartment. 
5

Norman summarizes tactics that FDNY has researched to address this condition, 1) breaching, 2) 

suppressing the fire with an exterior water stream, and 3) controlling the flow of wind into the fire 

apartment with a window fire blanket or curtain [16]. Breaching involves making a hole from a 

protected stair and continuing to breach walls until a hole for a hoseline can be made in the wall of the 

fire apartment or the fire could be attacked from an adjoining balcony. Exterior hose streams have been 

used when the fire apartment is in reach of an aerial apparatus stream. For apartments on higher floors, 

an applicator pipe or Navy fog applicator may be used to apply water into the window of a fire 

apartment on the floor above. The use of a wind control device deployed from the floor above the fire 

floor to block an open window to a fire apartment on the upwind side of the building has been 

researched by FDNY. In fact, the department issued wind control devices to special Operations Units 

[16]. 

Positive Pressure Ventilation (PPV) is being used by fire departments on smaller structures, such as 

single family homes, to control the fire flow by introducing pressure from the front door and venting the 

house through a strategic exit opening. If done correctly, this tactic can remove significant amounts of 

heat and smoke from the structure, thus improving the fire fighters’ working environment and improving 

the chances of survival for the building occupants. NIST has completed several studies which have a 

two fold impact: 1) providing guidance on the safe use of PPV and 2) characterizing and validating the 

modeling of PPV with a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model, so that the model can be used as a 

training tool for the fire service [35, 36, 37, 38]. 

In 2006, NIST research began to examine the use of PPV in high-rise firefighting. To accomplish this 

task, NIST partnered with the Chicago Fire Department (CFD), FDNY and the Toledo Fire and Rescue 

Department. In a vacant 30-story high-rise in Toledo, the capability of PPV to pressurize the stair was 

demonstrated in an extensive series of pressure experiments [39]. This study was followed with a series 

of fire experiments conducted in a 16-story high-rise in Chicago [40]. The results of the fire 

experiments demonstrated the ability of properly sized and placed PPV fans to pressurize stairways in a 

high rise building and clear them of heat and smoke even with post-flashover fires open to the corridor 

on the fire floor. Near the end of the test series in Chicago, experiments were conducted to examine the 

impact of wind on an apartment fire and the potential for a wind control device and/or a large PPV fan to 

control the hazard and protect the corridor. The experiments conducted on the 3rd floor demonstrated 

that introducing a wind to a post flashover room fire can result in “blow torch” flames through the 

apartment and into the corridor in less than 30 s. The experiments also showed that a wind control 

device could in fact negate the impact of the wind and that PPV fans may have a role in mitigating the 

hazard from wind driven fires. 

In November 2007, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, with the support of the Fire 

Protection Research Foundation and the U.S. Fire Administration, began conducting eight fire 

experiments to examine the impact of wind on fire spread through a multi-room structure and examine 

the capabilities of wind-control devices (WCD) and externally applied water to mitigate the hazard. The 

principle measurements used to examine the impact of the WCDs and the external water application 

tactics were heat release rate, temperature, heat flux, and velocity inside the structure. Measurements of 

oxygen, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, total hydrocarbons and differential pressures were also 

measured in the bedroom (room of fire origin) and in a furnished living room (room in the flow path). 

Each of the experiments was recorded with video and thermal imaging cameras. 
6

The experiments were designed to expose a public corridor area to a wind driven post-flashover 

apartment fire. The door from the apartment to the corridor was open for each of the experiments. The 

conditions in the corridor were of critical importance because that is the portion of the building that 

firefighters would use to approach the fire apartment or that occupants from an adjoining apartment 

would use to exit the building. 

The fires were started in the bedroom of the apartment. Prior to the failure or venting of the bedroom 

window, which was on the upwind side of the experimental apartment, the heat release rate from the fire 

was on the order of 1 MW. After window failure, but prior to implementing either of the mitigating 

tactics, the heat release rates from the post-flashover structure fire were typically between 15 MW and 

20 MW. When the door from the apartment to the corridor was open, temperatures in the corridor area 

near the open doorway, 1.52 m (5.00 ft) below the ceiling, were in excess of 600 °C (1112 °F) for each 

of the experiments. The heat fluxes measured in the same location, during the same experiments, were 

in excess of 70 kW/m2. These extreme thermal conditions are not tenable, even for a firefighter in fully 

protective gear. These conditions were attained within 30 s of the window failure. 

In these experiments, the WCDs reduced the temperatures in corridor outside the doorway by more than 

50 % within 60 s of deployment. The heat fluxes were reduced by at least 70 % during this same time 

period. The WCDs also mitigated completely any gas velocity due to the external wind. 

The externally applied water streams were implemented in three different ways; a fog stream across the 

face of the window opening, a fog stream into the window opening, and a solid water stream into the 

window opening. The fog stream across the window was not effective at reducing the thermal 

conditions in the corridor. The fog stream in the window decreased the corridor temperature by at least 

20 % and the corresponding heat flux measures by at least 30 %. The solid streams experiments resulted 

in corridor temperature and heat flux reductions of at least 40 % within 60 s of application. None of the 

water applications had a significant impact on reducing the gas velocities in the structure. In some cases 

the gas velocity increased during water application. 

These experiments demonstrated that the two potential tactics which could be implemented from either 

the floor above the fire, in the case of a WCD, or from the floor below the fire, in the case of external 

water application, were demonstrated to be effective in reducing the thermal hazard in the corridor. 

The experiments documented below, conducted in a seven story building, analyzed the impact of wind 

on actual structure fire and demonstrate potential tactics for improving firefighter safety and 

effectiveness. 

1.2 Structure

The experiments were conducted in a 7-story fire resistant residential apartment building located on 

Governors Island in New York Harbor, south of Manhattan and west of Brooklyn. This location was 

important due to the prevailing winds during the winter months. The structure was located on the 

northwestern side of the island as shown in Figure 1.2-1. The structure was “dog bone” shaped and was 

constructed of concrete block with concrete slab floors. Each elevation of the structure can be seen in 

Figure 1.2-2 through Figure 1.2-5. More detailed drawings with dimensions are located in Appendices 

Appendix A – Detailed Drawings. 
7

The structure was symmetric about the fire wall in center of the building. Each side had 6 apartments (A 

through F and G through L), a scissor stairwell and an elevator bank. There were no openings between 

the two sides of the structure; therefore they were treated as two separate experimental volumes for the 

analysis. The floor plan was the same for floors 2 through 7. For the experiments, the first floor had all 

of the apartments and storage rooms sealed off and only utilized the lobby and the stairwells. All four 

stairways extended up above the seventh floor and had a bulkhead doorway that opened up to the roof. 

A detail view of the scissor stairwell can be seen in Figure 1.2-7. Opening the bulkhead door was 

important for flow path control of smoke and hot gases. 

Apartments A, E, G and K were furnished and utilized for the experiments. Apartments A and G were 

two bedroom apartments with a living room, kitchen and bathroom. Apartments E and K were three 

bedroom apartments with a living room, kitchen and bathroom. In each of the experiments the kitchen 

and bathroom were walled off with gypsum board to minimize the amount of overhaul that was required 

between experiments. Figure 1.2-8 shows the experimental floor plan with the areas of the building that 

were not utilized removed for clarity. The doors to the apartments not utilized for the experiments 

always remained closed. 

All of the walls in the apartments were made of painted gypsum board and the walls in the public 

corridors and stairwells were painted concrete block. All of the doors to the apartments were steel and 

all of the doors to the bedrooms were hollow core wood doors. The doors to the bedrooms being used 

for the experiments were left open as well as the fire apartment entrance door. The opening and closing 

of other doors was noted in the timelines. 

All of the windows were double pane in aluminum frames. In the bedrooms used for ignition, there 

were two windows, referred to as a “double” window with 4 pane sections and a “single” window with 

two pane sections. The double window was closest to the point of ignition and in the wind driven 

experiments was on the upwind side. Each of the pane sections in the double window measured 0.61 m 

(2.00 ft) wide and 0.53 m (1.75 ft) high. The single window was located on the adjacent exterior wall. 

Each of the two pane sections, an upper and lower, measured 0.71 m (2.33 ft) wide and 0.53 m (1.75 ft) 

high. 

The living room had a larger window which was divided in to 5 glass sections, a single pane center 

section with a windows on each side that had an upper and lower pane section The glass pane area of 

the center section measured 0.83 m (2.71 ft) wide and 1.22 m (4.00 ft) high. Each of the side panes 

measured 0.56 m (1.83 ft) wide and 0.53 m (1.75 ft) high. 

The distance between the floor and the lower edge of the glass portion of all of the windows in the 

bedrooms and the living rooms was 0.91 m (3.00 ft). The dimensions of overall window frames and 

window openings in the brick façade are provided in the detailed drawings in Appendix A. 
8

 

Figure 1.2-1. Governors Island Map (Experimental Structure Circled) 

Figure 1.2-2. Front of structure (Side A) Figure 1.2-3. Left side of structure (Side B) 

Figure 1.2-4. Rear of structure (Side C) Figure 1.2-5. Right side of structure (Side D) 
9

Figure 1.2-6. Floor Plan for Floors 2-7 (Fire Apartments Circled) 

Figure 1.2-7. Detail of scissor stairs 
10

Figure 1.2-8. Cut Away View of Experimental Area 

1.3 Wind

The wind for these experiments was essential. Ideally the natural wind would be sufficient to create the 

wind driven fire conditions for the experiments. Historically and during previous site visits the natural 

wind was from the desired direction at the desired magnitudes. Unfortunately the natural wind was not 

present during the week in which these experiments were scheduled and the option of waiting for the 

right wind was not an acceptable. There was one experiment in which the natural wind was sufficient 

and that was the experiment in Apartment 3G/K. 

The direction and magnitude of the wind was measured in multiple locations by representatives of 

Polytechnic University. They had anemometers on and around the structure to measure the prevailing 
11

winds prior to the experiments for planning purposes and during the experiments. Their data can be 

found in Appendix C – Wind Measurements and Descriptions. 

Because natural wind was not available, wind was created mechanically with the use of a Mobile 

Ventilation Unit (MVU). The MVU was a 1.2 m (48 in) gasoline powered fan that was able to provide a 

simulated 9 m/s to 11 m/s (20 mph to 25 mph) wind that was repeatable for all of the experiments 

(Figure 1.3-1 through Figure 1.3-3). 

The MVU was secured to a lift which was able to position the fan as high as the 7th floor to allow the 

simulated wind to be directed straight into the desired opening. The MVU was positioned 4 m to 8 m 

from the opening and the fan speed was adjusted to achieve the 9 m/s to 11 m/s (20 mph to 25 mph) 

wind in the opening. The MVU was positioned to be centered on the opening and varied slightly based 

on the obstructions around the building and the terrain. 

Figure 1.3-1. MVU on Lift Figure 1.3-2. MVU Positioned at Window 

Figure 1.3-3. Close-up View of MVU 
12

1.4 Fuel Load

The fuel load was comprised of common items that may be found in an apartment building. The corner 

bedroom and the living room of each of the apartments utilized (A, E, G and K) were furnished. 

Apartments G and K had a second bedroom furnished (Figure 1.2-8). The bedrooms had an average fuel 

load of 21 kg/m2 (4.3 lb/ft2) and the living rooms had an average fuel load of 15 kg/m2 (3.1 lb/ft2). This 

accounted for the combustible furnishings and not the metal objects such as the bed frames or lamps. 

The combustible wood floor was also not included in these averages. Table 1.4-1 shows all of the items 

used and their respective labels. Figure 1.4-1 through Figure 1.4-4 show the floor plan and layout of the 

fuel load items. In these figures the fuel load items are labelled letters that correspond to Table 1.4-1. 

For example, the bed in each bed room is labeled “a-e”. This means that items a through e from Table 

1.4-1 are co-located in that position. In this example the mattress, box spring, head board, bedding and 

pillows are used for the bed fuel package. Figure 1.4-5 through Figure 1.4-32 show photographs of each 

apartment and the fuel load arrangement. These figures are representative of the similar layouts for each 

floor. For example the layout for Apartment 7A is similar to 5A and 3A. 
13

Table 1.4-1. Fuel Load Labels and Description 

Label Item 

H 

(m) 

W 

(m) 

D 

(m) Materials Mass (kg) 

A Mattress 0.2 1.5 2.0 fiber pad/polyurethane foam 30.4 

B Box spring 0.2 1.5 2.0 wood / felt 31.7 

C Head Board 1.1 1.4 0.0 wood 17.3 

D Bedding * 2.6 2.0 - cotton/polyester 5.0 

E Pillows -2 0.3 0.7 0.1 cotton/polyester 1.0 

F 

Upholstered Chair 

(Brown) 0.7 0.7 0.7 polyurethane foam/wood 24.1 

G Upholstered Chair (Red) 0.8 0.9 0.9 polyurethane foam/wood 28.9 

H Chair (Red w/ wood arms) 0.8 0.6 0.8 polyurethane foam/wood 14.5 

I Desk Chair (Green) 1.1 0.6 0.6 polyurethane foam/wood 16.7 

J Desk Chair (Brown) 0.7 0.4 0.4 wood 7.0 

K Coffee Table 0.6 0.6 0.5 particle board/wood 9.7 

L 

Desk (Dark Brown w/ 

blue) 0.8 1.3 0.8 particle board/wood 29.9 

M Desk (Light Brown) 0.8 1.1 0.6 particle board/wood 26.4 

N Dresser (Dark Brown) 0.8 1.5 0.5 particle board/wood 80.9 

O Dresser (Light Brown) 0.6 1.8 0.5 particle board/wood 73.3 

P Nightstand (Light Brown) 0.6 0.5 0.4 particle board/wood 20.9 

Q Nightstand (Dark Brown) 0.6 0.7 0.5 particle board/wood 32.6 

R Round Table 0.6 0.7 0.7 particle board/wood 12.1 

S Sofa 0.9 1.8 1.0 polyurethane foam/wood 53.0 

T TV (Small) 0.4 0.7 0.4 Plastic 23.3 

U TV (Large) 0.6 0.7 0.5 Plastic 36.9 

V Trash Can - - - Plastic 0.3 

* nominal H and W area of sheets and comforter 
14

Figure 1.4-1. Apartment A Fuel Layout Figure 1.4-2. Apartment K Fuel Layout 

Figure 1.4-3. Apartment G Fuel Layout Figure 1.4-4. Apartment K Fuel Layout
15

1.4.1 Apartment A Photographs

Figure 1.4-5. View From Doorway Figure 1.4-6. Living Room (View 1) 

Figure 1.4-7. Living room (View 2) Figure 1.4-8. View Down Hallway 

Figure 1.4-9. Ignition Bedroom (View 1) Figure 1.4-10. Ignition Bedroom (View 2) 
16

1.4.2 Apartment E Photographs

Figure 1.4-11. View From Doorway Figure 1.4-12. Living Room (View 1)

Figure 1.4-13. Living Room (View 2) Figure 1.4-14. Ignition Bedroom (View 1)

Figure 1.4-15. Ignition Bedroom (View 2) Figure 1.4-16. Ignition Bedroom (View 3)
17

1.4.3 Apartment G Photographs

 Figure 1.4-17. View From Doorway Figure 1.4-18. Living Room (View 1)

Figure 1.4-19. Living Room (View 2) Figure 1.4-20. Target Bedroom (View 1)

 Figure 1.4-21. Target Bedroom (View 2) Figure 1.4-22. Ignition Bedroom (View 1)

Figure 1.4-23. Ignition Bedroom (View 1) Figure 1.4-24. Ignition Bedroom (View 3)
18

1.4.4 Apartment K Photographs

Figure 1.4-25. View From Doorway Figure 1.4-26. Living Room (View 1) 

Figure 1.4-27. Living Room (View 2) Figure 1.4-28. Target Bedroom (View 1) 

Figure 1.4-29. Target Bedroom (View 2) Figure 1.4-30. Ignition Bedroom (View 1) 

Figure 1.4-31. Ignition Bedroom (View 2) Figure 1.4-32. Ignition Bedroom (View 3) 
19

1.5 Instrumentation

The measurements taken during the experiments included differential pressure, gas temperature, gas 

velocity, video recording and thermal imaging. Differential pressure transducers were located 

throughout the stairwells, 1.2 m (4 ft) above the floor on every landing (Figure 1.5-1). A copper tube 

was run from the transducers through the wall from the D or J Apartment into the stairwell to measure 

the pressure increase. 

Gas temperature was measured with bare-bead, Chromel-Alumel (type K) thermocouples, with a 

0.5 mm (0.02 in) nominal diameter. Thermocouple arrays were located in the ignition bedrooms, public 

hallways and stairwells (Figure 1.5-4). Each thermocouple location had an array of thermocouples with 

measurement locations of 0.03 m, 0.3 m, 0.6 m, 0.9 m, 1.2 m,1.5 m, 1.8 m and 2.1 m (1 in, 1 ft, 2 ft, 3 ft, 

4 ft, 5 ft, 6 ft and 7 ft) below the ceiling (Figure 1.5-2). 

Gas velocity was measured utilizing differential pressure transducers connected to bidirectional velocity 

probes. These probes were located in the fire apartment doorways, doorways into the stairwell as well 

as the stairwell doorways of the fire floors. There were three probes on the vertical centerline of each 

doorway located at 0.3 m (1 ft) from the top of the doorway, the center of the doorway and 0.3 m (1 ft) 

from the bottom of the doorway. Thermocouples were co-located with the bidirectional probes to 

complete the gas velocity measurement. 

Video cameras and thermal imaging cameras were placed inside and outside the building to monitor 

both smoke and heat conditions throughout each experiment. As many as eight video camera views and 

two thermal imaging views were recorded during each test (Figure 1.5-3). 

Figure 1.5-1. Pressure Transducer 

Figure 1.5-3. Video and Thermal Imaging Cameras Figure 1.5-2. Bidirectional Probes and Thermocouples 
20

Figure 1.5-4. Instrumentation Locations on Floors 3, 5 and 7 

1.6 Estimated Measurement Uncertainty

There are different components of uncertainty in the length, differential pressure and gas temperature 

data reported here. Uncertainties are grouped into two categories according to the method used to 

estimate them. Type A uncertainties are those which are evaluated by statistical methods, and Type B 

are those which are evaluated by other means [41]. Type B analysis of systematic uncertainties involves 

estimating the upper (+ a) and lower (- a) limits for the quantity in question such that the probability that 

the value would be in the interval (± a) is essentially 100 %. After estimating uncertainties by either 

Type A or B analysis, the uncertainties are combined in quadrature to yield the combined standard 

uncertainty. Multiplying the combined standard uncertainty by a coverage factor of two results in the 

expanded uncertainty which corresponds to a 95 % confidence interval (2σ). 

Each length measurement was taken carefully. However due to some issues, such as obstructions and 

unleveled terrain there was a total expanded uncertainty of ± 6 % associated with the measurements. 
21

Differential pressure reading uncertainty components were derived from pressure transducer instrument 

specifications and previous experience with pressure transducers. The transducers were factory 

calibrated and the zero and span of each was checked in the laboratory prior to the experiments yielding 

an accuracy of ±1% [42]. The total expanded uncertainty was estimated at 10 %. 

The standard uncertainty in temperature of the thermocouple wire itself is ± 2.2 °C at 277 °C and 

increases to ± 9.5 °C at 871 °C as determined by the wire manufacturer [43]. The variation of the 

temperature in the environment surrounding the thermocouple is known to be much greater than that of 

the wire uncertainty [44, 45]. Small diameter thermocouples were used to limit the impact of radiative 

heating and cooling. The estimated total expanded uncertainty for temperature in these experiments is 

±15 %. 

Bi-directional probes and single thermocouples were used to measure the velocity. The bi-directional 

probes used similar pressure transducers as those used for the differential pressure measurements 

discussed above. Bare-bead Type K thermocouple are co-located with the probe. The estimated total 

expanded uncertainty for temperature in these experiments is ±15 %. 

An error bar representative of the estimated uncertainty for each measurement is given on every data 

graph. The bar is applied near the peak measurement on the graph. 

1.7 Positive Pressure Ventilation Fans

Several of the same model 0.7 m (27 in) positive pressure ventilation (PPV) fans were utilized for these 

experiments (Figure 1.7-1 and Figure 1.7-2). They were powered by a 9.0 hp gasoline engine and were 

used to ventilate and pressurize the stairwells of the structure during the experiments. Fans were 

positioned 1.8 m (6 ft) from the doorways that they were flowing into and tilted back 10 degrees from 

vertical. Fans were located at the front lobby doors, base of the stairwells on the first floor and two 

floors below the fire floor depending upon the experimental configuration. 

Previous research has shown that PPV fans positioned correctly are able to create a pressure sufficient 

enough to keep products of combustion out of the stairwell by creating a higher pressure than the fire 

creates [39, 40]. These experiments follow the guidelines produced by the previous research to 

determine if the fans can be effective at keeping the combustion products out of the stairwell under wind 

driven conditions. 
22

Figure 1.7-1. Front View of PPV Fans Figure 1.7-2. Rear View of PPV Fans 

1.8 Wind Control Blankets/Curtains

Two different Wind Control Devices (WCD) were used during these experiments. The first was a Wind 

Control Blanket (WCD). The WCD measured 3.0 m (10 ft) by 3.7 m (12 ft), was made of a silica fabric 

aluminized with a foil material and weighed approximately 14.0 kg (30.9 lb). It had a strap on each 

corner and one in the top center to secure it in the desired location. The WCD required a team of at least 

two fire fighters positioned above and a team of at least two fire fighters below the fire apartment to 

deploy and secure the blanket. One of the 3.7 m (12 ft) sides of the WCD was weighted with a chain to 

assist with deployment. 

The second device was the Wind Control Curtain (WCD). The WCD measured 1.8 m (6 ft) by 2.4 m 

(8 ft), was made of a treated fiberglass material and weighed approximately 11.8 kg (26 lb). It was 

reinforced with metal rods and had a rope on each corner to secure it. The WCD could be deployed by a 

single fire fighter above the fire apartment and required an additional fire fighter below to secure the 

bottom of the curtain. 

Figure 1.8-1. Wind Control Device Stowed Figure 1.8-2. Wind Control Devi ce Open 

2.4 m (8 ft) 

1.8 m (6 ft) 
23

Figure 1.8-3. Wind Control Device Stowed Figure 1.8-4. Wind Control Device Open 

Figure 1.8-5. Wind Control Device Deployed Figure 1.8-6. Wind Control Device Deployed 

1.9 Floor Below Water Application Nozzles

Two different types of Floor Below Nozzles (FBN) were utilized. The first, referred to as FBN 1, was a 

bent pipe with the ability to attach a nozzle of choice. This FBN was designed to be positioned straight 

out of the floor below the fire and by adjusting the distance out of the window the crew can direct the 

stream into the floor above (Figure 1.9-1). 

The second type of FBN, referred to as FBN 2, was also of a bent pipe design. The difference was that 

this nozzle was designed to hook onto the window sill of the floor above. There were several prototypes 

of the FBN 2, varying the configuration to get the tip of the nozzle into the above apartment, but for the 

purposes of this analysis, they both will be grouped together (Figure 1.9-2). 

3.7 m (12 ft) 

3.0 m (10 ft) 
24

Both types of FBN were able to accommodate any tip or water distribution device. Both a smooth bore 

and a fog tip were used for these experiments. The smooth bore was a 1 1/8 inch tip (Figure 1.9-1). The 

fog tip was considered any tip that created a broken water stream. Three versions of the fog tip that 

were used included a navy nozzle (Figure 1.9-3), sprinkler head type tip (Figure 1.9-4) and a common 

fog tip (Figure 1.9-7). Figure 1.9-5and Figure 1.9-6 show each of the FBN operating into the floor 

above. 

Figure 1.9-1. FBN 1 w/ a Smooth Bore Nozzle Figure 1.9-2. One version of FBN 2 

Figure 1.9-3. FBN 2 with a Fog Nozzle (Navy Nozzle) Figure 1.9-4. FBN 2 with a Fog Nozzle (Sprinkler) 
25

Figure 1.9-5. Floor Below Nozzle 1 Flowing Figure 1.9-6. Floor Below Nozzle 2 Flowing 

Figure 1.9-7. FBN 1 w/ Fog Tip Figure 1.9-8. Another Version of FBN 2 
26

2 Experimental Procedure

Prior to the ignition of each experiment the MVU was placed into position and set to the appropriate 

speed. Three experiments 7G, 7G2 and 3G/K were an exception to this and utilized the natural wind. 

The computer acquisition system was started and data were collected from each instrument every 

second. Video cameras recording the experiment were also started at this time and monitored 

throughout the experiment. After the recording of background data, ignition was initiated remotely. 

Most of the experiments had the fire ignited in the corner bedroom of the apartment next to the bed. 

When the fire was initiated in the living room, the point of ignition was on the seat of one of the sofas. 

The ignition source consisted of a cardboard book of 20 matches that was ignited by an electrically 

heated wire. The matchbook was placed near the bottom of an 8.5 L (9 qt) polypropylene waste 

container with a mass of 0.315 kg. The height of the waste container was 0.3 m (10.5 in) with interior 

dimensions at the top opening of 0.23 m (9.0 in) by 0.20 m (8.0 in). Approximately 0.3 kg of dry 

newspaper was added to the waste container. The majority of the newspaper was folded flat, and placed 

on edge along the sides of the waste container. Four sheets of newspaper were crumpled into “balls” 

approximately 100 mm in diameter and placed on top of the electric match in the center of the waste 

container. Heat release rate experiments were conducted for this fuel package under an oxygen 

consumption calorimeter at NIST. The peak heat release of the waste container and the newspaper was 

on the order of 30 to 35 kW for the two heat release rate experiments conducted. [1] 

Every experiment began with all of the doors and windows closed with the exception of the door to the 

furnished bedrooms and the main entrance door from the public corridor to the fire apartment. After 

ignition, the fire was allowed to grow until it failed the windows in the room or became ventilation 

limited. The purpose of the experiments was to get a wind driven fire condition. Therefore when an 

apartment became ventilation limited because of lack of window failure additional doors were opened 

remotely such as the stairwell door to provide additional air for the fire to grow. In some cases, 

windows were manually vented to provide additional air flow. 

Once wind driven conditions were achieved many different openings were made to simulate the 

operations of a fire department. These operations included opening the front lobby doors for access, 

entering the stairwell, opening the door from the stairwell to the fire floor, and opening the bulkhead 

door at the top of the stairwell. In addition to these operations each of the tools to be tested, PPV fans, 

Wind Control Devices and Floor Below Nozzles were deployed and evaluated. 

The experiments were run until the fire burned down and smoke production was minimal. The 

experimental duration varied between 23 min and 53 min depending on the growth of the fire and the 

impact of the tactics. Detailed tables of the events are documented chronologically in the experimental 

timelines. 
27

3 Results

During the series of wind driven fire experiments on Governors Island a large number of parameters 

which affect the flow of combustion products through a building and the ability to control the heat and 

velocity of those products of combustion were examined. In the data, the impacts of controlling doors, 

Positive Pressure Ventilation fans (PPV), Wind Control Devices (WCD), and Floor Below Nozzles 

(FBN) can be seen. 

An overview of each experiment is provided with a list of experimental objectives. A figure in each 

experiment’s results shows the pertinent locations such as doors and windows that change during the 

events of the experiment. A timeline shows all of the events that take place to accomplish the 

experimental objectives and the time at which they occur. The figures after the timelines show the 

locations for the cameras and instruments that are presented in the observation, temperature, pressure, 

velocity and discussion sections. 

The temperature section has three graphs for each experiment. Each graph has lines and labels that 

indicate the changing events during the experiment. The first presents temperatures versus time 

throughout the fire apartment, public corridor and fire floor landing inside the stairwell at 2.1 m (7 ft) 

above the floor. This was the temperature approximately 0.3 m (1 ft) below the ceiling. The second 

graph presents the temperature at the same locations as the first graph but at the 1.2 m (4 ft) elevation 

above the floor. The third graph shows the temperatures at 1.2 m (4 ft) above the floor on the stairwell 

landings of floors 1, 2, 4, 6 and the top of the stairwell or at the bulkhead door. 

The pressure section has a graph that shows the pressure versus time at 1.2 m (4 ft) above the landing on 

each floor. The graph has lines and labels that indicate the changing events during the experiment. The 

pressures in the stairwell are of the most interest when the PPV fans are being utilized to pressurize the 

stairwell to slow or stop the flow of fire gases into the stairwell. 

The velocity section has a graph that shows the average doorway velocity versus time for the doors at 

the base of the stair, top of the stair, entrance to the stair from the fire floor and from the apartment to 

the public corridor. Velocity measurements were taken 0.3 m (1 ft) from the top of the door, 0.3 m (1 ft) 

from the bottom of the door and in the middle of the door on the centerline of the doorway. These 

measurements were averaged to provide the bulk flow through the doorway. 

Detailed graphs are provided for each measurement point for each experiment in Appendix D – Detailed 

Graphs. The graphs include time histories of temperatures in multiple locations on the fire floor, 

temperatures throughout the stairwell, velocities of the fire floor, velocities in the stairwell and pressures 

in the stairwells. The legends indicate each instruments height above the floor in meters. The vertical 

axis of the temperature graphs provides the temperature in Centigrade on the left and Fahrenheit on the 

right. The vertical axis of the velocity graphs provides the velocity in meter per second of the left and 

miles per hour on the right. The horizontal axis provides the time in seconds. The experiment event 

timeline is given across the top of each graph. Time “zero” was when ignition took place. 
28

3.1 Experiment 7G

The first experiment in the structure was located on the 7th floor in apartment 7G. Experiment 7G was 

ignited in the bedroom furthest from the open apartment door (Figure 3.1-1). This experiment was 

different from the other experiments, in that no external wind was being imposed to the structure and 

there was little to no natural wind. The events that took place during the experiment to accomplish the 

experimental objectives bulleted below are shown in Table 3.1-1. 

Experimental Objectives 

• Examine fire development with no mitigation and little/no wind 

• Examine window failure times and conditions 

• Examine building flows with different door opening configurations 

• Utilize portable PPV fans to control smoke movement 

• Utilize a MVU to control smoke movement 

The results for the experiment are presented in the following sections: observations, temperature, 

pressure, velocity, and discussion. Figure 3.1-2 shows the camera names and locations used in the 

observation section and the instrumentation names and locations used in the temperature, pressure and 

velocity sections. 
29

Figure 3.1-1. 7th floor apartment G floor plan with locations pertinent to Experiment 7G 
30

Table 3.1-1: Experiment 7G Timeline 

Start (s) End (s) Event Location Event Description 

0 0 Bedroom Ignition 

344 345 Bedroom double Bottom left pane failed 

365 372 Front lobby Doors opened 

402 405 1st floor stair A Door opened 

438 439 Bedroom double Top left pane failed 

439 437 Bedroom double Top right pane failed 

847 849 Bedroom double Bottom right pane failed 

970 973 Bedroom single Top pane failed 

1195 1196 Bedroom single Bottom pane failed 

1224 1225 7th floor stair A Door opened 0.08 m (3 in) 

1302 1307 Bulkhead door Opened 

1346 1352 7th floor stair A Door opened 

1533 1542 1st floor stair A 27 inch fan activated 

1569 1573 Bulkhead door Closed 

1715 1719 7th floor stair A Door closed 

1839 1845 7th floor stair A Door opened 

1847 1854 Bulkhead Door Opened & closed 

2060 2069 5th floor stair A Door opened 

2060 2069 5th floor stair A 27 inch fan activated 

2306 2313 Front lobby MVU started 

2401 2405 5th floor stair A 27 inch fan deactivated 

2401 2405 5th floor stair A Door closed 

2475 2487 Front lobby MVU stopped 

2600 2600 Experiment completed 
31

Figure 3.1-2. Instrumentation and camera locations with labels. 
32

3.1.1 Observations

The observations are presented as a series of images captured from eight camera locations, six were 

video cameras and two were thermal imaging cameras. The camera positions inside the building are 

shown in Figure 3.1-2. 

Figure 3.1-3 through Figure 3.1-16 present sets of eight images one from each camera position, at a 

given time, from the time of ignition to 44 min (2640 s) after ignition. Images were captured every 

4 min and at times when events had taken place that demonstrate the experimental objectives. Each 

image view is labeled. The first view (BEDROOM) at the top left of each figure shows the bedroom 

with a view of the single window straight across, double window to the right and ignition trashcan at the 

foot of the bed. The top right view (LIVINGRM) was of the living room looking across to the windows. 

The corridor and corridor thermal imaging views (CORRIDOR and CORR IR) show the corridor 

leading up to the open apartment doorway. The next two views (STAIR and STAIR IR) show the 

stairwell with a visual and a thermal imaging camera from the floor below the fire looking up to the fire 

floor. The bottom left view (ROOF) shows the bulkhead door at the top of the stairwell and the bottom 

right view (OUTSIDE) shows an external view of the fire apartment. 

Figure 3.1-3 shows the conditions at the time of ignition. At this point, the six video views are clear and 

unobstructed. However, the thermal images provided limited thermal contrast because the surfaces in 

the view are at nearly equal temperature. 

The images in Figure 3.1-4 were captured 240 s (4 min) after ignition. The fire from the trash container 

spread to the bed. A smoke layer formed in the bedroom and descended to the floor level. Smoke 

spread through the living room and out into the corridor with a layer height of approximately 0.9 m (3 ft) 

above the floor. The corridor IR view showed heat leaving the top of the apartment doorway and 

entering the corridor. The stair views show little smoke in the stair and no heat entering the stair. 

Figure 3.1-5 shows the images at 480 s (8 min) after ignition. The fire in the bedroom was ventilation 

limited and visibility was greatly reduced on the fire floor. Three of the four panes of glass in the 

bedroom double window had failed and smoke and heat was seeping around the gaps in the stairwell 

door. Smoke could also be seen leaking around the door at the roof level. 

The images in Figure 3.1-6 were captured 720 s (12 min) after ignition. The fire in the bedroom was 

receiving oxygen from the failed double window and was beginning to increase in size. The smoke 

layer was still to the floor in the living room and the corridor. The light in the living room was 

reflecting off of the smoke but there was no fire in the living room. The corridor IR camera was 

saturated with heat but the door to the apartment was still visible. The smoke in the stairwell was 

moving up the stairwell toward the roof and the door to the stairwell was heating up. 

Figure 3.1-7 shows the images at 960 s (16 min) after ignition. The single window in the bedroom had 

failed and the fire in the bedroom was continuing to grow on the bed. There was still zero visibility in 

the living room or corridor. The corridor IR view shows heat continuing to flow into the corridor. The 

conditions in the stairwell remained the same from the previous figure and no flames are visible coming 

from the bedroom windows. 
33

Figure 3.1-8 shows the images at 1200 s (20 min) after ignition. The bed was fully involved in flames 

and the room was transitioning to flashover. Heat was continuing to flow into the corridor and visibility 

was still poor. There was increased smoke and heat leaking into the stairwell. Flames were burning out 

of the single bedroom window but only light smoke was visible from the double bedroom window. 

The images in Figure 3.1-9 were captured 1440 s (24 min) after ignition. The door to the stairwell had 

been partially open for 120 s (2 min) and fully open for 90 s (1.5 min) and the bulkhead door had been 

open for 150 s (2.5 min). The bedroom had transitioned to flashover and was free burning. The amount 

of smoke in the living room and corridor was greatly reduced and visibility was improved as the fire was 

receiving plenty of air from the open windows and the stairwell. Increased heat was flowing into the 

corridor and cool air was entering the fire apartment through the bottom of the apartment doorway. The 

smoke and heat entering the stairwell was increased as the door was opened. The smoke was moving up 

through the stairwell and out of the open bulkhead doorway. The camera on the roof was completely 

obscured by smoke coming out of the stairwell. The flames had pulled into the bedroom and increased 

smoke was coming out of the double bedroom window. 

The images in Figure 3.1-10 were captured 1530 s (25.5 min) after ignition. This time was just prior to 

PPV fan activation. The bedroom was still well involved in flames but the flames pulled back from 

burning the gases to the surfaces of the items in the room. Visibility in the living room and corridor 

remained the same as the previous figure but the same amount of heat and smoke was flowing into the 

corridor and stairwell. Visibility was returning to the roof area and the smoke flowing from the 

bedroom windows was decreased. 

Figure 3.1-11 shows the images at 1650 s (27.5 min) after ignition. At this time the PPV fan at the base 

of the stair has been operating for 120 s (2 min) and the bulkhead door was closed for 90 s (1.5 min). 

The fan has increased the pressure in the stairwell stopping the flow of smoke and heat into the stairwell. 

Visibility was improved in the corridor but the fire is still forcing heat out of the fire apartment and into 

the corridor. Residual smoke in the stairwell was being forced out of the gaps around the roof door. 

Figure 3.1-12 shows the images at 1680 s (28 min), 30 s after the previous figure. Conditions continued 

to improve in the stairwell as the smoke and heat flow we stopped with the use of the PPV fan. 

Figure 3.1-13 shows the images at 1920 s (32 min) after ignition. At this time the PPV fan at the base of 

the stair has been operating for 380 s (6.3 min). The conditions continue to improve as the fire burns 

down. The heat from the fire is still able to exit the fire apartment but is not able to enter the stairwell. 

Figure 3.1-14 shows the images at 2160 s (36 min), after a second portable PPV fan was added at the 5th

floor flowing into the stairwell. This added flow stops the flow of heat out of the fire apartment and 

reverses all flow back into the apartment. The stairwell and corridor now had complete visibility. 

The final 2 figures, Figure 3.1-15 and Figure 3.1-16 show the conditions after the MVU was used 

outside of the structure blowing into the front doors. All of the smoke was cleared up to the bedroom 

and conditions were returned to near ambient. The fire had reduced to a pile of burning embers. The 

stair IR camera was knocked over by the flow from the MVU so that image was lost. There was no fire 

extension beyond the room of origin. 
34

Figure 3.1-3. Experiment 7G, ignition. 
35

Figure 3.1-4. Experiment 7G, 240s after ignition. 
36

Figure 3.1-5. Experiment 7G, 480s after ignition. 
37

Figure 3.1-6. Experiment 7G, 720s after ignition. 
38

Figure 3.1-7. Experiment 7G, 960s after ignition. 
39

Figure 3.1-8. Experiment 7G, 1200s after ignition. 
40

Figure 3.1-9 Experiment 7G, 1440s after ignition. 
41

Figure 3.1-10 Experiment 7G, 1530s after ignition. 
42

Figure 3.1-11 Experiment 7G, 1650s after ignition. 
43

Figure 3.1-12 Experiment 7G, 1680s after ignition. 
44

Figure 3.1-13 Experiment 7G, 1920s after ignition. 
45

Figure 3.1-14 Experiment 7G, 2160s after ignition. 
46

Figure 3.1-15 Experiment 7G, 2400s after ignition. 
47

Figure 3.1-16 Experiment 7G, 2640s after ignition. 
48

3.1.2 Temperatures

Figure 3.1-17 through Figure 3.1-19 provide temperature data for five measurement locations on the fire 

floor at two elevations and throughout the height of the stairwell. The locations of the measurement 

points can be seen in Figure 3.1-2. The events that occurred during the experiment, as presented in 

Table 3.1-1, are listed on the top of the figures with lines at the time of the event. A time history for 

each thermocouple at each measurement location is located in Appendix D – Detailed Graphs. 

Figure 3.1-17 shows the temperatures versus time at 2.1 m (7 ft) above the floor at 5 measurement 

locations, the bedroom, just outside the fire apartment in the corridor, just outside Apartment 7K in the 

corridor, just outside the A stairwell doorway, and just inside the A stairwell on the landing. The 

temperature in the bedroom rose to above 650 oC (1202 oF) before becoming ventilation limited and 

decreasing. At 345 s, the bottom left pane in the bedroom failed causing the temperature to decrease to 

approximately 400 oC (752 oF) as the fire responded to the availability of the cool outside air. 

Additional window panes failed and the fire grew and increased the temperature to above 800 oC 

(1472 oF). The fire became ventilation limited again and decreased back down to 650 oC (1202 oF) until 

the single window failed providing more oxygen. The temperature remained above 800 oC (1472 oF) for 

approximately 500 s. Once the fan was activated at the base of the stairwell with the 7th floor door open, 

the temperatures in the bedroom cooled to 600 oC (1112 oF). This decrease in temperature cannot be 

entirely attributed to the fan as the fire was beginning to burn down at the time of fan activation. 

The three temperature measurement locations in the corridor behaved similarly which is consistent with 

the steady two layer environment that existed remote from the fire. Temperatures steadily increased as 

the fire in the bedroom increased. Temperatures increased to approximately 200 oC (392 oF) up until the 

fan was activated. The fan flow decreased the corridor temperatures to around 100 oC (212 oF) before 

the stairwell door was closed and the temperatures recovered. When the stairwell door was opened 

again and the fan flow could cool the temperatures decreased up until the end of the experiment. 

The temperature in the stairwell remained near ambient until the stairwell door was opened. Once open 

the stairwell temperature at 2.1 m (7 ft) above the landing increased to 150 oC (302 oF). The fan 

activation decreased this temperature back down to ambient even with the door completely open on the 

fire floor. Closing and opening the door on the fire floor caused short duration temperature spikes as the 

pressure barrier created by the fan equalized the flow. 

Figure 3.1-18 shows the temperatures at 1.2 m (4 ft) which would be more representative to where 

firefighters would be operating or occupants would be evacuating. The bedroom temperature increased 

to 400 oC (752 oF) before the fire became ventilation limited. The temperatures reacted to the failing 

windows and then the 1.2 m (4 ft) temperature began to track with the 2.1 m (7 ft) temperature after 

1000 s which indicates flashover conditions in the bedroom. Beyond 1000 s the temperatures reacted 

the same as the previous figure. 

The temperatures in the corridor steadily increased to approximately 150 oC (302 oF), until 

approximately 1350 s when the 7th floor stair door (bulkhead) was opened. At this time the temperature 

near the stairwell slightly decreased and the temperature near the fire apartment slightly increased. The 

activation of the fan decreased all of the corridor temperatures down to approximately 50 oC (122 oF). 
49

Removing the fan flow by closing the door allowed temperatures to increase to around 100 oC (212 oF) 

before returning to ambient by opening the stair door. 

The stairwell temperatures at 1.2 m on the landing of the fire floor remained below 100 oC (212 oF) with 

the door open and no mechanical ventilation but decreased to ambient with the fan operating. The 

addition of another fan or the MVU had no impact because the fire had burned down by the time of their 

implementation. 

Figure 3.1-19 shows the temperatures 1.2 m (4 ft) above the landing on floors 1, 2, 4, 6 and at the 

bulkhead. As the fire was initially growing some hot fire gases leaked into the stairwell and increased 

the temperature at the top of the stairwell by 20 oC (36 oF). The cool air being pulled into the stairwell 

through stack effect was cooling the lower floors of the structure. When the 7th floor door was partially 

opened at 1225 s the temperature at the top of the stair increased again to 50 oC (122 oF) and cooled 

briefly as the bulkhead door was opened and then increased to a peak of 90 oC (194 oF). The fan 

activation decreased this temperature back down to 20 oC (68 oF) and kept it low for the remainder of the 

experiment. 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: Ignition

BR: double failing

LBY: opening

S1: stair opening

BR: double clear

BR: single failing

BR: single clear

S7: opening 0.08m

BH: opening

S7: opening

S1: fan on

BH: closed

S7: closed

S7: opening

BH: opening/closing

S5: open/fan on

MVU starting

S5: closed/fan off

MVU stopped

Experiment completed

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

32

392

752

1112

1472

1832

2192

Temperature (F)

TC BR7GW 2.1m

TC Corr7GW 2.1m

TC Corr7KW 2.1m

TC CorrStair7W 2.1m

TC Stair7W 2.1m

Figure 3.1-17. 7G Temperature vs. time at 2.1 m above the floor 
50

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: Ignition

BR: double failing

LBY: opening

S1: stair opening

BR: double clear

BR: single failing

BR: single clear

S7: opening 0.08m

BH: opening

S7: opening

S1: fan on

BH: closed

S7: closed

S7: opening

BH: opening/closing

S5: open/fan on

MVU starting

S5: closed/fan off

MVU stopped

Experiment completed

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

32

392

752

1112

1472

1832

2192

Temperature (F)

TC BR7GW 1.2m

TC Corr7GW 1.2m

TC Corr7KW 1.2m

TC CorrStair7W 1.2m

TC Stair7W 1.2m

Figure 3.1-18. 7G Temperature vs. time at 1.2 m above the floor 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: Ignition

BR: double failing

LBY: opening

S1: stair opening

BR: double clear

BR: single failing

BR: single clear

S7: opening 0.08m

BH: opening

S7: opening

S1: fan on

BH: closed

S7: closed

S7: opening

BH: opening/closing

S5: open/fan on

MVU starting

S5: closed/fan off

MVU stopped

Experiment completed

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

32

68

104

140

176

212

248

Temperature (F)

TC Bulkhead MidW

TC Stair 6W

TC Stair 4W

TC Stair 2W

TC Stair1 MidW

Figure 3.1-19. 7G stairwell temperature vs. time 

3.1.3 Pressures

Average pressure measurements in the stairwell are shown in Figure 3.1-20. The differential pressure 

measurements were made at 1.2 m (4 ft) on the stairwell landing of every floor and referenced to an 
51

apartment on the same floor. With all of the doors to the stairwell closed the pressures remained below 

5 Pa and only fluctuated slightly. Once the doors to the base of the stair were opened the pressures 

began to fluctuate but remained below 15 Pa. Opening the door at the top of the stairwell decreased 

pressures back to ambient conditions around 5 Pa. With the portable PPV fan operating at the base of 

the stair and the door to the 7th floor open the pressures averaged 15 Pa to 22 Pa. When the door to the 

7th floor was closed the pressures increased to an average of 23 Pa to 30 Pa. After a second portable fan 

was added on the 5th floor and the 7th floor door was open the pressures averaged 20 Pa to 38 Pa. After 

the MVU was operating with the 7th floor door open the average pressures ranged from 55 Pa to 130 Pa. 

 

Time (s)

Pressure (Pa)

BR: Ignition

BR: double failing

LBY: opening

S1: stair opening

BR: double clear

BR: single failing

BR: single clear

S7: opening 0.08m

BH: opening

S7: opening

S1: fan on

BH: closed

S7: closed

S7: opening

BH: opening/closing

S5: open/fan on

MVU starting

S5: closed/fan off

MVU stopped

Experiment completed

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700

-50

0

50

100

150

200

DP Stair 7W

DP Stair 6W

DP Stair 5W

DP Stair 4W

DP Stair 3W

DP Stair 2W

DP Stair 1W

Figure 3.1-20. 7G stairwell pressures vs. time 

3.1.4 Velocities

Average doorway velocities from 4 doors; the fire apartment door, the door from the fire floor to the 

stairwell, the door at the base of the stair and the door at the bulkhead, were recorded versus time and 

shown in Figure 3.1-21. The three bi-directional probes in each door were averaged to provide the bulk 

flow through the doors. A time history for each probe at each measurement location is located in 

Appendix D – Detailed Graphs. 

The bulk flow out of the fire apartment steadily increased with the size of the fire. Prior to providing a 

vent, by opening the stair door, the bulk velocity was out of the apartment. Once the stair was opened 

and the bulkhead door was opened the bulk flow increased to a range of 1 m/s to 3 m/s (2 mph to 7 mph) 

out of the fire floor and a range of 2 m/s to 3 m/s (4 mph to 7 mph) out of the top of the stairwell. Once 

the PPV fan was activated these velocities converged at 0 m/s as the flow from the fan was equalizing 

the bulk flow from the fire. Once the MVU was activated there were large velocities through the 

structure and out through the fire apartment open windows. Flow in through the fire apartment door 

peaked at approximately 8 m/s (18 mph) 
52

Time (s)

Velocity (m/s)

BR: Ignition

BR: double failing

LBY: opening

S1: stair opening

BR: double clear

BR: single failing

BR: single clear

S7: opening 0.08m

BH: opening

S7: opening

S1: fan on

BH: closed

S7: closed

S7: opening

BH: opening/closing

S5: open/fan on

MVU starting

S5: closed/fan off

MVU stopped

Experiment completed

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700

-12

-9

-6

-3

0

3

6

9

-27

-20

-13

-7

0

7

13

20

Velocity (mph)

Exp 7G Bulkhead

Exp 7G Stair1

Exp 7G Stair7

Exp 7G Apt7G

Figure 3.1-21. 7G Velocities vs. time 

3.1.5 Discussion

This experiment served as a good baseline as to how the bedroom fires will behave without the influence 

of wind. Smoke quickly filled the fire apartment and corridor before becoming ventilation limited. 

Temperatures reached a threshold when the windows failed providing conditions for the fire to grow. 

Although high temperatures reached the corridor, the second bedroom and living room did not ignite and 

burn. The fire was contained to the room of origin. 

The fire was deliberately ignited near the window to best allow for window failure. It took 345 s 

(5.75 min) to fail the double pane in the bottom left of the window closest to the flames. The internal 

pane of the double pane window failed much earlier but acted as an insulator protecting the outer pane 

from failure. The flame actually had to come into contact with the pane to fail it. It took 848 s 

(14.1 min) until all four panes of window failed. The air that was introduced through the first failed 

pane cooled the room causing the window to take longer to fail. The single window remote from the 

area of ignition took 972 s (16.2 min) to fail the top panes and 1196 s (19.9 min) to fail the bottom 

panes. There were flames coming out of the top portion of the window for more than 180 s (3 min) 

before the bottom panes fell out of the frame. 

The opening of the stairwell door and the bulkhead door, although remote from the bedroom fire, caused 

the fire in the bedroom to intensify when open. As these vents were open the temperatures above 0.9 m 

(3 ft) rose by as much as 100 oC (180 oF) while the temperatures below 0.9 m (3 ft) decreased by as 

much as 75 oC (135 oF). Even with 3 open windows in the bedroom hot gases flowing into the stairwell 

intensified as the stairwell acted like a chimney. 

The use of a single 0.7 m (27 in) portable fan was able to raise the pressures in the stairwell sufficiently 

to prevent smoke flow into the stairwell. Stairwell pressures achieved ranged from 15 Pa to 30 Pa with 
53

no doors open and with the door on the 7th floor open. The fan was implemented shortly after the fire 

reached its peak and maintained a smoke free stair for the duration of the experiment. Temperatures 

were cooled up to the fire apartment, and into the fire apartment once the fire burned down to a pile of 

rubble. The use of the MVU to ventilate was extremely effective at removing smoke and hot gases but 

was only used for overhaul type conditions. 
54

3.2 Experiment 7G2

The second experiment in the structure was located in the same apartment as the first experiment, 7G. 

Experiment 7G2 was ignited in the middle bedroom in a trashcan at the base of the bed, and in the living 

room on the top of sofa that backed to the kitchen (Figure 3.2-1). The fire in the bedroom from the first 

experiment, Experiment 7G, did not extend beyond the room of origin so the apartment was cleared of 

smoke and experiment 7G2 was ignited. Both windows in the back bedroom failed in the previous 

experiment so they remained open during the duration of this experiment. This experiment also utilized 

natural ventilation conditions with no simulated wind and very little natural wind. The events that took 

place during the experiment to accomplish the experimental objectives below are shown in Table 3.2-1. 

Experimental Objectives 

• Create baseline data for fire conditions with no/little wind 

• Examine window failure times and conditions 

• Examine building flows with different door opening configurations 

• Utilize portable PPV fans to control smoke movement 

The results for the experiment are presented in the following sections: observations, temperature, 

pressure, velocity, and discussion. Figure 3.2-2 shows the camera names and locations used in the 

observation section and the instrumentation names and locations used in the temperature, pressure and 

velocity sections. 
55

Figure 3.2-1. 7th floor apartment G floor plan with locations pertinent to Experiment 7G2 
56

Table 3.2-1: Experiment 7G2 Timeline 

Start (s) End (s) Event Location Event Description 

0 0 Middle bedroom and living room Ignition 

351 356 Front lobby Doors opened 

365 367 1st floor stair A Door opened 

642 648 7th floor stair A Door opened 

702 703 Bedroom double Top left pane failed 

755 762 1st floor stair A Door closed 

766 767 Bedroom double Top right pane failed 

828 830 1st floor stair A Door opened 

887 891 Bulkhead door Opened 

959 960 Bedroom double Bottom left pane failed 

982 999 1st floor stair A 27 inch fan activated 

1075 1076 Bulkhead door Closed 

1353 1358 1st floor stair A 27 inch fan deactivated 

1500 1502 Bulkhead door Opened 

1635 1643 1st floor stair A 27 inch fan activated 

1766 1767 Bulkhead door Closed 

1779 Living room window Bottom left pane failed 

1794 Living room window Center pane failed 

1805 Living room window Top left pane failed 

1843 Living room window Top right pane failed 

1870 1886 5th floor stair A Door opened 

1870 1886 5th floor stair A 27 inch fan activated 

1874 1875 Living room window Completely failed 

1947 1966 7th floor stair A Door closed 

2050 2054 7th floor stair A Door opened 

2133 2136 7th floor stair A Door opened 0.08 m (3 in) 

2229 2232 7th floor stair A Door opened 

2351 2355 5th floor stair A 27 inch fan deactivated 

2351 2355 5th floor stair A Door closed 

2376 2376 1st floor stair A 27 inch fan deactivated 

2554 2563 1st floor stair A 27 inch fan activated 

2696 2699 Bulkhead door Opened 

2771 2774 Bulkhead door Closed 

3159 3159 Experiment completed 
57

Figure 3.2-2. Instrumentation and camera locations with labels. 
58

3.2.1 Observations

The observations are presented as a series of images captured from eight camera locations, six were 

video cameras and two were thermal imaging cameras. The camera positions inside the building are 

shown in Figure 3.2-2. 

Figure 3.2-3 through Figure 3.2-21 present sets of eight images one from each camera position, at a 

given time, from the time of ignition to 48 min (2880 s) after ignition. Images were captured every 

4 min and at times when events had taken place that demonstrate the experimental objectives. Each 

image view is labeled. The first view (BEDROOM) at the top left of each figure shows the bedroom 

which was burned in the 7G experiment, the bedroom furthest from the apartment entrance; the failed 

single window is straight across the view, and the failed double window is to the right of the view. The 

top right view (LIVINGRM) was of the living room looking across to the windows. The corridor and 

corridor thermal imaging views (CORRIDOR and CORR IR) show the corridor leading up to the open 

apartment doorway. The next two views (STAIR and STAIR IR) show the stairwell with a visual and a 

thermal imaging camera from the floor below the fire looking up to the fire floor. The bottom left view 

(ROOF) shows the bulkhead door at the top of the stairwell and the bottom right view (OUTSIDE) 

shows an external view of the fire apartment. 

Figure 3.2-3 shows the conditions at the time of ignition. At this point, the six video views are clear and 

unobstructed. The thermal images show that there is some residual heat in the corridor and the stairway 

at the start of the experiment. 

The images in Figure 3.2-4 were captured 240 s (4 min) after ignition. Fire involved half of the living 

room sofa where one of the two ignitions had occurred. A smoke layer had formed in the living room 

and was approximately 1.8m (6 ft) above the floor. The fire in the living room was directly visible from 

the corridor and corridor IR views. 

Figure 3.2-5 shows the images at 480 s (8 min) after ignition. Visibility was low in the corridor and 

living room as the smoke layer had dropped to the floor in those areas. Smoke was visibly escaping the 

structure around the closed bulkhead door and through the failed windows in the bedroom furthest from 

the apartment entrance. Despite the smoke obscuration in the living room and corridor, visibility is still 

high in this bedroom due to the vented windows. 

The images in Figure 3.2-6 were captured 720 s (12 min) after ignition. The 7th floor stairwell door had 

been opened and smoke began to descend the stairwell. A significant volume of smoke was leaking past 

the bulkhead door. The double window of the bedroom closest to the apartment entrance partially 

failed; flames and smoke were venting from the opening. Smoke density in the bedroom furthest from 

the apartment entrance was also significantly higher than four minutes prior. 

Figure 3.2-7 shows the images at 960 s (16 min) after ignition. At this point the bulkhead door had been 

opened and visibility was reduced to zero in the outdoor roof view. Two additional panes in the window 

of the bedroom closest to the apartment entrance had failed and smoke as well as flames continued to 

vent from it. Limited visibility had returned to the floor level of the corridor. A clear heat layer is 

visible in the corridor IR and stair IR views as hot gasses pass through the ceiling of those areas. 
59

Opening the bulkhead door lifted the smoke level in the stairwell but also increased the flow of hot gases 

through the corridor and into the stairwell. 

Figure 3.2-8 shows the images at 1200 s (20 min) after ignition. At this point the window in the 

bedroom closest to the apartment entrance had completely failed and flames continued to vent from it. 

A portable PPV fan was activated and was ventilating the stairwell and then the bulkhead door was 

closed to pressurize the stairwell. The fan was operating for 200 s (3.4 min) and had improved 

conditions in the stairwell and corridor. The bulkhead door had been closed and little or no smoke is 

visibly leaking around it. Hot gas flow is not visible in either the corridor IR or the stair IR view. 

Visibility was high in all views except the living room, where visibility was limited. 

The images in Figure 3.2-9 were captured 1440 s (24 min) after ignition. The condition of the window 

in the bedroom closest to the apartment entrance remained the same. The PPV fan was deactivated and 

the conditions in the stairwell worsened. Smoke began to fill the corridor again and hot gas flow was 

visible in the corridor IR at the corridor ceiling. 

Figure 3.2-10 shows the images at 1680 s (28 min) after ignition. The bulkhead door had been opened 

and smoke flow through it was visible. The PPV fan was reactivated and conditions were improving in 

the stairwell and corridor. At this point the ignition sofa was fully involved and there was sufficient 

visibility in the living room to see it from the living room floor. Limited hot gas flow was visible in the 

corridor IR view because the camera switched to the extended mode (low sensitivity), and visibility was 

good in the corridor view. 

Figure 3.2-11 shows the images at 1760 s (29 min and 20 s) after ignition. The fire in the living room 

was developing and increased heat was flowing into the corridor. Visibility in the lower layer of the 

corridor was still good as the fire was pulling fresh air from the stairwell. 

The images in Figure 3.2-12 show the conditions at 1800 s (30 min) after ignition. The fire in the living 

room was becoming ventilation limited and the smoke layer had descended to the floor. One of the 

living room windows had failed and smoke and flames were flowing from the window. The bulkhead 

door had been shut for 36 s and the fan was establishing a pressure equilibrium to limit smoke and heat 

flow into the stairwell 

Figure 3.2-13 shows the images at 1920 s (32 min) after ignition. The living room window had 

completely failed and flames were pushing out of it. The flames pulled to the air provided by the 

windows but the living room did not transition to flashover yet. The corridor IR view was saturated, 

which limits the contrast in the view, but heat was clearly visible in the stair IR view. Smoke was 

leaking around the closed bulkhead door. 

Figure 3.2-14 shows the images at 1980 s (33 min) after ignition. The stair door to the 7th floor was 

closed to examine the impact of the PPV fan on smoke leakage around the door. The living room had 

transitioned to flashover and the fire was at its peak. The stairwell door was easily visible and there was 

no obvious heat flow around the door. The fan was forcing the residual smoke in the stairwell out 

around the cracks of the bulkhead door at the top of the stairwell. 
60

Figure 3.2-15 shows the images at 2070 s (34 min and 30 s) after ignition. This was captured 15 s after 

the 7th floor stair door was reopened. The living room was still well involved in flames and the heat has 

stopped at the stairwell door by the fans pressure barrier. Smoke flow into the stairwell was greatly 

reduced and the visibility in the corridor was improved at the lower level. 

Figure 3.2-16 shows the images at 2160 s (36 min) after ignition. Flames and smoke were continuing to 

vent from both the living room window and the window in the bedroom closest to the apartment 

entrance. A significant volume of smoke continued to leak around the closed bulkhead door. Visibility 

at the floor level of the corridor was significantly lowered as a result of smoke flow being stopped at the 

7th floor stair A door, which was opened .08m (3 in). 

Figure 3.2-17 shows the images at 2400 s (40 min) after ignition. At this point the 27 inch fans on the 

5th and 1st floor stairwells were turned off, 43 s and 22 s prior, respectively. Significant hot gas flow is 

visible in the corridor IR and stair IR; smoke flow is visible in the cameras of those views. The 

increased heat flow into the corridor and stairwell caused both thermal imaging cameras to transition to 

extended mode. Smoke was descending down the stairwell making the stairwell door no longer visible. 

Figure 3.2-18 shows the images at 2550 s (42 min and 30 s) after ignition. These were the conditions 

just prior to the fan at the first floor being started. The fire was burning down but the conditions in the 

stairwell were still poor. Figure 3.2-19 shows the images at 2580 s (43 min), 20 s after the fan at the 

first floor was reactivated. Smoke and heat flow into the stairwell were reduced. 

Figure 3.2-20 shows the images at 2640 s (44 min) after ignition. Conditions were continuing to 

improve in the stairwell with the fan operating. The fire was burning down so the fan flow was clearing 

the corridor in addition to the stairwell. The smoke that was in the stair was being forced out around the 

closed bulkhead door. 

Figure 3.2-21 shows the images at 2880 s (48 min) after ignition. At this point the fire had largely 

burned down and smoke had been cleared. 
61

Figure 3.2-3. Experiment 7G2, ignition. 
62

Figure 3.2-4. Experiment 7G2, 240s after ignition. 
63

Figure 3.2-5. Experiment 7G2, 480s after ignition. 
64

Figure 3.2-6. Experiment 7G2, 720s after ignition. 
65

Figure 3.2-7. Experiment 7G2, 960s after ignition. 
66

Figure 3.2-8. Experiment 7G2, 1200s after ignition. 
67

Figure 3.2-9. Experiment 7G2, 1440s after ignition. 
68

Figure 3.2-10. Experiment 7G2, 1680s after ignition. 
69

Figure 3.2-11. Experiment 7G2, 1760s after ignition. 
70

Figure 3.2-12. Experiment 7G2, 1800s after ignition. 
71

Figure 3.2-13. Experiment 7G2, 1920s after ignition. 
72

Figure 3.2-14. Experiment 7G2, 1980s after ignition. 
73

Figure 3.2-15. Experiment 7G2, 2070s after ignition. 
74

Figure 3.2-16. Experiment 7G2, 2160s after ignition. 
75

Figure 3.2-17. Experiment 7G2, 2400s after ignition. 
76

Figure 3.2-18. Experiment 7G2, 2550s after ignition. 
77

Figure 3.2-19. Experiment 7G2, 2580s after ignition. 
78

Figure 3.2-20. Experiment 7G2, 2640s after ignition. 
79

Figure 3.2-21. Experiment 7G2, 2880s after ignition. 
80

3.2.2 Temperatures

Figure 3.2-22 through Figure 3.2-26 provide temperature data for four measurement locations on the fire 

floor at two elevations and throughout the height of the stairwell. The locations of the measurement 

points can be seen in Figure 3.2-2. There was no temperature measurement location in the fire 

apartment for this experiment as it was damaged in the previous experiment in the same apartment. The 

events that occurred during the experiment are listed on the top of the figures with lines at the time of 

the event. A time history for each thermocouple at each measurement location is located in Appendix D 

– Detailed Graphs. 

Figure 3.2-22 shows the temperatures versus time at 2.1 m (7 ft) above the floor at 4 measurement 

locations, just outside the fire apartment in the corridor, just outside Apartment 7K in the corridor, just 

outside the A stairwell doorway, and just inside the A stairwell on the landing. The three temperature 

measurement locations in the corridor behaved similarly which is consistent with the steady two layer 

environment that existed remote from the fire. Temperatures steadily increased as the fire in the 

bedroom and living room increased. Temperatures increased to approximately 250 oC (482 oF) up until 

the fan was activated. The fan flow decreased the corridor temperatures to below 100 oC (212 oF). After 

the fan was tuned off, and the fire in the living room began to escalate, the corridor temperatures 

increased to 200 oC (392 oF). When the bulkhead door was opened the corridor temperature peaked at 

300 oC (572 oF). As the fire in the living room transitioned to flashover the temperature just outside the 

fire apartment reached 500 oC (932 oF). Closer to the stairwell when the fan was operating the corridor 

temperature did not exceed 300 oC (572 oF) 

The temperature in the stairwell remained near ambient until the stairwell door was opened. Once open 

the stairwell temperature at 2.1 m (7 ft) above the landing increased to 150 oC (302 oF). The fan 

activation decreased this temperature back down to ambient even with the door completely open on the 

fire floor. The fan was turned off at 1359 s and the temperature quickly increased back to 150 oC 

(302 oF). There were a number of door opening and closings during the experiment and the stairwell 

temperature fluctuated between ambient and 150 oC (302 oF). Once the fire floor door was opened it 

took approximately 60 s to 90 s to establish the pressure barrier and return the temperature back to 

ambient. When the living room fire was near its peak the fans were turned off and the stairwell 

temperatures increased above 250 oC (482 oF). Activating the fan again at approximately 2560 s reduces 

the stairwell temperature from 250 oC (482 oF) to 50 oC (122 oF) in approximately 90 s. 

Figure 3.2-23 shows the temperatures at 1.2 m (4 ft) which would be more representative of where 

firefighters would be operating or occupants would be evacuating. The temperatures in the corridor 

increased to approximately 120 oC (248 oF), and leveled off until the bulkhead door was opened. This 

event caused the temperature just outside the fire apartment to increase to 250 oC (482 oF). Turning the 

PPV fan on reduced this temperature quickly to below 100 oC (212 oF). Similar increases occurred again 

as the fan was tuned off and the bulkhead was opened. At approximately 1965 s the 7th floor stair door 

was closed and the temperatures rapidly increased as the hot gas descended. Temperatures increased 

from 100 oC (212 oF) to above 400 oC (752 oF) in seconds. Reopening the door reduced temperatures 

just as quickly without raising the temperatures that much in the stairwell because of the flow of the fan. 

When the fans were turned off at 2376 s the temperatures throughout the fire floor increased from 

200 oC (360 oF) to 400 oC (720 oF) in less than 10 s. Opening the bulkhead door while the fan was 
81

flowing, reducing pressurization and increasing ventilation, also caused temperatures to escalate quickly 

throughout the fire floor. 

The stairwell temperatures at 1.2 m on the landing of the fire floor reached as high as 200 oC (392 oF) 

with the door open and no mechanical ventilation but decreased to near ambient with the fan operating. 

The addition of another fan at the 5th floor while the fire in the living room was at its peak decreased 

stairwell temperatures from 60 oC (140 oF) to 20 oC (68 oF). 

Figure 3.2-24 shows the temperatures 1.2 m (4 ft) above the landing on floors 1, 2, 4, 6 and at the 

bulkhead door. Below the fire floor there was no significant change in temperature. Above the fire 

floor, at the bulkhead door, temperatures reached as high as 160 oC (320 oF) under normal ventilation 

conditions. Temperatures remained below 90 oC (194 oF) while fan were operating. 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

Multiple ignitions

LBY: opening

S1: openingS7: opening

BR: double failing

S1: stair closed

S1: opening

BH opening

S1: fan onBH closedS1: fan off

BH opening

S1: fan onBH closed

LR: window failing

LR: window clear

S5: stair open/fan on

S7: closed

S7: opening

S7: open 0.08m

S7: opening

S5: closed/fan off

S1: fan offS1: fan on

BH opening

BH closed

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

32

212

392

572

752

932

1112

Temperature (F)

TC Corr7GW 2.1m

TC Corr7KW 2.1m

TC CorrStair7W 2.1m

TC Stair7W 2.1m

Figure 3.2-22. 7G2 Temperature vs. time at 2.1 m above the floor 
82

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

Multiple ignitions

LBY: opening

S1: openingS7: opening

BR: double failing

S1: stair closed

S1: opening

BH opening

S1: fan onBH closedS1: fan off

BH opening

S1: fan onBH closed

LR: window failing

LR: window clear

S5: stair open/fan on

S7: closed

S7: opening

S7: open 0.08m

S7: opening

S5: closed/fan off

S1: fan offS1: fan on

BH opening

BH closed

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

32

212

392

572

752

932

1112

Temperature (F)

TC Corr7GW 1.2m

TC Corr7KW 1.2m

TC CorrStair7W 1.2m

TC Stair7W 1.2m

Figure 3.2-23. 7G2 Temperature vs. time at 1.2 m above the floor 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

Multiple ignitions

LBY: opening

S1: openingS7: opening

BR: double failing

S1: stair closed

S1: opening

BH opening

S1: fan onBH closedS1: fan off

BH opening

S1: fan onBH closed

LR: window failing

LR: window clear

S5: stair open/fan on

S7: closed

S7: opening

S7: open 0.08m

S7: opening

S5: closed/fan off

S1: fan offS1: fan on

BH opening

BH closed

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000

0

50

100

150

200

32

122

212

302

392

Temperature (F)

TC Bulkhead MidW

TC Stair 6W

TC Stair 4W

TC Stair 2W

TC Stair1 MidW

Figure 3.2-24. 7G2 stairwell temperature vs. time 

3.2.3 Pressures

Average pressure measurements in the stairwell are shown in Figure 3.2-25. The differential pressure 

measurements were made at 1.2 m (4 ft) on the stairwell landing of every floor and referenced to an 

adjacent apartment on the same floor. With all of the doors to the stairwell closed the pressures 

remained below 5 Pa and only fluctuated slightly. Once the doors to the base of the stair were opened 
83

the pressures began to fluctuate but remained below 9 Pa. Opening the door at the top of the stairwell 

decreased pressures back to ambient conditions around 5 Pa. With the portable PPV fan operating at the 

base of the stair and the door to the 7th floor open the pressures averaged 13 Pa to 26 Pa. After a second 

portable fan was added on the 5th floor and the 7th floor door was open the pressures ranged from 

approximately 15 Pa to 30 Pa. 

Time (s)

Pressure (Pa)

Multiple ignitions

LBY: opening

S1: openingS7: opening

BR: double failing

S1: stair closed

S1: opening

BH opening

S1: fan onBH closedS1: fan off

BH opening

S1: fan onBH closed

LR: window failing

LR: window clear

S5: stair open/fan on

S7: closed

S7: opening

S7: open 0.08m

S7: opening

S5: closed/fan off

S1: fan offS1: fan on

BH opening

BH closed

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000

-10

0

10

20

30

40

DP Stair 7W

DP Stair 6W

DP Stair 5W

DP Stair 4W

DP Stair 3W

DP Stair 2W

DP Stair 1W

Figure 3.2-25. 7G2 stairwell pressures vs. time 

3.2.4 Velocities

Average doorway velocities from 4 doors; the fire apartment door, the door from the fire floor to the 

stairwell, the door at the base of the stair and the door at the bulkhead, were recorded versus time and 

shown in Figure 3.2-26. The three bi-direction probes in each door were averaged to provide the bulk 

flow through the doors. A time history for each probe at each measurement location is located in 

Appendix D – Detailed Graphs. 

The bulk flow out of the fire apartment steadily increased with the size of the fire. Prior to providing a 

vent, by opening the stair door, the bulk velocity was out of the apartment. Once the stair was opened 

and the bulkhead door was opened the bulk flow increased to approximately 2 m/s (4 mph) out of the 

fire floor and 4 m/s (9 mph) out of the top of the stairwell. Once the PPV fan was activated these 

velocities converged at 0 m/s as the flow from the fan was equalizing the bulk flow from the fire. 
84

Time (s)

Velocity (m/s)

Multiple ignitions

LBY: opening

S1: openingS7: opening

BR: double failing

S1: stair closed

S1: opening

BH opening

S1: fan onBH closedS1: fan off

BH opening

S1: fan onBH closed

LR: window failing

LR: window clear

S5: stair open/fan on

S7: closed

S7: opening

S7: open 0.08m

S7: opening

S5: closed/fan off

S1: fan offS1: fan on

BH opening

BH closed

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

-18

-13

-9

-4

0

4

9

Velocity (mph)

Exp 7G2 Bulkhead

Exp 7G2 Stair1

Exp 7G2 Stair7

Exp 7G2 Apt7G

Figure 3.2-26. 7G2 Velocities vs. time 

3.2.5 Discussion

This experiment served as a good baseline as to how a fire involving two rooms, a bedroom and living 

room, behaved without the influence of wind. The fire in the bedroom developed much faster than the 

living room, most likely because of the available oxygen from the open window in the bedroom from the 

previous experiment and the relatively small size. Smoke quickly filled the fire apartment and corridor 

before becoming ventilation limited. The fire in the living room reacted quicker to the changes in 

ventilation by opening the stairwell and bulkhead doors. The oxygen from the stairwell allowed the fire 

to grow and fail the windows, which drove the room to flashover. 

It took 703 s (11.8 min) for the first dual pane window in the bedroom to fail, and 1053 s (17.6 min) for 

the entire window to fail. This time would have been longer or the window may not have failed if it was 

not for the open windows in the adjacent bedroom because the fire in the living room would have used 

up all of the oxygen coming from the stairwell. The living room window began to fail 1779 s (29.7 min) 

and completely failed at 1875 s (31.3 min). It appeared from the video that the flames had to touch the 

windows in order to fail them. 

The opening of the stairwell door and the bulkhead door caused the fire in the bedroom and living room 

to intensify. The fire in this experiment was closer to the corridor and therefore reacted faster to the 

additional oxygen from the open door. As these vents were open the temperatures above 1.2 m (4 ft) 

rose by as much as 200 oC (360 oF). Even with 3 open windows in the rear bedroom, 2 open bedrooms 

in the other furnished bedroom and all of the living room windows open, hot gases flowing into the 

stairwell intensified as the stairwell acted like a chimney. 

The single 0.7 m (27 in) portable fan was able to raise the pressures in the stairwell sufficiently to 

prevent smoke flow into the stairwell. When the stairwell door was opened there was typically a 60 s to 

90 s period of turbulence until the pressures and flows reached steady state to stabilize the temperatures. 
85

Stairwell pressures achieved ranged from 15 Pa to 30 Pa with no doors open and with the door on the 

7th floor open. This was consistent with the first experiment. A fan was implemented multiple times 

and was able to create a smoke free stair or greatly reduce the flow of hot gases. The temperatures were 

greatly cooled up to the fire apartment on multiple occasions, and into the fire apartment once the fire 

burned down to a pile of rubble. 
86

3.3 Experiment 7E

The third experiment in the structure was located on the 7th floor in apartment 7E, on the other half of 

the building from the first two experiments. Experiment 7E was ignited in the bedroom furthest from 

the open apartment door (Figure 3.3-1). This experiment was the first experiment with a simulated wind 

provided by the MVU. The simulated wind was imposed on the bedroom double window at a 

magnitude of approximately 9 m/s to 11 m/s (20 mph to 25 mph). Prior to the experiment the inner pane 

of the bedroom window was removed, leaving a single pane window. The events that took place during 

the experiment to accomplish the experimental objectives below are shown in Table 3.3-1. 

Experimental Objectives 

• Create wind driven fire conditions from a bedroom fire 

• Examine window failure times and conditions 

• Examine building flows with different door opening configurations 

• Utilize portable PPV fans to control smoke movement 

The results for the experiment are presented in the following sections: observations, temperature, 

pressure, velocity, and discussion. Figure 3.3-2 shows the camera names and locations used in the 

observation section and the instrumentation names and locations used in the temperature, pressure and 

velocity sections. 
87

Figure 3.3-1. 7th floor apartment E floor plan with locations pertinent to Experiment 7E 
88

Table 3.3-1: Experiment 7E Timeline 

Start (s) End (s) Event Location Event Description 

0 0 Bedroom Ignition 

163 163 Bedroom double Bottom right pane failed 

163 165 7th floor stair A Door opened 0.08 m (3 in) 

470 471 Bedroom double Top right pane failed 

475 484 Front lobby Doors opened 

492 497 1st floor stair A Door opened 

534 535 Bedroom double Bottom left pane failed 

640 645 Front lobby 27 inch fan activated 

663 667 7th floor stair A Door closed 

683 727 Bedroom double Top left pane failed 

705 710 Bulkhead door Opened 

782 807 1st floor stair A 27 inch fan moved 

855 858 5th floor stair A Door opened 

855 858 5th floor stair A 27 inch fan activated 

1021 1033 Bedroom double Air flow adjusted 

1029 1032 Bulkhead door Closed 

1094 1107 7th floor stair A Door opened 0.08 m (3 in) 

1222 1232 5th floor stair A 27 inch fan deactivated 

1222 1232 5th floor stair A Door closed 

1262 1266 7th floor stair A Door opened 1/2 

1310 1314 Bulkhead door Opened 

1379 1450 Living room window Failure 

1469 1471 Bulkhead door Closed 

1800 Experiment completed 
89

Figure 3.3-2. Instrumentation and camera locations with labels. 
90

3.3.1 Observations

The observations are presented as a series of images captured from eight camera locations, six were 

video cameras and two were thermal imaging cameras. The camera positions inside the building are 

shown in Figure 3.3-2. 

Figure 3.3-3 through Figure 3.3-17 present sets of eight images one from each camera position, at a 

given time, from the time of ignition to 28 min (1680 s) after ignition. Images were captured every 

4 min and at times when events had taken place that demonstrate the experimental objectives. Each 

image view is labeled. The first view (BEDROOM) at the top left of each figure shows the bedroom of 

apartment 7E, the bedroom furthest from the apartment entrance with a view of the single window 

straight across, double window to the right and ignition trashcan at the foot of the bed. The top right 

view (LIVINGRM) was of the living room looking across to the windows. The corridor and corridor 

thermal imaging views (CORRIDOR and CORR IR) show the corridor leading up to the open apartment 

doorway. The next two views (STAIR and STAIR IR) show the stairwell with a visual and a thermal 

imaging camera from the floor below the fire looking up to the fire floor. The bottom left view (ROOF) 

shows the bulkhead door at the top of the stairwell and the bottom right view (OUTSIDE) shows an 

external view of the fire apartment. 

Figure 3.3-3 shows the images at the time of ignition. At this point, the six video views were clear and 

unobstructed. However, the thermal images provided limited thermal contrast because the surfaces in 

the view are at nearly equal temperature. 

Figure 3.3-4 shows the images at 240 s (4 min) after ignition. The fire from the trash container had 

spread onto the bed, and the smoke layer had descended to the floor of the ignition bedroom. The 

bedroom window had begun to fail approximately 75 s prior and the 7th floor stairwell A door was 

opened 0.08 m (3 in). The simulated wind forced the smoke throughout the public corridor and the 

stairwell, reducing visibility. Despite low visibility in the camera views for the corridor and stair, the 

temperature of the gas flow does not exceed 200oC (392oF) at the ceiling level. At this point, a small 

amount of smoke is visibly leaking around the bulkhead door. 

Figure 3.3-5 shows the images at 480 s (8 min) after ignition. Visibility had not improved significantly 

from 240 s in the bedroom, living room, and corridor views. A second pane of the bedroom double 

failed 9 s prior and visibility in the stairwell view was slightly improved. Temperatures in the corridor 

visibly increased in the corridor IR. 

Figure 3.3-6 shows the images at 720 s (12 min) after ignition. Flames involved the bedroom, reached 

the camera in the bedroom corner, and were visibly passing through the living room. The bulkhead door 

had been opened and the 7th floor stair A door had been closed, but visibility had not yet returned to the 

stairwell view. A portable PPV fan was activated but the impact on stairwell visibility can’t be 

determined because the smoke that reached the camera deposited on the lens of the camera. Smoke was 

however exiting the open bulkhead door. 
91

Figure 3.3-7 shows the images at 960 s (16 min) after ignition. At this point the bedroom double 

window had completely failed. Some visibility returned to the stairwell, and the stair IR view showed 

extreme contrast in temperature of the closed 7th floor stair A door and the rest of the stairwell. 

Figure 3.3-8 shows the images at 1090 s (18 min and 10 s) after ignition. These were the conditions 

prior to opening the door from the 7th floor to the stairwell. The wind driven conditions are being held 

up at the door with no vent, hence no flow path. The door has heated up substantially as shown by the 

contrast in the thermal imaging view. 

Figure 3.3-9 shows the images at 1170 s (19 min and 30 s) after ignition. Flames still involved most of 

the bedroom but none were visible elsewhere in the apartment. The door to the stairwell was opened 

0.08 m (3 in) 70 s prior, and the two portable PPV fans were trying to keep the hot gases out of the 

stairwell and were not completely successful against the wind driven conditions. 

Figure 3.3-10 shows the images at 1200 s (20 min) after ignition. The bulkhead door had been closed 

170 s prior and the 7th floor stair A door had been reopened 0.08 m (3 in) 100 s prior. Smoke had not 

yet cleared the roof view. 

Figure 3.3-11 shows the images at 1320 s (22 min) after ignition. The bulkhead door was opened 

approximately 10 s prior to this figure being captured. The wind forced the hot gases from the bedroom 

past the living room and ignited the sofa in the right side of the image. The wind driven fire gases were 

moving up the stairwell and through the bulkhead doorway. 

Figure 3.3-12 shows the images at 1350 s (22 min and 30 s) after ignition, and 30 s after the sofa caught 

fire. The fire on the sofa had intensified and flames were beginning to be forced into the corridor. The 

fan was still operating on the first floor and the hot gases were traveling up the stairwell and not down to 

the floor below. 

Figure 3.3-13 shows the images at 1380 s (23 min) after ignition. The fire in the bedroom was burning 

down but the fire in the living room was intensifying. The flames in the corridor reached the stairwell 

doorway and the view in the stairwell was beginning to clear up. The stair IR view shows high levels of 

heat coming out of the fire floor. The corridor IR camera view was saturated with heat and was 

unusable. 

Figure 3.3-14 shows the images at 1440 s (24 min) after ignition. Flames were pushing out of the living 

room window which had failed. The bulkhead and 7th floor stair A doors had been opened prior to the 

window failing. The flames now involved all of the living room and corridor. Even though the living 

room window vented, flames were still traveling to the stairwell. Visibility was high in the stairwell 

view, as most of the heat and smoke traveled up the stairs. 

Figure 3.3-15 shows the images at 1480 s (24 min and 40 s) after ignition. The living room was still 

fully involved, with flames being forced out of the window and extending above the roof line. The 

corridor camera still showed a view although it was on the brink of failure. Flames were no longer 

visible in the stairwell view but the thermal imaging view showed heat continuing to enter the stairwell. 
92

Figure 3.3-16 shows the images at 1560 s (26 min) after ignition. The fire in the living room was still 

venting out of the windows from top to bottom and the internal camera became covered with soot, 

eliminating that view. The camera in the corridor finally failed and that thermal view was still not 

usable. The bulkhead door had been closed for 90 s and the pressure from the fan was maintaining 

visibility in the stair and limiting the heat flow. 

Figure 3.3-17 shows the images at 1680 s (28 min) after ignition. Limited combustion was occurring in 

the bedroom where ignition occurred and there was zero visibility in the living room view, however 

flames were still pushing from the living room window. The fan was continuing to improve conditions 

in the stairwell. 
93

Figure 3.3-3. Experiment 7E, ignition. 
94

Figure 3.3-4. Experiment 7E, 240s after ignition. 
95

Figure 3.3-5. Experiment 7E, 480s after ignition. 
96

Figure 3.3-6. Experiment 7E, 720s after ignition. 
97

Figure 3.3-7. Experiment 7E, 960s after ignition. 
98

Figure 3.3-8. Experiment 7E, 1090s after ignition. 
99

Figure 3.3-9. Experiment 7E, 1170s after ignition. 
100

Figure 3.3-10. Experiment 7E, 1200s after ignition. 
101

Figure 3.3-11. Experiment 7E, 1320s after ignition. 
102

Figure 3.3-12. Experiment 7E, 1350s after ignition. 
103

Figure 3.3-13. Experiment 7E, 1380s after ignition. 
104

Figure 3.3-14. Experiment 7E, 1440s after ignition. 
105

Figure 3.3-15. Experiment 7E, 1480s after ignition. 
106

Figure 3.3-16. Experiment 7E, 1560s after ignition. 
107

Figure 3.3-17. Experiment 7E, 1680s after ignition. 
108

3.3.2 Temperatures

Figure 3.3-18 through Figure 3.3-20 provide temperature data for five measurement locations on the fire 

floor at two elevations and throughout the height of the stairwell. The locations of the measurement 

points can be seen in Figure 3.3-2. The events that occurred during the experiment are listed on the top 

of the figures with lines at the time of the event. A time history for each thermocouple at each 

measurement location is located in Appendix D – Detailed Graphs. 

Figure 3.3-18 shows the temperatures versus time at 2.1 m (7 ft) above the floor at 5 measurement 

locations, the bedroom, just outside the fire apartment in the corridor, just outside Apartment 7A in the 

corridor, just outside the A stairwell doorway, and just inside the A stairwell on the landing. The 

temperature in the bedroom rose to approximately 500 oC (932 oF) before the bottom right window pane 

failed. This influx of cool air lowered the bedroom temperature to below 200 oC (392 oF) and slowed 

fire growth. It took until about 550 s until the fire in the bedroom really got developed and approached 

flashover. At 600 s the bedroom 2.1 m (7 ft) temperature exceeded 600 oC (1112 oF) and it remained 

above that temperature until approximately 1400 s when the fuel load in the bedroom was burning 

down. 

The three temperature measurement locations in the corridor behaved similarly in reaction to the events 

with the higher temperatures at positions closer to the fire apartment. Corridor temperatures reached 

400 oC (752 oF) before they became ventilation limited between 700s and 1100 s. Temperatures in the 

corridor remained very steady until a ventilation path was created. The 7th floor stair door was opened 

0.08 m (3 in) at 1100 s which caused the corridor temperature outside the fire apartment to increase from 

approximately 400 oC (752 oF) to 550 oC (1022 oF). The temperatures declined again due to the lack of 

oxygen until the bulkhead door was opened. Once opened a wind driven condition developed increasing 

the corridor temperatures to above 600 oC (1112 oF). The temperatures decreased when the bulkhead 

door was closed and the PPV fan was flowing. 

The temperature in the stairwell remained near ambient until the window in the bedroom failed. The 

stairwell temperature at 2.1 m (7 ft) above the landing increased to above 250 oC (482 oF) even with the 

door closed. The fan activation decreased this temperature back down to ambient. When the stair door 

was opened 0.08 m (3 in) at 1100 s the stairwell temperature increased to 300 oC (572 oF). After the 

bulkhead was opened and the wind driven conditioned developed the stair temperature exceeded 500 oC 

(932 oF). Closing the bulkhead and allowing the fan to pressurize caused the stair temperature to 

decrease. 

Figure 3.3-19 shows the temperatures at 1.2 m (4 ft) which would be more representative to where 

firefighters would be operating or occupants would be evacuating. The bedroom temperature increased 

to 500 oC (932 oF) before the bedroom window partially failed, cooling the room. The temperatures 

cooled due to the failing windows and then the 1.2 m (4 ft) temperature began to track with the 2.1 m 

(7 ft) temperature after 600 s which indicated flashover conditions in the bedroom. The 1.2 m bedroom 

temperature remained above that temperature until approximately 1400 s when the fire in the bedroom 

began to decay. 

Corridor temperatures reached approximately 300 oC (572 oF) to 600 oC (1112 oF) before they became 

ventilation limited between 700s and 1100 s. Temperatures in the corridor remained very steady until a 
109

ventilation path was created. The 7th floor stair door was opened 0.08 m (3 in) at 1100 s which caused 

the corridor temperature outside the fire apartment to increase from 350 oC (662 oF) to more than 600 oC 

(1202 oF). The temperatures decreased again with the lack of oxygen until the bulkhead door was 

opened. Once opened a wind driven condition developed increasing the corridor temperatures to above 

800 oC (1472 oF). The temperatures decreased when the bulkhead door was closed and the PPV fan was 

flowing. 

The temperature in the stairwell remained near ambient until the window in the bedroom failed. The 

stairwell temperature at 2.1 m (7 ft) above the landing increased to above 250 oC (482 oF) even with the 

door closed. The fan activation decreased this temperature back down to ambient. When the stair door 

was opened 0.08 m (3 in) at 1100 s the stairwell temperature increased to 250 oC (482 oF). After the 

bulkhead was opened and the wind driven conditioned developed the stair temperature exceeded 500 oC 

(932 oF). Closing the bulkhead and allowing the fan to pressurize caused the stair temperature to 

decrease. 

Figure 3.3-20 shows the temperatures 1.2 m (4 ft) above the landing on floors 1, 2, 4, and at bulkhead. 

The thermocouple on the sixth floor failed to work. After the window failed hot gases were forced 

around the cracks in the stairwell door, increasing the temperature at the bulkhead door to 180 oC 

(356 oF). The fan was activated and the bulkhead was opened lowering the temperature to ambient. 

Prior to fan activation temperatures were increasing all the way down to the first floor. After the fan 

was activated the temperatures below the 4th floor never elevated above ambient. 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: IgnitionBR: double failingS7: opening 0.08mLBY: openingS1: openingLBY: fan onS7: closedBH: openingBR: double clearS1: fan movingS5: open/fan onBH: closedAir flow adjustedS7: opening 0.08mS5: closed/fan offS7: opened halfBH: openingLR: window failingBH: closedExperiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

0

500

1000

1500

2000

32

932

1832

2732

3632

Temperature (F)

TC BR7EE 2.1m

TC Corr7EE 2.1m

TC Corr7AE 2.1m

TC CorrStair7E 2.1m

TC Stair7E 2.1m

Figure 3.3-18. 7E Temperature vs. time at 2.1 m above the floor 
110

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: IgnitionBR: double failingS7: opening 0.08mLBY: openingS1: openingLBY: fan onS7: closedBH: openingBR: double clearS1: fan movingS5: open/fan onBH: closedAir flow adjustedS7: opening 0.08mS5: closed/fan offS7: opened halfBH: openingLR: window failingBH: closedExperiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

32

392

752

1112

1472

1832

2192

Temperature (F)

TC BR7EE 1.2m

TC Corr7EE 1.2m

TC Corr7AE 1.2m

TC CorrStair7E 1.2m

TC Stair7E 1.2m

Figure 3.3-19. 7E Temperature vs. time at 1.2 m above the floor 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: IgnitionBR: double failingS7: opening 0.08mLBY: openingS1: openingLBY: fan onS7: closedBH: openingBR: double clearS1: fan movingS5: open/fan onBH: closedAir flow adjustedS7: opening 0.08mS5: closed/fan offS7: opened halfBH: openingLR: window failingBH: closedExperiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

32

212

392

572

752

932

1112

Temperature (F)

TC Bulkhead MidE

TC Stair 6E

TC Stair 4E

TC Stair 2E

TC Stair1 MidE

Figure 3.3-20. 7E stairwell temperature vs. time 

3.3.3 Pressures

Average pressure measurements in the stairwell are shown in Figure 3.3-21. The differential pressure 

measurements were made at 1.2 m (4 ft) on the stairwell landing of every floor and referenced to an 

apartment on the same floor. With all of the doors to the stairwell closed the pressures remained below 

5 Pa and only fluctuated slightly. Once the bottom right window pane failed in the bedroom the 

pressures in the stairwell increased to approximately 12 Pa and steadily increased to 35 Pa to 45 Pa. 

Next, the front lobby doors and first floor stair door were opened. This allowed the pressure to vent and 

created a flow out of the first floor lobby. At 600 s the pressures from top to bottom on each floor were 
111

40 Pa, 30 Pa, 24 Pa, 16 Pa, 11 Pa, 8 Pa and 5 Pa respectively. A fan was added at the front lobby due to 

the smoke coming out of the front doors, which increased the pressure in the stair further. The bulkhead 

door was opened and the pressure in the entire stair dropped below 10 Pa as the gases moved to the vent. 

After the smoke moved up the stairwell, the fan was moved from the lobby to the base of the stairwell. 

This increased the stairwell pressures to a range of 5 Pa to 18 Pa. Adding a second PPV fan at floor 

5 increased the stairwell pressure range to 5 Pa to 22 Pa. The bulkhead door was closed and the 

stairwell pressure range increased to from 5 Pa to 30 Pa. Opening the fire floor door 0.08m (3 in) and 

allowing more wind driven flow into the stair increased the pressure range further to 20 Pa to 44 Pa. 

With the fire floor door completely opened the pressure range was 20 Pa to 58 Pa. After the living room 

window failed and the flow was split the pressures became steadier at 16 Pa to 24 Pa. 

Time (s)

Pressure (Pa)

BR: IgnitionBR: double failingS7: opening 0.08mLBY: openingS1: openingLBY: fan onS7: closedBH: openingBR: double clearS1: fan movingS5: open/fan onBH: closedAir flow adjustedS7: opening 0.08mS5: closed/fan offS7: opened halfBH: openingLR: window failingBH: closedExperiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

-20

0

20

40

60

80

DP Stair 7E

DP Stair 6E

DP Stair 5E

DP Stair 4E

DP Stair 3E

DP Stair 2E

DP Stair 1E

Figure 3.3-21. 7E stairwell pressures vs. time 

3.3.4 Velocities

Average doorway velocities from 4 doors; the fire apartment door, the door from the fire floor to the 

stairwell, the door at the base of the stair and the door at the bulkhead, were recorded versus time and 

shown in Figure 3.3-22. The three bi-direction probes in each door were averaged to provide the bulk 

flow through the doors. A time history for each probe at each measurement location is located in 

Appendix D – Detailed Graphs. 

The flows out of the fire apartment were as high as 5 m/s with the stairwell door closed. When the 

bulkhead door was opened with the fan flow the bulk flow velocity out of the top of the stairwell peaked 

at 4 m/s. The flow out of the fire apartment with the stairwell opened was approximately 5 m/s and 

increased to 20 m/s with the bulkhead door opened. The flow into the stairwell was approximately 

9 m/s and the flow out of the bulkhead door was 13 m/s with the wind driven flow combined with the 

PPV fan flow. 
112

Time (s)

Velocity (m/s)

BR: IgnitionBR: double failingS7: opening 0.08mLBY: openingS1: openingLBY: fan onS7: closedBH: openingBR: double clearS1: fan movingS5: open/fan onBH: closedAir flow adjustedS7: opening 0.08mS5: closed/fan offS7: opened halfBH: openingLR: window failingBH: closedExperiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

-45

-22

0

22

45

67

Velocity (mph)

Exp 7E Bulkhead

Exp 7E Stair1

Exp 7E Stair7

Exp 7E Apt7E

Figure 3.3-22. 7E Velocities vs. time 

3.3.5 Discussion

Experiment 7E was the first experiment to introduce a simulated wind. A wind driven fire was created 

but it took some coordinated opening of doors to get the conditions right, but when the wind driven 

condition was created it forced flames all the way from the ignition bedroom to the stairwell door in the 

corridor. These conditions would not be conducive to an interior direct frontal fire fighter attack. The 

missing inner pane of the bedroom window caused much earlier failure as compared to experiment 7G. 

One of the bedroom windows failed at 165 s causing cooling which delayed the wind driven condition 

and other window failure, but when the conditions developed the area in the vent path became untenable 

very quickly. The entire bedroom double window was failed at 729 s. 

At approximately 700 s, the bedroom is fully involved in fire (post-flashover). Even though 

temperatures in the bedroom were in excess of 600 oC (1112 oF), the temperatures in the public hall and 

the stair were well below that but increasing. This was mainly due to the fact that there was no flow 

path for the fire gases to follow because the door to the stair was closed. Even with the door closed, 

there was enough leakage to increase the temperatures significantly in the stairwell and at the top of the 

stairs. Opening the bulkhead door, with the fire floor closed improved conditions in the stairwell. 

Opening the bulkhead door, with the fire floor door open deteriorated conditions in the entire flow path 

from the bedroom to the top of the stairs. When the first floor was open and the fire floor door and 

bulkhead door were closed the gases forced around the fire floor door traveled down the stairs and 

exited the front of the building 7 floors below. This flow path greatly decreases safety of occupants 

evacuating and requires fire fighters to utilize their SCBA (self contained breathing apparatus) upon 

entering the structure. In addition, visibility was limited on all 7 floors of the stairwell which would 

slow fire department operations. 

The use of the PPV fans greatly improved conditions in the stairwell. They were not able to keep them 

completely free of smoke under wind driven conditions but they were very effective and moving the 
113

flow up the stairwell and holding the smoke and hot gases when the fire floor door was closed. With the 

door open the flow was slowed but not stopped. After the bulkhead door was opened the temperatures 

in the public hall and the stair continued to increase until the fan was moved into place at the base of the 

stair on the first floor. Then the 5th floor door was opened and another fan was added at that location. It 

is important to note the temperatures in the stair were reduced and kept at ambient conditions with two 

fans. A small increase in temperature occurred when the stair door on the 7th floor was opened 3 inches. 

Turning off the fan on 5 and opening the stair door on the 7th floor results in a significant temperature 

increase in the stair. Opening the bulkhead door at approximately 1370 s, was followed by ignition of 

the sofa in the living room. This increased the temperature in the public hallway until the living room 

window self vents and the bulkhead was closed. At this point the single 27 inch fan on the first floor 

was working to cool the stair and the public hall by pushing air back to Apartment 7E. 
114

3.4 Experiment 7A

The fourth experiment in the structure was located on the 7th floor in apartment 7A. Experiment 7A was 

ignited in the bedroom furthest from the open apartment door (Figure 3.4-1). This experiment also 

utilized a simulated wind provided by the MVU. The simulated wind was subjected to the bedroom 

double window at a magnitude of approximately 9 m/s to 11 m/s (20 mph to 25 mph). The middle 

bedroom was also furnished and its door remained open during the experiment. The events that took 

place during the experiment to accomplish the experimental objectives below are shown in Table 3.4-1. 

Experimental Objectives 

• Create wind driven fire conditions from a bedroom fire 

• Examine window failure times and conditions 

• Examine building flows with different door opening configurations 

• Examine impact of the deployment of a WCD on fire room window 

• Utilize portable PPV fans to control smoke movement 

The results for the experiment are presented in the following sections: observations, temperature, 

pressure, velocity, and discussion. Figure 3.4-2 shows the camera names and locations used in the 

observation section and the instrumentation names and locations used in the temperature, pressure and 

velocity sections. 
115

Figure 3.4-1. 7th floor apartment A floor plan with locations pertinent to Experiment 7A 
116

Table 3.4-1: Experiment 7A Timeline 

Start (s) End (s) Event Location Event Description 

0 0 Bedroom Ignition 

282 286 7th floor stair A Door opened and closed 

316 316 Bedroom double Bottom right pane failed 

432 433 Bedroom double Top right pane failed 

453 454 Bedroom double Bottom left pane failed 

587 596 Front lobby Doors opened 

608 609 Bedroom double Top left pane failed 

615 620 1st floor stair A Door opened 

684 686 Bulkhead door Opened 

746 749 7th floor stair A Door opened (1/2) 

813 825 7th floor stair A Door closed 

840 848 Bedroom double WCD partially deployed 

896 904 Bedroom double WCD fully deployed 

984 986 7th floor stair A Door opened 0.08 m (3 in) 

1056 1060 7th floor stair A Door opened 

1089 1091 7th floor stair A Door closed 

1128 1135 1st floor stair A 27 inch fan activated 

1168 1170 Bulkhead door Closed 

1194 1199 7th floor stair A Door opened 

1311 1314 Living room window Pane failed 

1324 1325 Living room window Pane failed 

1327 1328 Living room window Pane failed 

1344 1344 Living room window Pane failed 

1356 1356 Living room window Pane failed 

1647 1647 Bedroom double FBN 2 started flowing (Fog) 

1772 1793 Bedroom double WCD removed 

1932 1932 Bedroom double FBN 2 stopped 

2011 2016 1st floor stair A 27 inch fan deactivated 

2092 2096 1st floor stair A 27 inch fan activated 

2534 2534 Experiment completed 
117

Figure 3.4-2. Instrumentation and camera locations with labels. 
118

3.4.1 Observations

The observations are presented as a series of images captured from eight camera locations, six were 

video cameras and two were thermal imaging cameras. The camera positions inside the building are 

shown in Figure 3.4-2. 

Figure 3.4-3 through Figure 3.4-21 present sets of eight images one from each camera position, at a 

given time, from the time of ignition to 40 min (2400 s) after ignition. Images were captured every 

4 min and at times when events had taken place that demonstrate the experimental objectives. Each 

image view is labeled. The first view (BEDROOM) at the top left of each figure shows the bedroom of 

apartment 7A, the bedroom furthest from the apartment entrance with a view of the single window 

straight across, double window to the right and ignition trashcan at the foot of the bed. The top right 

view (LIVINGRM) was of the living room looking across to the windows. The corridor and corridor 

thermal imaging views (CORRIDOR and CORR IR) show the corridor leading up to the open apartment 

doorway; the corridor IR had been damaged in the previous experiment and was not functioning 

properly, however it does provide some information. The next two views (STAIR and STAIR IR) show 

the stairwell with a visual and a thermal imaging camera from the floor below the fire looking up to the 

fire floor. The bottom left view (ROOF) shows the bulkhead door at the top of the stairwell and the 

bottom right view (OUTSIDE) shows an external view of the fire apartment. 

Figure 3.4-3 shows the images at the time of ignition. At this point, the six video views were clear and 

unobstructed. The corridor thermal imaging camera was also damaged from the previous experiment 

but still had a view so it was included in the recording. This experiment shares the corridor from 

Experiment 7E so the corridor is thermally damaged and there is a bit of a lingering haze of smoke in the 

living room. 

Figure 3.4-4 shows the images at 240 s (4 min) after ignition. The smoke layer descended to the floor 

throughout the 7A apartment and the public corridor. The stairwell, which was closed at the 7th floor, 

remained clear of smoke. The outside view shows all of the windows intact and the fire fighting crew in 

place to deploy a WCD. 

Figure 3.4-5 shows the images at 480 s (8 min) after ignition. The 7th floor stair A door had been 

opened and closed 194 s prior, this had allowed a significant volume of smoke into the stairwell; 

visibility in the stairwell view had reduced to zero. The right side of the bedroom double window had 

failed in three sections 164 s, 47 s, and 26 s prior and the fire had progressed significantly in the 

bedroom. The increasing temperature of the 7th floor stair A door was visible in the stair IR view. 

Figure 3.4-6 shows the images at 630 s (10 min and 30 s) after ignition. The bedroom had become fully 

involved in flame and the view in the living room was obscured by soot. Flames were visible leaving 

the fire apartment and entering the corridor. Visibility was lost in the stairwell and heat was being 

forced around the gaps in the doorway. Flames are visible at the bedroom window but all smoke and 

flames are being forced into the window by the simulated wind. 
119

Figure 3.4-7 shows the images at 720 s (12 min) after ignition. The bulkhead door had been opened 35 s 

prior. Flames were pushing into the public corridor through the apartment entrance. The stairwell, 

which was closed at the 7th floor, was clearing of smoke below the fire floor as the smoke moved up 

through the open bulkhead doorway. More flames are visible at the bedroom window but all smoke and 

flames are being forced into the window by the simulated wind. 

Figure 3.4-8 shows the images at 780 s (13 min) after ignition. Flames now involved the entire 

apartment from the bedroom, through the living room and extended into the corridor. Hot gases were 

flowing into the stairwell as shown in the stairwell thermal imaging camera. The corridor thermal 

imaging camera shows high heat levels but there is no usable image. 

Figure 3.4-9 shows the images at 910 s (15 min and 10 s) after ignition. The WCD was deployed and 

positioned over the bedroom double window blocking the wind exposure. The bedroom was fully 

involved in flames and the living room view was still obscured by smoke. The corridor and corridor IR 

camera failed due to thermal exposure from the wind driven fire. The conditions in the stairwell 

improved substantially with visibility returning and all of the combustion products venting vertically 

through the open bulkhead doorway. The stairwell door had been closed slowing the flow into the 

stairwell. 

Figure 3.4-10 shows the images at 960 s (16 min) after ignition. None of the fire floor was visible from 

the video views. The closed stairwell remained clear below the fire floor but smoke was leaking around 

the stair door and flowing through the open bulkhead doorway. 

Figure 3.4-11 shows the images at 1080 s (18 min) after ignition. The 7th floor stair A door had been 

fully opened 20 s prior and the smoke is flowing into the stairwell similar to Experiment 7G, when there 

was no wind effects. The fire in the bedroom was visible again and it was burning toward the window 

where some air was leaking in through the bottom of the blanket where it was not completely sealed 

over the window. 

Figure 3.4-12 shows the images at 1200 s (20 min) after ignition. The bulkhead door had been closed 

30 s prior and stairwell A was being pressurized by a 27 inch fan placed at the 1st floor entrance to that 

stairwell. No smoke was visible in the stair view and no smoke was leaking from the bulkhead door. 

Figure 3.4-13 shows the images at 1440 s (24 min) after ignition. The living room window had begun to 

fail 129 s prior. There was still no smoke or heat flow in the stairwell. The WCD was continuing to 

hold up to the extreme temperatures it was being subjected to. The silver coating on the WCD was 

missing in spots but the WCD itself was still completely intact to stop the wind. 

Figure 3.4-14 shows the images at 1680 s (28 min) after ignition. FBN 2 was inserted into the bottom of 

the window and started flowing water 32 s prior, but no visible change is apparent in the bedroom or 

living room views because they are obscured by soot deposition. 

Figure 3.4-15 shows the images at 1830 s (30 min and 30 s) after ignition. The WCD had been removed 

40 s prior and the FBN was continuing to flow. The bulk of the fire was extinguished in the bedroom 

but flames are still visible in the living room. Conditions remained the same in the stairwell with the 

portable PPV fan continuing to keep it free of smoke and heat. 
120

Figure 3.4-16 shows the images at 1920 s (32 min) after ignition. The FBN 2 was continuing to flow 

into the ignition bedroom, and without the WCD, visibility was improved in that view. Flames only 

continued to burn on a shielded item in the corner of the bedroom. A red glow was still visible in the 

living room view but no heat was being forced into the stairwell. 

Figure 3.4-17 shows the images at 2010 s (33 min and 30 s) after ignition. Suppression had stopped. 

The portable fan was still operating at the base of the stairwell. Figure 3.4-18 shows the images at 

2090 s (34 min and 50 s) after ignition. This was approximately 75 s after the fan was turned off and the 

smoke was being forced into the stairwell, reducing visibility. Figure 3.4-19 shows the images at 2120 s 

(35 min and 20 s), 25 s after the fan was turned back on clearing the stair of smoke. 

Figure 3.4-20 shows the images at 2160 s (36 min) after ignition and Figure 3.4-21 shows the images at 

2400 s (40 min) after ignition. No significant change in conditions was visible; the fan continued to 

keep the stairwell free of smoke while the fire was allowed to burn down. 
121

Figure 3.4-3. Experiment 7A, ignition. 
122

Figure 3.4-4. Experiment 7A, 240s after ignition. 
123

Figure 3.4-5. Experiment 7A, 480s after ignition. 
124

Figure 3.4-6. Experiment 7A, 630s after ignition. 
125

Figure 3.4-7. Experiment 7A, 720s after ignition. 
126

Figure 3.4-8. Experiment 7A, 780s after ignition. 
127

Figure 3.4-9. Experiment 7A, 910s after ignition. 
128

Figure 3.4-10. Experiment 7A, 960s after ignition. 
129

Figure 3.4-11. Experiment 7A, 1080s after ignition. 
130

Figure 3.4-12. Experiment 7A, 1200s after ignition. 
131

Figure 3.4-13. Experiment 7A, 1440s after ignition. 
132

Figure 3.4-14. Experiment 7A, 1680s after ignition. 
133

Figure 3.4-15. Experiment 7A, 1830s after ignition. 
134

Figure 3.4-16. Experiment 7A, 1920s after ignition. 
135

Figure 3.4-17. Experiment 7A, 2010s after ignition. 
136

Figure 3.4-18. Experiment 7A, 2090s after ignition. 
137

Figure 3.4-19. Experiment 7A, 2120s after ignition. 
138

Figure 3.4-20. Experiment 7A, 2160s after ignition. 
139

Figure 3.4-21. Experiment 7A, 2400s after ignition. 
140

3.4.2 Temperatures

Figure 3.4-22 through Figure 3.4-24 provide temperature data for five measurement locations on the fire 

floor at two elevations and throughout the height of the stairwell. The locations of the measurement 

points can be seen in Figure 3.4-2. The events that occurred during the experiment are listed on the top 

of the figures with lines at the time of the event. A time history for each thermocouple at each 

measurement location is located in Appendix D – Detailed Graphs. 

Figure 3.4-22 shows the temperatures versus time at 2.1 m (7 ft) above the floor at 5 measurement 

locations, the bedroom, just outside the fire apartment in the corridor, just outside Apartment 7E in the 

corridor, just outside the A stairwell doorway, and just inside the A stairwell on the landing. The 

temperature in the bedroom increased to more than 450 oC (842 oF) until a window pane failed lowering 

the temperature. The temperature recovered and then two more panes failed decreasing the bedroom 

temperature again. At approximately 540 s the bedroom transitioned to flashover, quickly driving the 

bedroom temperature to above 800 oC (1472 oF). The WCD was deployed and the bedroom temperature 

increased briefly until it was completely in place, blocking the entire window, and then decreased from 

1000 oC (1832 oF) to below 500 oC (932 oF) in 180 s. 

The 2.1 m (7 ft) temperatures in the corridor measurement locations slowly increased as the fire in the 

bedroom grew. As the bedroom flashed over and a wind driven condition was developed the corridor 

temperatures increased to above 600 oC (1112 oF). After the WCD was in place the corridor 

temperatures decreased from over 600 oC (1112 oF) to below 300 oC (572 oF) in 100 s. These 

temperatures recovered up to almost 400 oC (932 oF) before the FBN was activated and the WCD was 

removed lowering the temperatures. 

The 2.1 m (7 ft) temperature in the stairwell increased as hot gases were forced into the stairwell from 

gaps around the door. The 7th floor door was opened at 750 s which caused the stairwell temperature to 

increase from 150 oC (302 oF) to 700 oC (1292 oF) in seconds. Closing the door and the deployment of 

the WCD drove the temperature back down to below 200 oC (392 oF). A portable PPV fan was activated 

and that kept the stairwell below 150 oC (302 oF) for the remainder of the experiment. 

Figure 3.4-23 shows the temperatures at 1.2 m (4 ft) which would be more representative to where 

firefighters would be operating or occupants would be evacuating. These temperatures behaved very 

similarly to the temperatures at 2.1 m (7 ft) after the wind driven condition was developed. This 

indicates that after that time there was a uniform well mixed environment. After deployment of the 

WCD the 1.2 m (4 ft) temperatures in the corridor dropped to 100 oC (212 oF) to 200 oC (392 oF) below 

the 2.1 m (7 ft) temperatures re-establishing a two layer environment by removing the impact of the 

wind. 

Figure 3.4-24 shows the temperatures 1.2 m (4 ft) above the landing on floors 1, 2, 4, 6 and at the 

bulkhead. The temperatures below the fire floor remained at ambient during the entire experiment. 

While the wind driven condition was flowing into the stairwell the bulkhead door was opened allowing 

the hot gases to flow up the stairwell. The temperature at the bulkhead door increased to 100 oC 

(212 oF) until the bulkhead door was opened. The temperature dropped briefly and then increased to 

above 600 oC (1112 oF) quickly as the flow path was established through the open 7th floor door. As he 

fire floor door was closed the temperature at the top of the stair decreased to below 100 oC (212 oF). 
141

After the PPV fan was activated the temperature remained below 100 oC (212 oF) for the remainder of 

the experiment. 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: IgnitionS7: opening/closingBR: double failingLBY: openingBR: double clearS1: openingBH: openingS7: opening halfS7: closedBR: placing WCD (double)BR: WCD in place (double)S7: opening 0.08mS7: openS7: closedS1: fan onBH: closedS7: openingLR: window failingLR: window clearBR: FBN flowing (double)BR: removing WCD (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)S1: fan offS1: fan onExperiment completed

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

32

392

752

1112

1472

1832

2192

Temperature (F)

TC BR7AE 2.1m

TC Corr7AE 2.1m

TC Corr7EE 2.1m

TC CorrStair7E 2.1m

TC Stair7E 2.1m

Figure 3.4-22. 7A Temperature vs. time at 2.1 m above the floor 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: IgnitionS7: opening/closingBR: double failingLBY: openingBR: double clearS1: openingBH: openingS7: opening halfS7: closedBR: placing WCD (double)BR: WCD in place (double)S7: opening 0.08mS7: openS7: closedS1: fan onBH: closedS7: openingLR: window failingLR: window clearBR: FBN flowing (double)BR: removing WCD (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)S1: fan offS1: fan onExperiment completed

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

32

392

752

1112

1472

1832

2192

Temperature (F)

TC BR7AE 1.2m

TC Corr7AE 1.2m

TC Corr7EE 1.2m

TC CorrStair7E 1.2m

TC Stair7E 1.2m

Figure 3.4-23. 7A Temperature vs. time at 1.2 m above the floor 
142

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: IgnitionS7: opening/closingBR: double failingLBY: openingBR: double clearS1: openingBH: openingS7: opening halfS7: closedBR: placing WCD (double)BR: WCD in place (double)S7: opening 0.08mS7: openS7: closedS1: fan onBH: closedS7: openingLR: window failingLR: window clearBR: FBN flowing (double)BR: removing WCD (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)S1: fan offS1: fan onExperiment completed

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700

0

200

400

600

800

32

392

752

1112

1472

Temperature (F)

TC Bulkhead MidE

TC Stair 6E

TC Stair 4E

TC Stair 2E

TC Stair1 MidE

Figure 3.4-24. 7A stairwell temperature vs. time 

3.4.3 Pressures

Average pressure measurements in the stairwell are shown in Figure 3.4-25. The differential pressure 

measurements were made at 1.2 m (4 ft) on the stairwell landing of every floor and referenced to an 

apartment on the same floor. With all of the doors to the stairwell closed the pressures remained below 

2 Pa and only fluctuated slightly. After the bedroom window began to fail the wind that leaked around 

the gaps in the stairwell door increased the pressure in the closed stairwell to closer to 5 Pa. The base of 

the stair was opened which dropped the pressure and the bulkhead was opened which dropped the 

pressures to close to zero. There was a spike to 12 Pa in the 7th floor stairwell pressure when the door 

was opened at 750 s. The stairwell was opened again after the WCD was deployed and there was no 

significant increase in stairwell pressure. At 1135 s a portable PPV fan was activated increasing the 

stairwell pressures from 5 Pa to 25 Pa depending on the distance from the fan. These pressures were 

with the 7th floor door to the stair open. At 1790 s the WCD was removed increasing the pressures in 

the stair to 15 Pa to 22 Pa. There was no pressure increase at floors 1 and 2. Turning the fan off 

decreased the pressures to below 8 Pa throughout the stairwell and turning it back on returned the 

pressures back to previous levels. 
143

Time (s)

Pressure (Pa)

BR: IgnitionS7: opening/closingBR: double failingLBY: openingBR: double clearS1: openingBH: openingS7: opening halfS7: closedBR: placing WCD (double)BR: WCD in place (double)S7: opening 0.08mS7: openS7: closedS1: fan onBH: closedS7: openingLR: window failingLR: window clearBR: FBN flowing (double)BR: removing WCD (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)S1: fan offS1: fan onExperiment completed

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700

-10

0

10

20

30

DP Stair 7E

DP Stair 6E

DP Stair 5E

DP Stair 4E

DP Stair 3E

DP Stair 2E

DP Stair 1E

Figure 3.4-25. 7A stairwell pressures vs. time 

3.4.4 Velocities

Average doorway velocities from 4 doors; the fire apartment door, the door from the fire floor to the 

stairwell, the door at the base of the stair and the door at the bulkhead, were recorded versus time and 

shown in Figure 3.4-26. The three bi-direction probes in each door were averaged to provide the bulk 

flow through the doors. A time history for each probe at each measurement location is located in 

Appendix D – Detailed Graphs. The velocity out of the open apartment door steadily increased as the 

fire grew. Opening the 7th floor stair door initiated the wind driven condition which had a peak velocity 

of 21 m/s (45 mph). The velocity into the stairwell and out of the top of the stairwell peaked at 

approximately 12 m/s (27 mph). After the WCD was deployed the velocities decreased even with the 

stairwell doors open which would be expected. With the use of the fan, the velocities were less than 

2 m/s (4 mph) toward the fire apartment. 
144

Time (s)

Velocity (m/s)

BR: IgnitionS7: opening/closingBR: double failingLBY: openingBR: double clearS1: openingBH: openingS7: opening halfS7: closedBR: placing WCD (double)BR: WCD in place (double)S7: opening 0.08mS7: openS7: closedS1: fan onBH: closedS7: openingLR: window failingLR: window clearBR: FBN flowing (double)BR: removing WCD (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)S1: fan offS1: fan onExperiment completed

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

-45

-22

0

22

45

67

Velocity (mph)

Exp 7A Bulkhead

Exp 7A Stair1

Exp 7A Stair7

Exp 7A Apt7A

Figure 3.4-26. 7A Velocities vs. time 

3.4.5 Discussion

Experiment 7A utilized a simulated wind created by the MVU. A wind driven fire was created from the 

fire ignited in the bedroom. Flames were forced out of the apartment and into the corridor with the 

stair door closed and conditions worsened further when the stairwell door was opened allowing the hot 

gases to flow throughout the stairwell. These conditions would not be conducive to an interior direct 

frontal fire fighter attack. Stairwell temperatures were in excess of 600oC (1112 oF) with the door open. 

The first pane of the bedroom window failed at 316 s and the window completely failed at 609 s. The 

temperature in the center of the bedroom at 1.2 m (4 ft) at the time of window failure was approximately 

350 oC (662 oF). The temperature in the center of the room at the time of complete window failure was 

in excess of 800 oC (1472 oF). This demonstrated that when a portion of the window failed the wind 

being introduced through the opening can cool and slow the failure of the rest of this type of window. 

This experiment highlighted the importance of door control. A wind driven condition was created on 

the fire floor and then the stairwell door was opened. With the bulkhead door also open the flow path 

between the fire floor and the top of the stairwell increased from less than 50 oC (122 oF) to over 400 oC 

(752 oF) in less than 15 s. The stairwell temperature peaked at 700 oC (1292 oF) in 35 s at which time 

the fire floor stairwell door was closed. Closing the door lowered temperatures to less than 200 oC 

(392 oF) quickly. 

There was a small delay in getting the WCD in place, but once it was fully deployed over the window 

the impact was beneficial to conditions throughout the structure. Fire apartment and corridor 

temperatures reduced by more than half in less than 30 s. More importantly the stairwell temperatures at 

the fire floor were reduced to ambient from 400 oC (752 oF) and the stairwell temperatures above the fire 
145

floor were reduced from 250 oC (482 oF) to less than 100 oC (212 oF). Without the WCD, even with the 

door to the fire floor shut the stairwell at the fire floor and above became untenable for occupants as 

well as fire fighters as hot gases continued to be forced around the gaps around the fire floor door. 

These temperatures would have forced the fire fighters to stay below the fire floor with no ability to 

advance up the stairwell until the WCD was deployed. 

The impact of the WCD was observed and then a portable PPV fan was used to control smoke and heat 

movement. The fan was activated at the base of the stair and the stairwell temperatures never increased 

above 100 oC (212 oF) although the corridor temperature right inside the stairwell door was in excess of 

300 oC (572 oF). Even with the living room well involved in fire the stairwell remained free of smoke 

and heat with the fire floor stairwell door open. When it was briefly turned off for 78 s during the end of 

the experiment, the smoke moved into and down the stairwell reducing visibility. Within 30 s of 

restarting the fan, the stairwell was free of smoke. 
146

3.5 Experiment 7K

The fifth experiment in the structure was located on the 7th floor in apartment 7K. Experiment 7K was 

also ignited in the bedroom furthest from the open apartment door (Figure 3.5-1). This experiment also 

utilized a simulated wind provided by the MVU. The simulated wind was subjected to the bedroom 

double window at a magnitude of approximately 9 m/s to 11 m/s (20 mph to 25 mph). The events that 

took place during the experiment to accomplish the experimental objectives below are shown in Table 

3.5-1. 

Experimental Objectives 

• Create wind driven fire conditions from a bedroom fire 

• Examine window failure times and conditions 

• Examine building flows with different door opening configurations 

• Examine impact of the deployment of a WCD on fire room window 

• Utilize portable PPV fans to control smoke movement 

• Control wind driven conditions with FBN 

The results for the experiment are presented in the following sections: observations, temperature, 

pressure, velocity, and discussion. Figure 3.5-2 shows the camera names and locations used in the 

observation section and the instrumentation names and locations used in the temperature, pressure and 

velocity sections. 
147

Figure 3.5-1. 7th floor apartment K floor plan with locations pertinent to Experiment 7K 
148

Table 3.5-1: Experiment 7K Timeline 

Start (s) End (s) Event Location Event Description 

0 0 Bedroom Ignition 

164 167 7th floor stair A Door closed 

240 241 Bedroom double Bottom left pane failed 

240 241 7th floor stair A Door opened 0.08 m (3 in) 

248 249 Bedroom double Bottom right pane failed 

251 252 7th floor stair A Door closed 

263 263 Bedroom double Top left pane failed 

286 287 Bedroom double Top right pane failed 

327 Bulkhead door Opened 

326 332 7th floor stair A Door opened 

361 363 Bulkhead door Closed 

368 385 Front lobby Doors opened 

391 395 7th floor stair A Door closed 

406 410 1st floor stair A Door opened 

461 467 Bulkhead door Opened 

486 491 7th floor stair A Door opened 

547 552 7th floor stair A Door closed 

554 577 Living room window Failure, starting along top 

587 588 Bedroom double WCD deployed 

641 642 7th floor stair A Door opened 0.08 m (3 in) 

669 672 7th floor stair A Door opened 

733 738 7th floor stair A Door closed 

766 777 1st floor stair A 27 inch fan activated 

849 851 Bulkhead door Closed 

879 881 7th floor stair A Door opened 

1505 1512 Bedroom double WCD removed 

1589 1589 Living room window FBN 2 started flowing (Fog) 

1665 1665 Living room window FBN 2 stopped 

1683 Bedroom double Air flow removed 

1745 1745 Experiment completed 
149

Figure 3.5-2. Instrumentation and camera locations with labels. 
150

3.5.1 Observations

The observations are presented as a series of images captured from eight camera locations, seven of 

which were video cameras and one of which was an IR camera. The camera positions inside the 

building are shown in Figure 3.5-2. 

Figure 3.5-3 through Figure 3.5-17 present sets of eight images one from each camera position, at a 

given time, from the time of ignition to 28 min (1680 s) after ignition. Images were captured every 

4 min and at times when events had taken place that demonstrate the experimental objectives. Each 

image view is labeled. The first view (BEDROOM) at the top left of each figure shows the bedroom of 

apartment 7K, the bedroom furthest from the apartment entrance with a view of the single window 

straight across, double window to the right and ignition trashcan at the foot of the bed. The top right 

view (LIVINGRM) was of the living room looking across to the windows. The corridor view 

(CORRIDOR) shows the corridor leading up to the open apartment doorway. Next to that, the outside 

lobby view (LOBBY) shows the area just outside the lobby doors. The next two views (STAIR and 

STAIR IR) show the stairwell with a visual and a thermal imaging camera from the floor below the fire 

looking up to the fire floor. The bottom left view (ROOF) shows the bulkhead door at the top of the 

stairwell and the bottom right view (OUTSIDE) shows an external view of the fire apartment. 

Figure 3.5-3 shows the images at the time of ignition. At this point, the seven video views were clear 

and unobstructed. However, the thermal image from the stairwell provided limited thermal contrast 

because the surfaces in the view are at nearly equal temperature. This was the second experiment in this 

half of the building so there is preexisting smoke and heat damage to the corridor and stairwell. The 7th

floor door to the stair was open at the start of the experiment. 

Figure 3.5-4 shows the images at 240 s (4 min) after ignition. The bottom left window pane had just 

begun to fail and the wind was moving smoke and heat throughout the floor. The stair IR camera began 

to fail prior to this view and subsequently would provide limited information. The smoke layer 

throughout the fire floor had descended to the floor and was beginning to leak into the stairwell, which 

was closed on the 7th floor. 

Figure 3.5-5 shows the images at 340 s (5 min and 40 s) after ignition. The bedroom window had 

completely failed and the 7th floor stair door had been opened again for 10 s. Flames were visible 

throughout the bedroom and moving through the living room. Visibility was lost in the corridor and 

stairwell. There was enough smoke being forced around the closed bulkhead door to obscure the roof 

camera view. Notice how flames were pulsing back out of the bedroom window against the air flow. 

Figure 3.5-6 shows the images at 480 s (8 min) after ignition. The stairwell had been closed on the fire 

floor more than 80 s prior and the bulkhead and 1st floor stair A doors had been opened approximately 

20 s and 70 s prior, respectively. Smoke had not cleared the stairwell; visibility in this view was still 

obscured. However, a significant volume of smoke was flowing from the bulkhead door. The bedroom 

was still full of flames and the flames continued to pulse out of the window toward the simulated wind. 

Figure 3.5-7 shows the images at 550 s (9 min and 10 s) after ignition. At this time the stair door was 

being closed and bulkhead door was opened, allowing a flow path from the bedroom to the top of the 
151

stairwell. Visibility returned to the living room showing flames involving the sofas and floor area. 

Flames were flowing out of the fire apartment and out into the corridor. Smoke was thinning in the 

stairwell as flaming combustion was increased due to the available oxygen from the complete flow path. 

Figure 3.5-8 shows the images at 585 s (9 min and 45 s) after ignition. This was captured just before 

deployment of the WCD over the bedroom window. Flames were still pulsing out of the bedroom 

window and the living room window was beginning to fail. Visibility was decreased in the living room, 

corridor and stairwell. 

Figure 3.5-9 shows the images at 620 s (10 min and 20 s) after ignition. The WCD was deployed over 

the bedroom window cutting off the wind from the fire. The smoke out of the living room window had 

decreased and turned white. 

Figure 3.5-10 shows the images at 720 s (12 min) after ignition. The burning had decreased in the 

bedroom and visibility was still poor in the living room and corridor. The visibility in the stairwell was 

improved slightly as the smoke was moving up the stairwell through the open bulkhead door. 

Figure 3.5-11 shows the images at 960 s (16 min) after ignition. The bulkhead door had been closed 

110 s prior and the 7th floor stair A door had been closed and opened approximately 220 s and 75 s prior, 

respectively. A PPV fan was activated at the base of the stairwell and conditions in the stairwell were 

improved and the cloudy view was due to soot deposited on the camera lens. 

Figure 3.5-12 shows the images at 1200 s (20 min) after ignition and Figure 3.5-13 shows the images at 

1440 s (24 min) after ignition. No appreciable change in conditions was visible from the video views. 

The stairwell remained free of smoke and there was no visible burning in the living room. 

Figure 3.5-14 shows the images at 1500 s (25 min) after ignition. The living room was rekindling and 

flames became visible in the video view. Smoke production was increasing out of the living room 

window. The smoke condition in the stairwell was unchanged. This was also the time 5 s before the 

WCD was removed allowing the reintroduction of the simulated wind. 

Figure 3.5-15 shows the images at 1560 s (26 min) after ignition. The WCD was removed 55 s prior and 

the wind was introduced through the window. Flames in the living room increased and were forced out 

of the living room windows. Smoke and heat were flowing back into the stairwell against the pressure 

from the fan. 

Figure 3.5-16 shows the images at 1600 s (26 min and 40 s) after ignition. FBN 2 was inserted into the 

living room window and was flowing with a fog nozzle for 20 s at the time of this image. Large 

amounts of steam were seen coming from the living room. Visibility was still minimal in the living 

room, corridor and stairwell. 

Figure 3.5-17 shows the images at 1680 s (28 min) after ignition. The view in the living room had 

partially returned and there were no visible flames. The conditions in the stairwell were improved and 

smoke flow out of the apartment visible from the outside was minimal. 
152

Figure 3.5-3. Experiment 7K, ignition. 
153

Figure 3.5-4. Experiment 7K, 240s after ignition. 
154

Figure 3.5-5. Experiment 7K, 340s after ignition. 
155

Figure 3.5-6. Experiment 7K, 480s after ignition. 
156

Figure 3.5-7. Experiment 7K, 550s after ignition. 
157

Figure 3.5-8. Experiment 7K, 585s after ignition. 
158

Figure 3.5-9. Experiment 7K, 620s after ignition. 
159

Figure 3.5-10. Experiment 7K, 720s after ignition. 
160

Figure 3.5-11. Experiment 7K, 960s after ignition. 
161

Figure 3.5-12. Experiment 7K, 1200s after ignition. 
162

Figure 3.5-13. Experiment 7K, 1440s after ignition. 
163

Figure 3.5-14. Experiment 7K, 1500s after ignition. 
164

Figure 3.5-15. Experiment 7K, 1560s after ignition. 
165

Figure 3.5-16. Experiment 7K, 1600s after ignition. 
166

Figure 3.5-17. Experiment 7K, 1680s after ignition. 
167

3.5.2 Temperatures

Figure 3.5-18 through Figure 3.5-20 provide temperature data for five measurement locations on the fire 

floor at two elevations and throughout the height of the stairwell. The locations of the measurement 

points can be seen in Figure 3.5-2. The events that occurred during the experiment are listed on the top 

of the figures with lines at the time of the event. A time history for each thermocouple at each 

measurement location is located in Appendix D – Detailed Graphs. 

Figure 3.5-18 shows the temperatures versus time at 2.1 m (7 ft) above the floor at 4 measurement 

locations, just outside the fire apartment in the corridor, just outside Apartment 7G in the corridor, just 

outside the A stairwell doorway, and just inside the A stairwell on the landing. The bedroom 2.1 m 

(7 ft) thermocouple did not function correctly so the 1.8 m (6 ft) thermocouple is presented in its place. 

The bedroom temperature in this experiment increased to approximately 700 oC (1292 oF) prior to 

window failure and continued to increase to above 900 oC (1652 oF) prior to WCD deployment. After 

WCD deployment the temperature decreased by half to approximately 450 oC (842 oF) in approximately 

90 s. This temperature increased again to above 600 oC (1112 oF) as the fire in the living room grew and 

increased again after the WCD was removed at 1505 s. 

The temperatures just outside the fire apartment in the corridor increased quickly after the door to the 

stairwell on the fire floor was opened. The 2.1 m (7 ft) temperature at this location increased from 

approximately 300 oC (572 oF) to 700 oC (1292 oF) in less than 10 s. The wind driven condition 

appeared to stop and the temperatures decreased as the fire downstream became ventilation limited and 

the door to the 7th floor stairwell was closed. The bulkhead door was opened and then the 7th floor stair 

door was reopened and the temperature increased quickly again from 400 oC (752 oF) to 800 oC 

(1472 oF) in 10 s. The wind driven condition was reestablished and then the WCD was deployed over 

the bedroom window reducing the temperature in the corridor just outside the apartment from 700 oC 

(1292 oF) to less than 300 oC (572 oF) in 60 s. Towards the end of the experiment the WCD was 

removed and the fire in the living room increased to flashover. This drove the temperature up to 700 oC 

(1292 oF) and that was quickly reduced to below 200 oC (392 oF) within 10 s of the FBN activation. 

The temperatures at the other end of the corridor near the entrance to the stairwell and Apartment 7G 

responded to the events similarly. This location increased to approximately 400 oC (752 oF) during the 

wind driven conditions and decreased when the door to the stairwell was closed or the WCD was in 

place. When the WCD was in place, stair door was opened and the PPV fan was activated the corridor 

temperatures reduced to ambient levels. These locations increased in temperature when the WCD was 

removed and the living room flashed over but quickly decreased after the FBN was activated. 

The temperature at 2.1 m (7 ft) above the landing in the stairwell increased substantially when the door 

was opened at both 330 s and 495 s. This location’s temperature increased to as high as 400 oC (752 oF) 

but decreased to less than 100 oC (212 oF) after the door was closed. With the WCD in place and a PPV 

fan operating at the base of the stairwell the temperatures in the stairwell remained ambient. When the 

WCD was removed and the stair was open the temperature increased to 200 oC (392 oF) but decreased 

quickly after the activation of the FBN. 

Figure 3.5-19 shows the temperatures at 1.2 m (4 ft) which would be more representative to where 

firefighters would be operating or occupants would be evacuating. The temperature trends at this 
168

elevation are very similar to those at 2.1 m (7 ft). The temperatures responded quickly to the presence 

of a flow path into the stairwell. When the 7th floor stair door was opened the temperatures in the 

corridor rose quickly and when the stair door was closed the corridor temperatures decreased quickly. 

When the stair door was opened at 495 s the temperature right outside of the fire apartment increased 

from 300 oC (572 oF) to as high as 800 oC (1472 oF) before the door was closed. After the WCD was 

deployed and the door was reopened the corridor temperature did not increase at all. 

The temperature on the stairwell landing at 1.2 m (4 ft) would be important because that is where the fire 

fighting crew would be advancing from after opening the door to the fire floor. When the door was 

opened this temperature increased from approximately 50 oC (122 oF) to over 300 oC (572 oF) in a matter 

of seconds twice in this experiment. Both times the door closing returned temperatures to less than 

100 oC (212 oF). After the WCD was applied the stairwell door was opened and the same temperature 

measurement location increased from 50 oC (122 oF) to 100 oC (212 oF) which would be conducive to 

fire fighter advancement toward the fire apartment. 

Figure 3.5-20 shows the temperatures 1.2 m (4 ft) above the landing on floors 1, 2, 4, 6 and at the 

landing above the 7th floor with access to the roof. The door to the fire floor was opened twice during 

wind driven fire conditions. Both times the temperature at the top of the stairwell increased from less 

than 50 oC (122 oF) to above 250 oC (482 oF) in less than 10 s. Temperatures on the sixth floor, one 

floor below the fire floor, saw temperature increases to above 200 oC (392 oF). Closing the fire floor 

decreased these temperatures to below 50 oC (122 oF). Slight temperature increases were recorded at the 

fourth floor which indicates that smoke made it to at least that point in the stairwell. With the WCD in 

place and the wind effects blocked the temperature at the top of the stairwell increased from 40 oC 

(104 oF) to 80 oC (176 oF) and there was no temperature increase below the fire floor. 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: IgnitionS7: closedBR: double failingS7: opening 0.08mS7: closedS7: openingBH: openingBH: closedLBY: openingS7: closedS1: openingBH: openingS7: openingS7: closedLR: window failingBR: placing WCD (double)S7: opening 0.08mS7: openS7: closedS1: fan onBH: closedS7: openingBR: WCD removed (double)LR: FBN flowingLR: FBN stoppedRemoving air flowExperiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

32

392

752

1112

1472

1832

2192

Temperature (F)

TC BR7KW 1.8m

TC Corr7KW 2.1m

TC Corr7GW 2.1m

TC CorrStair7W 2.1m

TC Stair7W 2.1m

Figure 3.5-18. 7K Temperature vs. time at 2.1 m above the floor 
169

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: IgnitionS7: closedBR: double failingS7: opening 0.08mS7: closedS7: openingBH: openingBH: closedLBY: openingS7: closedS1: openingBH: openingS7: openingS7: closedLR: window failingBR: placing WCD (double)S7: opening 0.08mS7: openS7: closedS1: fan onBH: closedS7: openingBR: WCD removed (double)LR: FBN flowingLR: FBN stoppedRemoving air flowExperiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

32

392

752

1112

1472

1832

2192

Temperature (F)

TC BR7KW 1.2m

TC Corr7KW 1.2m

TC Corr7GW 1.2m

TC CorrStair7W 1.2m

TC Stair7W 1.2m

Figure 3.5-19. 7K Temperature vs. time at 1.2 m above the floor 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: IgnitionS7: closedBR: double failingS7: opening 0.08mS7: closedS7: openingBH: openingBH: closedLBY: openingS7: closedS1: openingBH: openingS7: openingS7: closedLR: window failingBR: placing WCD (double)S7: opening 0.08mS7: openS7: closedS1: fan onBH: closedS7: openingBR: WCD removed (double)LR: FBN flowingLR: FBN stoppedRemoving air flowExperiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

0

100

200

300

400

32

212

392

572

752

Temperature (F)

TC Bulkhead MidW

TC Stair 6W

TC Stair 4W

TC Stair 2W

TC Stair1 MidW

Figure 3.5-20. 7K stairwell temperature vs. time 
170

3.5.3 Pressures

Average pressure measurements in the stairwell are shown in Figure 3.5-21. The differential pressure 

measurements were made at 1.2 m (4 ft) on the stairwell landing of every floor and referenced to an 

apartment on the same floor. With all of the doors to the stairwell closed the pressures remained below 

6 Pa and only fluctuated slightly. At 240 s, shortly after the bedroom window completely failed, the 

stair door opened slightly then closed causing a spike in the stairwell pressure. After the stairwell door 

was completely opened at 330 s, and the other doors in the stairwell were closed the pressures increased 

45 Pa to 75 Pa with the higher pressures at the top of the stairwell. When the fire floor stairwell door 

was reopened at 410 s, with the 1st floor door to the stairwell open and the bulkhead door open, the 

pressure in the stairwell increased 15 Pa to 25 Pa at the top of the stairwell and remained ambient below 

the fire floor. 

Later in the experiment the stairwell was closed and a PPV fan was activated at the base of the stairwell. 

With the bulkhead open to ventilate the stairwell the pressures ranged from 25 Pa at the bottom to 6 Pa 

at the bulkhead door. The bulkhead was then closed to pressurize the stairwell and the stairwell pressure 

increased to approximately 25 Pa throughout. The fire floor door to the stairwell was then opened with 

the WCD in place and no wind impact and the pressures ranged from 25 Pa at the bottom of the stairwell 

to 10 Pa at the top in the area of the fire floor. Removing the WCD at 1505 s and allowing the wind to 

combine with the fan pressures increased the stairwell pressures to above 25 Pa throughout the stairwell. 

Time (s)

Pressure (Pa)

BR: IgnitionS7: closedBR: double failingS7: opening 0.08mS7: closedS7: openingBH: openingBH: closedLBY: openingS7: closedS1: openingBH: openingS7: openingS7: closedLR: window failingBR: placing WCD (double)S7: opening 0.08mS7: openS7: closedS1: fan onBH: closedS7: openingBR: WCD removed (double)LR: FBN flowingLR: FBN stoppedRemoving air flowExperiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

DP Stair 7W

DP Stair 6W

DP Stair 5W

DP Stair 4W

DP Stair 3W

DP Stair 2W

DP Stair 1W

Figure 3.5-21. 7K stairwell pressures vs. time 

3.5.4 Velocities

Average doorway velocities from 3 doors; the fire apartment door, the door from the fire floor to the 
171

stairwell and the door at the base of the stair, were recorded versus time and shown in Figure 3.5-22. 

The three bi-direction probes in each door were averaged to provide the bulk flow through the doors. A 

time history for each probe at each measurement location is located in Appendix D – Detailed Graphs. 

The velocities at the apartment doorway and stairwell doorway increase in response to the stairwell door 

opening and the creation of a flow path. The velocity at the apartment doorway increased from 

approximately 5 m/s to 17 m/s twice when the door was opened, and the stairwell door velocity 

increased from 2 m/s to 7 m/s twice. The flow from the fire apartment to the stairwell had to turn 180 

degrees to enter the stairwell which most likely accounted for the difference in velocity between the fire 

apartment and the stairwell. 

With the WCD in place the flow into the stairwell was decreased to approximately 1 m/s and when the 

PPV fan was activated and the bulkhead was closed the flow at the fire floor door was 0 m/s to 1 m/s 

toward the fire apartment. The bulk flow out of the fire apartment with the fan operating slowed as the 

fire burned down from 4 m/s down to 0 m/s before the WCD was removed. This indicates that the flow 

from the fan increases the pressure to stop or slow the flow into the stairwell but does not over power 

and drive the flow back through the fire apartment, feeding large amounts of oxygen to the fire. Fan 

flow does make it to the fire at the lower elevations because of lower temperatures and lower pressure 

differences but the impact on fire growth from this flow was not obvious in this experiment. 

Time (s)

Velocity (m/s)

BR: IgnitionS7: closedBR: double failingS7: opening 0.08mS7: closedS7: openingBH: openingBH: closedLBY: openingS7: closedS1: openingBH: openingS7: openingS7: closedLR: window failingBR: placing WCD (double)S7: opening 0.08mS7: openS7: closedS1: fan onBH: closedS7: openingBR: WCD removed (double)LR: FBN flowingLR: FBN stoppedRemoving air flowExperiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

-5

0

5

10

15

20

-11

0

11

22

34

45

Velocity (mph)

Exp 7K Stair1

Exp 7K Stair7

Exp 7K Apt7K

Figure 3.5-22. 7K Velocities vs. time 

3.5.5 Discussion

Experiment 7K utilized the simulated wind from the MVU and created wind driven conditions on the 7th

floor. Fire gases were forced from the bedroom into the living room, igniting the living room and into 
172

the corridor and stairwell. These conditions would not be conducive to an interior direct frontal fire 

fighter attack. stairwell temperatures were in excess of 400 oC (752 oF) with the door open. 

The first pane of the bedroom window failed at 180 s and the window completely failed at 224 s. The 

temperature in the center of the bedroom at 1.2 m (4 ft) at the time of window failure was approximately 

500 oC (932 oF). During this experiment the fire grew rapidly prior to window failure and was not 

cooled by the window failure. The window failure allowed the fire to intensify immediately. 

Just like the previous experiment, this experiment highlighted the importance of door control. A wind 

driven condition was created on the fire floor and then the stairwell door was opened. Simply opening 

the stairwell door caused a 300 oC (572 oF) to 400 oC (752 oF) increase in temperature throughout the 

fire floor and stairwell in a matter of seconds. Closing the 7th floor stair door approximately 1 minute 

after opening it resulted in a significant temperature decrease in both the corridor and the stairwell. 

Beginning with the opening of the first floor stair door at 470 s, a flow path was opened up from the 

bedroom through the corridor and up the stair to the bulkhead. After the 7th floor stair door and the 

bulkhead door open the temperatures in the corridor increased to over 700 oC (1292 oF), floor to ceiling. 

The 7th floor stair door was closed and then 30 s later the WCD was deployed over the vented bedroom 

window. This resulted in a decrease in temperature in the bedroom of approximately 500 oC (900 oF). 

The temperatures downstream also decreased from approximately 700 oC (1300 oF) to 180 oC (350 oF) at 

1.2 m (4 ft) above the floor in the public corridor and 7th floor stair temperatures went from in excess of 

300 oC (570 oF) down to 50 oC (122 oF) at 1.2 m (4 ft) above the floor in the stair. The 7th floor stair 

door was opened and closed with the WCD still deployed causing an increase in temperature in the 

stairwell from 40 oC (104 oF) to 80 oC (176 oF). This minor increase in temperature would be conducive 

to a direct frontal fire attack. 

The PPV fan on the 1st floor was activated at 840 s. This dropped the temperatures in the stairwell to 

less than 30 oC (85 oF). Opening the 7th floor stair door at 945 s, with the fan operating had the effect of 

reducing the temperatures in the corridor to ambient. While using the fan and the WCD, conditions were 

close to ambient for firefighters in both the corridor and the stair. The WCD was removed at 1505 s and 

the fire in the living room transitioned to flashover at 1515 s and the temperatures in the corridor 

reached over 700 oC (1292 oF). With the fan operating the temperatures in the corridor remained below 

200 oC (392 oF). The fan could not stop the flow, but it limited its impact with the fire floor door open. 

The removal of the WCD at 1505 seconds resulted in post-flashover conditions in the living room and 

an temperatures in the public hallway in excess of 700 oC (1292 oF). An FBN 2 with a fog nozzle, 

narrow pattern, flowing approximately 225 gpm of water into the living room window was put into 

operation at 1575 s and suppressed the fire in less than 60 s. Temperatures in the corridor and stairwell 

decreased to below 200 oC (392 oF) in seconds and continued to decrease until the experiment was 

ended, even with the simulated wind still flowing through the apartment. 
173

3.6 Experiment 5E

The sixth experiment in the structure was located on the 5th floor in apartment 5E. Experiment 5E was 

ignited in the bedroom furthest from the open apartment door (Figure 3.6-1). This experiment also 

utilized a simulated wind provided by the MVU. The simulated wind was subjected to the bedroom 

double window at a magnitude of approximately 9 m/s to 11 m/s (20 mph to 25 mph). The events that 

took place during the experiment to accomplish the experimental objectives below are shown in Table 

3.6-1. 

Experimental Objectives 

• Deploy WCD prior to window failure 

• Examine window failure times and conditions 

• Examine building flows with different door opening configurations 

• Allow WCD to be subjected to fire conditions for a long period of time 

• Utilize portable PPV fans to control smoke movement 

The results for the experiment are presented in the following sections: observations, temperature, 

pressure, velocity, and discussion. Figure 3.6-2 shows the camera names and locations used in the 

observation section and the instrumentation names and locations used in the temperature, pressure and 

velocity sections. 
174

Figure 3.6-1. 5th floor apartment E floor plan with locations pertinent to Experiment 5E 
175

Table 3.6-1: Experiment 5E Timeline 

Start (s) End (s) Event Location Event Description 

0 0 Bedroom Ignition 

88 98 Bedroom double WCD deployed 

233 233 Bedroom double Protected window failing 

297 303 5th floor stair A Door opened 

373 376 Bulkhead door Opened 

744 752 Front lobby Door opened 

752 758 1st floor stair A Door opened 

822 Bedroom single Cracked at top 

876 892 5th floor stair A Door opened & closed 3x 

899 902 5th floor stair A Door opened 

979 981 Bedroom single Manually vented (top pane only) 

1060 1064 Bulkhead door Closed 

1112 1115 1st floor stair A 27 inch fan activated 

1308 1315 Bedroom single WCD deployed 

1363 1394 Bedroom double Air flow removed 

1380 1383 5th floor stair A Door closed 

1401 1406 Bulkhead door Opened 

1455 1456 Bulkhead door Closed 

1515 1518 5th floor stair A Door opened 

1619 1622 1st floor stair A 27 inch fan deactivated 

1630 1630 Experiment completed 
176

Figure 3.6-2. Instrumentation and camera locations with labels. 
177

3.6.1 Observations

The observations are presented as a series of images captured from eight camera locations, seven were 

video cameras and one was a thermal imaging cameras. The camera positions inside the building are 

shown in Figure 3.6-2. 

Figure 3.6-3 through Figure 3.6-16 present sets of eight images one from each camera position, at a 

given time, from the time of ignition to 44 min (2640 s) after ignition. Images were captured every 

4 min and at times when events had taken place that demonstrate the experimental objectives. Each 

image view is labeled. The first view (BEDROOM) at the top left of each figure shows the bedroom of 

apartment 5E, the bedroom furthest from the apartment entrance with a view of the single window 

straight across, double window to the right and ignition trashcan at the foot of the bed. The top right 

view (LIVINGRM) was of the living room looking across to the windows. The corridor view 

(CORRIDOR) shows the corridor leading up to the open apartment doorway. Next to that, the outside 

lobby view (LOBBY) shows the area just outside the lobby doors. The next two views (STAIR and 

STAIR IR) show the stairwell with a visual and a thermal imaging camera from the floor below the fire 

looking up to the fire floor. The bottom left view (ROOF) shows the bulkhead door at the top of the 

stairwell and the bottom right view (OUTSIDE) shows an external view of the fire apartment. 

Figure 3.6-3 shows the images at the time of ignition. At this point, the seven video views were clear 

and unobstructed. The thermal image in the stairwell provided limited thermal contrast because the 

surfaces in the view are at nearly equal temperature. 

Figure 3.6-4 shows the images at 120 s (2 min) after ignition. The WCD was deployed over the double 

bedroom window prior to failure from fire exposure. The fire involved the area at the end of the bed 

where the trashcan was positioned. A smoke layer was visible throughout the fire floor at approximately 

1.5 m (5 ft) above the floor. 

Figure 3.6-5 shows the images at 240 s (4 min) after ignition. The window behind the WCD had just 

failed. At this point the smoke layer had descended to the floor in the bedroom, corridor, and living 

room views. Smoke had also begun to leak around the closed 5th floor stair A door into the stairwell. 

Figure 3.6-6 shows the images at 310 s (5 min and 10 s) after ignition. The door to the stairwell was 

opened 7 s prior and smoke was flowing into the stairwell but was unaffected by the wind subjected to 

the bedroom window. Visibility was still very limited in the bedroom, living room and corridor. 

Figure 3.6-7 shows the images at 395 s (6 min and 35 s) after ignition. This image shows the conditions 

20 s after the bulkhead door was opened. Large amounts of smoke are visible entering the fire floor and 

exiting the bulkhead doorway. The smoke in the stairwell lifted from the landing of the fire floor but 

visibility was still minimal on the fire floor. 

Figure 3.6-8 shows the images at 480 s (8 min) after ignition. Smoke was flowing up the stairwell 

through the open bulkhead door. Conditions had not changed significantly since the last images were 

recorded. Figure 3.6-9 shows the images at 720 s (12 min) after ignition. The smoke flow continued 

through this point with a visible decrease in smoke density in the public corridor. The thermal imaging 
178

view showed that heat flow into the stairwell was increasing. An area of discoloration formed on the 

WCD. 

Figure 3.6-10 shows the images at 960 s (16 min) after ignition. The 5th floor stair A door had been 

open and closed several times in an attempt to fail the unprotected window in the bedroom. At this 

point, the smoke density on the fire floor had decreased and the view in the bedroom indicated that the 

fire had smothered and was not producing much smoke. The thin smoke out of the bulkhead also 

indicated that burning had decreased. The lobby and stair door on the first floor had also been opened 

approximately 200 s prior. 

Figure 3.6-11 shows the images at 980 s (16 min and 20 s) after ignition. The outside view shows the 

unprotected window in the bedroom being manually ventilated with a pike pole from the floor above to 

try to give the fire more oxygen. 

Figure 3.6-12 shows the images at 1200 s (20 min) after ignition. The bedroom single window had been 

vented manually 220 s prior and smoke was flowing out of it. Smoke density in the public corridor had 

further decreased as the fire apartment was drawing air from the stairwell. The flames in the bedroom 

had increased with the added oxygen from the ventilated window pane and open stairwell. A PPV fan 

was activated 85 s prior with the bulkhead door closed to pressurize the stairwell. There was still 

burning in the bedroom and smoke flowing from the open window pane. Smoke and heat flow into the 

stairwell was reduced. 

Figure 3.6-13 shows the images at 1305 s (21 min and 45 s) after ignition and Figure 3.6-14 shows the 

images at 1320 s (22 min) after ignition. These images were captured just before and just after the 

second WCD was deployed over the single bedroom window that was manually ventilated. 

Figure 3.6-15 shows the images at 1440 s (24 min) after ignition. A WCD had been deployed over the 

bedroom single window approximately 120 s prior, the 5th floor stair A door had been closed 57 s prior, 

and the bulkhead door had been open approximately 35 s prior. Smoke density in corridor, bedroom, 

and living room views was such that visibility was zero. The stairwell was clear of smoke, and very 

little smoke was venting from the open bulkhead door with the PPV fan operating. 

Figure 3.6-16 shows the images at 1560 s (26 min) after ignition. At this time visibility was obscured in 

the living room and corridor. Ignition of all fuel surfaces in the bedroom is visible in the bedroom view. 

Despite the 5th floor stair A door being opened at 1518 s after ignition, smoke did not fill or descend the 

stairwell with the PPV fan operating. 
179

Figure 3.6-3. Experiment 5E, ignition. 
180

Figure 3.6-4. Experiment 5E, 120s after ignition. 
181

Figure 3.6-5. Experiment 5E, 240s after ignition. 
182

Figure 3.6-6. Experiment 5E, 310s after ignition. 
183

Figure 3.6-7. Experiment 5E, 395s after ignition. 
184

Figure 3.6-8. Experiment 5E, 480s after ignition. 
185

Figure 3.6-9. Experiment 5E, 720s after ignition. 
186

Figure 3.6-10. Experiment 5E, 960s after ignition. 
187

Figure 3.6-11. Experiment 5E, 980s after ignition. 
188

Figure 3.6-12. Experiment 5E, 1200s after ignition. 
189

Figure 3.6-13. Experiment 5E, 1305s after ignition. 
190

Figure 3.6-14. Experiment 5E, 1320s after ignition. 
191

Figure 3.6-15. Experiment 5E, 1440s after ignition. 
192

Figure 3.6-16. Experiment 5E, 1560s after ignition. 
193

3.6.2 Temperatures

Figure 3.6-17 through Figure 3.6-19 provide temperature data for five measurement locations on the fire 

floor at two elevations and throughout the height of the stairwell. The locations of the measurement 

points can be seen in Figure 3.6-2. The events that occurred during the experiment are listed on the top 

of the figures with lines at the time of the event. A time history for each thermocouple at each 

measurement location is located in Appendix D – Detailed Graphs. 

Figure 3.6-17 shows the temperatures versus time at 2.1 m (7 ft) above the floor at 5 measurement 

locations, the bedroom, just outside the fire apartment in the corridor, just outside Apartment 5A in the 

corridor, just outside the A stairwell doorway, and just inside the A stairwell on the landing. The 

temperature in the bedroom increased to a maximum of approximately 600 oC (1112 oF) before the fire 

became ventilation limited and the temperature declined. The temperature declined to 200 oC (392 oF) 

before responding to the added oxygen from the open stairwell and bulkhead doors. With the added 

oxygen and burning the temperature increased back above 600 oC (1112 oF). Bedroom temperatures 

remained around 500 oC (1292 oF) and increased to a peak of 800 oC (1472 oF) after the single bedroom 

window was manually ventilated and the PPV fan was activated. The temperature changes were all 

gradual and conditions remained ventilation limited for most of the experiment. 

During the entire experiment the temperatures in the corridor, right outside the fire apartment, at 2.1 m 

(7 ft) above the floor do not exceed 200 oC (392 oF). The temperature at this position did not change 

significantly in response to the changes in ventilation or bedroom fire involvement and remained steady 

for the duration of the experiment. The two other corridor temperature measurement locations at the 

opposite end of the corridor remained near 100 oC (212 oF) for the duration of the experiment. They also 

remained very steady and did not change significantly in response to the changing events. The 2.1 m 

(7 ft) temperature in the stairwell remained ambient when the door to the fire floor was closed and 

increased as high as 80 oC (176 oF) when the door was open. 

Figure 3.6-18 shows the temperatures at 1.2 m (4 ft) which would be more representative of where 

firefighters would be operating or occupants would be evacuating. The temperature at this elevation in 

the bedroom behaved very similarly to the 2.1 m (7 ft) temperature. This was consistent with a well 

mixed ventilation limited fire environment. These temperatures were within 100 oC (212 oF) for most of 

the experiment until about 1200 s when there was enough oxygen from the broken window to create 

flashover conditions in the bedroom. From that time on the bedroom temperatures were uniform 

throughout. All of the other 1.2 m (4 ft) temperatures on the fire floor remained at or below 100 oC 

(212 oF) for the duration of the experiment. 

Figure 3.6-19 shows the temperatures 1.2 m (4 ft) above the landing on floors 1, 2, 4 and at the landing 

above the 7th floor near the bulkhead door with access to the roof. The temperature above the fire floor 

at the top of the stairwell was the only measurement above the fire floor and the temperature increase 

peaked at approximately 80 oC (176 oF) when the fire was at its peak. The PPV fan did not completely 

keep all of the smoke and heat out of the stairwell when the fire was at its peak. 
194

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: Ignition

BR: placing WCD (double)

BR: double failing

S5: opening

BH: opening

LBY: opening

S1: opening

S5: opening/closing 3x

S5: opening

BR: single failing

BH: closed

S1: fan on

BR: placing WCD (single)

Removing air flow

S5: closed

BH: opening

BH: closed

S5: opening

Experiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

0

200

400

600

800

1000

32

392

752

1112

1472

1832

Temperature (F)

TC BR5EE 2.1m

TC Corr5EE 2.1m

TC Corr5AE 2.1m

TC CorrStair5E 2.1m

TC Stair5E 2.1m

Figure 3.6-17. 5E Temperature vs. time at 2.1 m above the floor 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: Ignition

BR: placing WCD (double)

BR: double failing

S5: opening

BH: opening

LBY: opening

S1: opening

S5: opening/closing 3x

S5: opening

BR: single failing

BH: closed

S1: fan on

BR: placing WCD (single)

Removing air flow

S5: closed

BH: opening

BH: closed

S5: opening

Experiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

32

392

752

1112

1472

1832

2192

Temperature (F)

TC BR5EE 1.2m

TC Corr5EE 1.2m

TC Corr5AE 1.2m

TC CorrStair5E 1.2m

TC Stair5E 1.2m

Figure 3.6-18. 5E Temperature vs. time at 1.2 m above the floor 
195

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: Ignition

BR: placing WCD (double)

BR: double failing

S5: opening

BH: opening

LBY: opening

S1: opening

S5: opening/closing 3x

S5: opening

BR: single failing

BH: closed

S1: fan on

BR: placing WCD (single)

Removing air flow

S5: closed

BH: opening

BH: closed

S5: opening

Experiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

0

20

40

60

80

100

32

68

104

140

176

212

Temperature (F)

TC Bulkhead MidE

TC Stair 4E

TC Stair 2E

TC Stair1 MidE

Figure 3.6-19. 5E stairwell temperature vs. time 

3.6.3 Pressures

Average pressure measurements in the stairwell are shown in Figure 3.6-20. The differential pressure 

measurements were made at 1.2 m (4 ft) on the stairwell landing of every floor and referenced to an 

apartment on the same floor. With all of the doors to the stairwell closed the pressures remained below 

3 Pa and only fluctuated slightly, except for the 7th floor pressure, which fluctuated around 6 Pa. This 

was probably due to the heat damage to the floor and the door from the experiments on the 7th floor. 

Opening the bulkhead door while the first floor stairwell door remained closed lowered the pressures in 

the stairwell below ambient conditions. Opening the 1st floor stair door returned pressures to near 

ambient. The WCD was in place prior to window failure so no impact of the simulated wind was seen 

in the stairwell pressures. The only significant pressure increase came from the PPV fan at the base of 

the stairwell being activated at 1115 s. Pressures in the area of the fire floor only increased to an 

average of approximately 6 Pa with the bulkhead closed but decreased to 0 Pa with the bulkhead door 

open. 
196

Time (s)

Pressure (Pa)

BR: Ignition

BR: placing WCD (double)

BR: double failing

S5: opening

BH: opening

LBY: opening

S1: opening

S5: opening/closing 3x

S5: opening

BR: single failing

BH: closed

S1: fan on

BR: placing WCD (single)

Removing air flow

S5: closed

BH: opening

BH: closed

S5: opening

Experiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

DP Stair 7E

DP Stair 6E

DP Stair 5E

DP Stair 3E

DP Stair 2E

DP Stair 1E

Figure 3.6-20. 5E stairwell pressures vs. time 

3.6.4 Velocities

Average doorway velocities from 4 doors; the fire apartment door, the door from the fire floor to the 

stairwell, the door at the base of the stair and the door at the bulkhead, were recorded versus time and 

shown in Figure 3.6-21. The three bi-direction probes in each door were averaged to provide the bulk 

flow through the doors. A time history for each probe at each measurement location is located in 

Appendix D – Detailed Graphs. 

Due to the WCD being deployed prior to window failure all measured velocities on the fire floor were 

less than 1 m/s (2 mph). Flow velocity out of the bulkhead door was also less than 1 m/s (2 mph). The 

bulk flow into the 1st floor stair door was approximately 2 m/s (4 mph) with the PPV fan operating. 
197

Time (s)

Velocity (m/s)

BR: Ignition

BR: placing WCD (double)

BR: double failing

S5: opening

BH: opening

LBY: opening

S1: opening

S5: opening/closing 3x

S5: opening

BR: single failing

BH: closed

S1: fan on

BR: placing WCD (single)

Removing air flow

S5: closed

BH: opening

BH: closed

S5: opening

Experiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

-4

-2

0

2

4

7

9

Velocity (mph)

Exp 5E Bulkhead

Exp 5E Stair1

Exp 5E Stair5

Exp 5E Apt5E

Figure 3.6-21. 5E Velocities vs. time 

3.6.5 Discussion

Experiment 5E was the first experiment on the 5th floor. A WCD was deployed from the 6th floor over 

the bedroom double window where the simulated wind was positioned. This simulates a firefighting 

crew that goes to the floor above the fire and finds a wind condition subjected to that area/side of the 

building and the fire apartment below. As a preventative measure the crew deploys the WCD over the 

fire apartment window. 

The window under the WCD failed at 233 s after ignition. Due to the WCD blocking the wind effects a 

wind driven condition was not created. The single window on the other side of the bedroom from where 

ignition occurred did not self-vent even after 990 s into the experiment and the fire had reached a 

ventilation limited, steady state condition. Temperatures at the 1.2 m (4 ft) from the floor elevation were 

steady around 450 oC (842 oF) for over 200 s. In order to increase the fire size and expose the WCD to 

higher temperatures the top pane of the single window in the bedroom was manually vented. This event, 

along with providing air from the stairwell, allowed the room to flashover and continue to burn at high 

temperatures for the remainder of the experiment. 

Until the window in the bedroom was ventilated the only source of oxygen to the fire was from the 

stairwell which was remote from the bedroom. Opening the fire floor stairwell door did not provide 

much oxygen to the fire because the stairwell filled up with smoke quickly and mixed with any air being 

pulled up the stairwell. When the bulkhead door was opened this changed and the fire was able to pull 

fresh air as the smoke moved up and out of the stairwell. This allowed the fire in the bedroom to 

intensify, but because of how remote the bedroom was from the source of oxygen, the concrete walls 

and ceiling, and the distance to fuel through the hallway to the living room the fire did not spread. 

When more oxygen was provided by ventilating the top pane of the single window the fire intensified 

further but there was still not enough oxygen, and by that time the fuel had burned down quite a bit. 
198

Temperatures in the corridor were not greatly impacted by ventilation and conditions were conducive to 

a direct frontal attack for the duration of the experiment. 

Another objective of this experiment was to subject the WCD to high temperature conditions for a long 

period of time to see how well they would hold up. If the WCD fails during fire attack the crews being 

shielded from the wind driven conditions could be caught in the flow path which is not desired so the 

WCD must be able to withstand these conditions. While the WCD changed color from red to grey but 

did not fail during this experiment. Using the 1.2 m (4 ft) temperature in the center of the room to 

estimate the conditions the blanket was exposed to indicate that the WCD was subjected to temperatures 

in excess of 400 oC (752 oF) for more than 1100 s, including temperatures in excess of 700 oC (1292 oF) 

for at least 200 s. Flames were in contact with the WCD and there was no failure and the possible 

effects of a wind driven fire were never present during the experiment. 

The PPV fan on the 1st floor was activated at 1115 s. This increased the pressures on the 1st and 2nd

floors above 15 Pa as would be expected as compared to previous experiments. The pressures above 

this height in the stairwell were much lower than expected which suggests that stairwell doors were left 

open or were blown open during the experiment. This reduced the effectiveness of the fan but it still 

improved conditions in the area of the fire floor as seen when the fan was turned off near the end of the 

experiment and smoke flow into the stairwell increased. This highlights the importance of door control 

when utilizing PPV. 
199

3.7 Experiment 5E2

The seventh experiment in the structure was located in the same apartment as the sixth experiment, 5E. 

Experiment 5E2 was ignited in the living room on the top of sofa that backed to the kitchen (Figure 

3.7-1). The fire in the bedroom from the sixth experiment did not extend beyond the room of origin so 

the apartment was cleared of smoke and the experiment 5E2 was ignited. Both windows in the back 

bedroom failed in the previous experiment so they remained open during this experiment. This 

experiment also utilized a simulated wind provided by the MVU. The simulated wind was subjected to 

the living room window at a magnitude of approximately 9 m/s to 11 m/s (20 mph to 25 mph). The 

events that took place during the experiment to accomplish the experimental objectives below are shown 

in Table 3.7-1. 

Experimental Objectives 

• Create wind driven fire conditions from a living room fire 

• Examine building flows with different door opening configurations 

• Utilize portable PPV fans to control smoke movement 

• Control wind driven conditions with FBN 

The results for the experiment are presented in the following sections: observations, temperature, 

pressure, velocity, and discussion. Figure 3.7-2 shows the camera names and locations used in the 

observation section and the instrumentation names and locations used in the temperature, pressure and 

velocity sections. 
200

Figure 3.7-1. 5th floor apartment E floor plan with locations pertinent to Experiment 5E2 
201

Table 3.7-1: Experiment 5E2 Timeline 

Start (s) End (s) Event Location Event Description 

0 0 Living room Ignition (front doors + stair doors 1 and 5 opened) 

271 273 Bulkhead door Opened 

594 596 Living room window Center pane failed 

628 628 Living room window Top right pane failed 

681 681 Living room window Top left pane failed 

698 698 Living room window Bottom left pane failed 

716 719 Bulkhead door Closed 

725 725 Living room Bottom right pane failed 

809 810 Front lobby 27 inch fan activated 

837 841 Front lobby Left door closed 

851 860 Front lobby 27 inch fan moved, toward door 

880 883 Front lobby 27 inch fan moved, into door 

903 909 Living room window FBN 1 started flowing (Fog) 

915 920 Front lobby Fan moved closer to door 

973 976 Living room window FBN 1 stopped 

979 981 Front lobby Left door opened 

1020 1020 Experiment completed 
202

Figure 3.7-2. Instrumentation and camera locations with labels. 
203

3.7.1 Observations

The observations are presented as a series of images captured from eight camera locations, seven were 

video cameras and one was a thermal imaging camera. The camera positions inside the building are 

shown in Figure 3.7-2. 

Figure 3.7-3 through Figure 3.7-12 present sets of eight images one from each camera position, at a 

given time, from the time of ignition to 16 min (960 s) after ignition. Images were captured every 4 min 

and at times when events had taken place that demonstrate the experimental objectives. Each image 

view is labeled. The first view (BEDROOM) at the top left of each figure shows the bedroom which 

was burned in the 5E experiment, the bedroom furthest from the apartment entrance; the failed single 

window is straight across the view, and the failed double window is to the right of the view. The top 

right view (LIVINGRM) was of the living room looking across to the windows. The corridor view 

(CORRIDOR) shows the corridor leading up to the open apartment doorway. Next to that, the outside 

lobby view (LOBBY) shows the area just outside the lobby doors. The next two views (STAIR and 

STAIR IR) show the stairwell with a visual and a thermal imaging camera from the floor below the fire 

looking up to the fire floor. The bottom left view (ROOF) shows the bulkhead door at the top of the 

stairwell and the bottom right view (OUTSIDE) shows an external view of the fire apartment with a 

focus on the living room window. 

Figure 3.7-3 shows the images at the time of ignition. At this point, the seven video views were clear 

and unobstructed. The effects of the previous experiment (experiment 5E) are visible in the corridor and 

bedroom views and some smoke damage from that experiment is still present in the living room. The 

door to the fire floor is open for the start of the experiment as seen in the stairwell views and the doors to 

the lobby and to the base of the stairs are open as shown in the lobby view. 

Figure 3.7-4 shows the images at 240 s (4 min) after ignition. At this point, the fire that was ignited on 

the left sofa was growing on the seat of the sofa. Smoke density has increased in the living room, 

bedroom, and corridor views. Smoke is visibly flowing up the stairwell. 

Figure 3.7-5 shows the images at 480 s (8 min) after ignition. The bulkhead door had been opened 208 s 

prior. The sofa is still not fully involved, but the smoke density throughout the apartment increased, 

limiting visibility in the corridor, bedroom, and living room views. The heat and volume of the smoke 

flow up the stairwell has increased. The fire has become ventilation limited. 

Figure 3.7-6 shows the images at 660 s (11 min) after ignition. The living room window began to fail 

65 s prior to these images. The added oxygen and impact of the wind has increased the fire growth and 

spread significantly. The living room was becoming fully involved in flames and flames were being 

forced through the apartment hallway and into the rear bedroom from the previous experiment. 

Visibility in the stairwell has been reduced and the amount of heat being forced into the stairwell has 

greatly increased in the thermal imaging view. The amount of smoke flowing out of the open bulkhead 

door has increased. 
204

Figure 3.7-7 shows the images at 690 s (11 min and 30 s) after ignition. The living room and bedroom 

have become completely involved in flame and the wind driven condition has developed. Visibility has 

decreased to zero in the stairwell and the heat being forced up and down the stairwell has increased as 

indicated by the thermal imaging camera switching to its high heat mode. 

Figure 3.7-8 shows the images at 720 s (12 min) after ignition. The living room window was failing 

incrementally; for the past 2 minutes the majority of the window opening was clear. At this point, 

flames were visible in the stair camera view; the stair IR view was saturated, but reflected a surface 

temperature in the stairwell of 260 oC (500 oF). 

Figure 3.7-9 shows the images at 750 s (12 min and 30 s) after ignition. The bulkhead door had been 

closed for 30 s and the lobby image shows smoke being forced out of the front lobby doors. This shows 

the change in flow path and the ability to force smoke and heat down 5 stories in as little as 30 s. Both 

the stairwell video camera and thermal imaging camera failed due to heat exposure. Flames are no 

longer visible in the bedroom but are visible in the corridor. The flames are also pulsing out of the 

living room against the wind. 

Figure 3.7-10 shows the images at 890 s (14 min and 50 s) after ignition. This was 13 s before the FBN 

was flowing. The wind driven condition still existed but few camera views were still usable. The living 

room camera still showed full room involvement. 

Figure 3.7-11 shows the images at 915 s (15 min and 15 s) after ignition. This was approximately 10 s 

after the FBN 1 with a fog pattern was flowing into the living room. The fire was beginning to be 

suppressed in the living room and the flow from the nozzle can be seen in the outside view. 

Figure 3.7-12 shows the images at 960 s (16 min) after ignition. At this point FBN 1 had been flowing 

into the living room window for almost 60 s. The fire appears to be limited to some of the furnishings. 

The burning, hot gas layer had been extinguished. Most of the other cameras were either nonoperational or obstructed by soot deposition. 
205

Figure 3.7-3. Experiment 5E2, ignition. 
206

Figure 3.7-4. Experiment 5E2, 240s after ignition. 
207

Figure 3.7-5. Experiment 5E2, 480s after ignition. 
208

Figure 3.7-6. Experiment 5E2, 660s after ignition. 
209

Figure 3.7-7. Experiment 5E2, 690s after ignition. 
210

Figure 3.7-8. Experiment 5E2, 720s after ignition. 
211

Figure 3.7-9. Experiment 5E2, 750s after ignition. 
212

Figure 3.7-10. Experiment 5E2, 890s after ignition. 
213

Figure 3.7-11. Experiment 5E2, 915s after ignition. 
214

Figure 3.7-12. Experiment 5E2, 960s after ignition. 
215

3.7.2 Temperatures

Figure 3.7-13 through Figure 3.7-15 provide temperature data for four measurement locations on the fire 

floor at two elevations and throughout the height of the stairwell. The locations of the measurement 

points can be seen in Figure 3.7-2. The events that occurred during the experiment are listed on the top 

of the figures with lines at the time of the event. A time history for each thermocouple at each 

measurement location is located in Appendix D – Detailed Graphs. 

Figure 3.7-13 shows the temperatures versus time at 2.1 m (7 ft) above the floor at 4 measurement 

locations, just outside the fire apartment in the corridor, just outside Apartment 5A in the corridor, just 

outside the A stairwell doorway, and just inside the A stairwell on the landing. The bedroom 

measurement location was compromised during the previous experiment and is not included in this 

analysis. There were no temperature measurements in the living room, so the closest measurement to 

the fire was the corridor just outside the fire apartment. The fire reached a steady state with the corridor 

temperature at approximately 150 oC (302 oF) as the smoke layer descended to the height of the seat of 

the sofa. The bulkhead door was opened to provide oxygen and the temperature steadily increased to 

approximately 300 oC (572 oF), while the fire on the sofa increased. The increased fire size caused the 

window to begin to fail and the conditions changed rapidly. The temperature at 2.1 m (7 ft) cooled 

briefly as the cold air was forced into the living room but once conditions changed the temperature 

increased from less than 300 oC (572 oF) to more than 800 oC (1472 oF) in seconds. The bulkhead door 

was closed to change the flow path and the temperature steadily decreased from 900 oC (1652 oF) to 

450 oC (842 oF) over the next 200 s. At 903 s the FBN was activated and the temperature dropped to 

approximately 150 oC (302 oF) in the 70 s the nozzle was flowing. 

The two other corridor measurement locations responded similarly to the events as the one closest to the 

fire apartment, except their peak temperatures were lower. The measurement location in the corridor 

next to the open stairwell door reached 800 oC (1472 oF) and the measurement location next to 

Apartment A reached 600 oC (1112 oF). This temperature difference also shows the difference in 

temperature between being in the flow path and being just outside the flow path. The temperature of the 

corridor after the nozzle had been flowed for 70 s was conducive to a direct frontal fire attack. 

The temperature in the stairwell also reached 600 oC (1112 oF) at the peak of the wind driven condition. 

Once the bulkhead door was closed the temperature steadily decreased to approximately 300 oC (572 oF) 

before the FBN was flowing. After the FBN was flowing the temperature decreased to 150 oC (302 oF). 

Figure 3.7-14 shows the temperatures at 1.2 m (4 ft) which would be more representative to where 

firefighters would be operating or occupants would be evacuating. The temperatures at all of the 

measurement locations at the 1.2 m (4 ft) elevation remained below 50 oC (122 oF) as the fire was 

developing in the living room. At approximately 550 s the living room was transitioning to flashover 

and the temperatures increased to as high as 250 oC (482 oF) in the corridor as the window failed. The 

temperatures increased as the fresh air was mixing in the living room. At approximately 675 s the flow 

path from the living room to the stairwell was well mixed and the temperatures were the same as the 

2.1 m (7 ft) elevation showing that there was no longer a cool layer and the temperatures were 

increasing from floor to ceiling. After the FBN was flowed the temperatures decreased to approximately 

100 oC (212 oF) which would allow fire fighters to advance to the fire apartment. 
216

Figure 3.7-15 shows the temperatures 1.2 m (4 ft) above the landing on floors 1, 2, 4 and at the 

bulkhead. The temperature at the top of the stairwell started the experiment elevated from the hot gases 

trapped in the top of the stairwell from the previous experiment. During the wind driven condition with 

the bulkhead door open temperatures above the fire floor reached as high as 1200 oC (2192 oF) and 

decreased quickly when the bulkhead door was closed because this area was no longer part of the flow 

path. During the wind driven condition temperatures below the fire floor on the 4th floor reached 400 oC 

(752 oF) and the 2nd floor temperature was above 150 oC (302 oF). After suppression was started with 

the FBN the temperature below the fire floor decreased to below 100 oC (212 oF). 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

LR: Ignition

BH: opening

LR: window failing

BH: closed

LR: window clear

LBY: fan on

LBY: left closed

LBY: fan movedLBY: fan moved

LR: FBN flowing

LBY: fan moved

LR: FBN stopped

LBY: left opening

Experiment completed

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

32

392

752

1112

1472

1832

2192

Temperature (F)

TC Corr5EE 2.1m

TC Corr5AE 2.1m

TC CorrStair5E 2.1m

TC Stair5E 2.1m

Figure 3.7-13. 5E2 Temperature vs. time at 2.1 m above the floor 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

LR: Ignition

BH: opening

LR: window failing

BH: closed

LR: window clear

LBY: fan on

LBY: left closed

LBY: fan movedLBY: fan moved

LR: FBN flowing

LBY: fan moved

LR: FBN stopped

LBY: left opening

Experiment completed

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

32

392

752

1112

1472

1832

2192

Temperature (F)

TC Corr5EE 1.2m

TC Corr5AE 1.2m

TC CorrStair5E 1.2m

TC Stair5E 1.2m
217

Figure 3.7-14. 5E2 Temperature vs. time at 1.2 m above the floor 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

LR: Ignition

BH: opening

LR: window failing

BH: closed

LR: window clear

LBY: fan on

LBY: left closed

LBY: fan movedLBY: fan moved

LR: FBN flowing

LBY: fan moved

LR: FBN stopped

LBY: left opening

Experiment completed

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100

0

300

600

900

1200

1500

32

572

1112

1652

2192

2732

Temperature (F)

TC Bulkhead MidE

TC Stair 4E

TC Stair 2E

TC Stair1 MidE

Figure 3.7-15. 5E2 stairwell temperature vs. time 

3.7.3 Pressures

Average pressure measurements in the stairwell are shown in Figure 3.7-16. The differential pressure 

measurements were made at 1.2 m (4 ft) on the stairwell landing of every floor and referenced to an 

apartment on the same floor. With all of the doors to the stairwell closed the pressures remained below 

5 Pa and only fluctuated slightly, except for the 7th floor pressure which fluctuated around 8 Pa. This 

was most likely due to the heat accumulation in the top of the stairwell in the area of the 7th floor. 

The pressures all remained constant until the windows in the living room began to fail. After window 

failure the pressures in the stairwell in the area of the fire floor increased to approximately 5 Pa. This 

minimal impact was due to the top and bottom of the stairwell being open. When the bulkhead door was 

closed the pressure increased quickly. The 7th floor increased from less than 10 Pa to more than 80 Pa in 

seconds. The other floors from the 6th to the 2nd increased to approximately 70 Pa, 65 Pa, 50 Pa, 35 Pa 

and 20 Pa respectively. 

Adding the PPV fan at the front lobby door at 810 s increased the lower floor pressures. As it was 

moved closer to the stairwell when the smoke flow out of the front of the building decreased the 

pressures increased. Flowing the FBN and stopping the wind driven fire condition caused the pressures 

in the stairwell to decrease with the decreased energy production from the fire. 
218

Time (s)

Pressure (Pa)

LR: Ignition

BH: opening

LR: window failing

BH: closed

LR: window clear

LBY: fan on

LBY: left closed

LBY: fan movedLBY: fan moved

LR: FBN flowing

LBY: fan moved

LR: FBN stopped

LBY: left opening

Experiment completed

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

DP Stair 7E

DP Stair 6E

DP Stair 5E

DP Stair 4E

DP Stair 3E

DP Stair 2E

DP Stair 1E

Figure 3.7-16. 5E2 stairwell pressures vs. time 

3.7.4 Velocities

Average doorway velocities from 4 doors; the fire apartment door, the door from the fire floor to the 

stairwell, the door at the base of the stair and the door at the bulkhead, were recorded versus time and 

shown in Figure 3.7-17. The three bi-direction probes in each door were averaged to provide the bulk 

flow through the doors. A time history for each probe at each measurement location is located in 

Appendix D – Detailed Graphs. 

The fire floor stairwell door remained open for the duration of the experiment enabling a flow path to 

the stairwell. The velocity at the apartment doorway increased in response to the growth of the living 

room fire and increased further once the window failed. The velocity increased to a peak of 

approximately 9 m/s (20 mph) before the bulkhead door was closed. The flow from the fire apartment 

had to turn 180 degrees to enter the stairwell which most likely accounted for the difference in velocity 

between the fire apartment and the stairwell. The flow through the bulkhead door was very similar to 

the flow leaving the fire apartment as would be expected but the velocity measurement beyond 650 s 

was not reliable because of the extreme heat the pressure transducers were subjected too. 
219

Time (s)

Velocity (m/s)

LR: Ignition

BH: opening

LR: window failing

BH: closed

LR: window clear

LBY: fan on

LBY: left closed

LBY: fan movedLBY: fan moved

LR: FBN flowing

LBY: fan moved

LR: FBN stopped

LBY: left opening

Experiment completed

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

-34

-22

-11

0

11

22

34

Velocity (mph)

Exp 5E2 Bulkhead

Exp 5E2 Stair1

Exp 5E2 Stair5

Exp 5E2 Apt5E

Figure 3.7-17. 5E2 Velocities vs. time 

3.7.5 Discussion

This experiment utilized the simulated wind directed into the living room and a wind driven condition 

was created which caused extremely hazardous conditions inside the building. Temperatures exceeded 

600 oC (1112 oF) throughout the fire floor at any elevation above the floor. These same temperatures 

entered the stairwell extended to the top of the stairwell and created poor conditions down the stairwell 

and into the lobby. Large amounts of smoke were forced out of the front lobby door displaying 

untenable conditions throughout the entire stairwell. The condition created during this experiment were 

not conducive to a direct frontal fire attack and firefighters remote from the fire in the stairwell would 

have been threatened if they were in the flow path due to extreme temperatures. 

The fire became ventilation limited and was beginning to burn itself out, even with the windows open in 

the bedroom from the previous experiment. The bulkhead door was opened and that allowed the smoke 

layer to move up the stairwell and create a condition for the fire to grow. The fire transitioned to 

flashover and failed the window which triggered the wind driven condition. The hot gases were 

primarily being forced to the stairwell and up the stairs to the open bulkhead door. Once the bulkhead 

door was closed the conditions changed. The flow was forced to travel down the stairs to the front door 

but did so slowly. Without the smoke moving upward the wind driven fire in the corridor became 

ventilation limited and the temperatures in the corridor and stairwell decreased by nearly half. This 

scenario also had the fire floor stairwell door open the entire experiment. This door is a key door to 

limit the impact to the rest of the structure. With this door open other floors were exposed to untenable 

conditions for firefighters and occupants. 

A FBN 1 with a fog nozzle, narrow pattern, flowing approximately 10.1 L/s (160 gpm) of water into the 

living room window was put into operation at 903 s and was allowed to flow for about 70s. 

Temperatures in the corridor and stairwell decreased to below 200 oC (392 oF) very quickly and 
220

continued to decrease until the experiment was ended, even with the simulated wind still flowing 

through the apartment. The water introduced to the seat of the fire changed an environment with 

burning gases to just burning objects. The fire was not able to be extinguished completely with the 

FBN, but it reduced its energy output significantly. 
221

3.8 Experiment 5K

The eighth experiment was located on the 5th floor in apartment 5K. Experiment 5K was ignited in the 

bedroom furthest from the open apartment door (Figure 3.8-1). This experiment also utilized a 

simulated wind provided by the MVU. The simulated wind was subjected to the bedroom double 

window at a magnitude of approximately 9 m/s to 11 m/s (20 mph to 25 mph). The events that took 

place during the experiment to accomplish the experimental objectives bulleted below are shown in 

Table 3.8-1. 

Experimental Objectives 

• Create wind driven fire conditions from a bedroom fire 

• Examine window failure times and conditions 

• Examine building flows with different door opening configurations 

• Examine impact of the partial deployment of a WCD on fire room window 

• Control wind driven conditions with FBN in conjunction with WCD 

• Utilize portable PPV fans to control smoke movement 

The results for the experiment are presented in the following sections: observations, temperature, 

pressure, velocity, and discussion. Figure 3.8-2 shows the camera names and locations used in the 

observation section and the instrumentation names and locations used in the temperature, pressure and 

velocity sections. 
222

Figure 3.8-1. 5th floor apartment K floor plan with locations pertinent to Experiment 5K 
223

Table 3.8-1: Experiment 5K Timeline 

Start (s) End (s) Event Location Event Description 

0 0 Bedroom Ignition 

303 304 Bedroom double Bottom left pane failed 

452 468 5th floor stair A Door opened 

487 494 Front lobby Doors opened 

513 518 1st floor stair A Door opened 

693 695 Bedroom double Bottom right pane failed 

696 700 Bulkhead door Opened 

798 798 Bedroom double Top left pane failed 

830 831 Bedroom double Top right pane failed 

953 975 Bedroom double WCD deploying (1/2 of window) 

1012 1012 Living room window Starting to fail 

1043 1045 Bedroom double FBN 1 started flowing (Fog) 

1124 1124 Bedroom double FBN 1 stopped 

1180 1184 Bulkhead door Closed 

1219 1219 Living room window FBN 1 started flowing (Fog) 

1295 1295 Living room window FBN 1 stopped 

1456 1464 1st floor stair A 27 inch fan activated 

1501 1503 Bulkhead door Opened 

1590 1592 Bulkhead door Closed 

1873 1885 Bedroom double Air flow removed 

1920 1920 Experiment completed 
224

Figure 3.8-2. Instrumentation and camera locations with labels. 
225

3.8.1 Observations

The observations are presented as a series of images captured from eight camera locations, all eight were 

video cameras. The camera positions inside the building are shown in Figure 3.8-2. Another outside 

view was added for this experiment in place of the thermal imaging view. 

Figure 3.8-3 through Figure 3.8-16 present sets of eight images one from each camera position, at a 

given time, from the time of ignition to 32 min (1920 s) after ignition. Images were captured every 

4 min and at times when events had taken place that demonstrate the experimental objectives. Each 

image view is labeled. The first view (BEDROOM) at the top left of each figure shows the bedroom of 

apartment 5K, the bedroom furthest from the apartment entrance with a view of the single window 

straight across, double window to the right and ignition trashcan at the foot of the bed. The top right 

view (LIVINGRM) was of the living room looking across to the windows. The corridor view 

(CORRIDOR) shows the corridor leading up to the open apartment doorway. Next to that, the outside 

lobby view (LOBBY) shows the area just outside the lobby doors. The view (STAIR) shows the 

stairwell with a camera from the floor below the fire looking up to the fire floor. Next to that is the 

tower view (TOWER) which shows an external view of the fire apartment. The bottom left view 

(ROOF) shows the bulkhead door at the top of the stairwell and the bottom right view (OUTSIDE) 

shows an alternate view of the outside of the apartment from a window in another wing of the building. 

Figure 3.8-3 shows the images at the time of ignition. At this point, the eight video views were clear 

and unobstructed. The bedroom view shows the ignition trashcan near the double window and a sheet of 

gypsum board covering the single window. The single window was covered to prevent any loss of flow 

from the simulated wind. 

Figure 3.8-4 shows the images at 240 s (4 min) after ignition. The fire had extended to the bed from the 

trash container where ignition took place. The smoke layer had descended almost to the floor in the 

ignition bedroom, but was approximately 1.5m (5 ft) from the floor in the living room, and was just 

visible at the ceiling level in the public corridor. Flames are visible from the exterior tower view but the 

window was still intact. 

Figure 3.8-5 shows the images at 480 s (8 min) after ignition. One pane from the bedroom double 

window failed 176 s prior and the 5th floor stair A door was opened 12 s prior. The smoke layer had 

descended to the floor in the corridor, living room, and bedroom views; visibility in these views is near 

zero beyond the flames in the bedroom view. Smoke had begun to push down the stairwell. There was 

no visible smoke leakage from the bulkhead door at this time. 

Figure 3.8-6 shows the images at 720 s (12 min) after ignition. The bulkhead door had been opened 20 s 

prior and smoke was venting from it. There was very little visibility in the stairwell view. The living 

room view shows flames beginning to enter the living room. 

Figure 3.8-7 shows the images at 830 s (13 min and 50 s) after ignition. The bedroom was completely 

full of flames, there were flames involving the living room and moving toward the corridor. There was 

minimal visibility in the corridor and no visibility in the stairwell. Smoke was flowing out of the 

bulkhead doorway indicating that the stairwell was full of smoke to the roof. 
226

Figure 3.8-8 shows the images at 960 s (16 min) after ignition. The bedroom double window had 

completely failed by this point. Flames could be seen in the stairwell view coming from the public 

corridor. The volume of smoke venting from the bulkhead had reduced the visibility in the roof view to 

zero. The WCD was being moved into place over the left half of the bedroom double window. White 

smoke was pushing out of the fire apartment in the area of the living room window. 

Figure 3.8-9 shows the images at 975 s (16 min and 15 s) after ignition. The WCD device remained in 

place, blocking one half of the window. This was done to gain insight into the question, if the WCD 

was not big enough to block an entire window is there a benefit to blocking as much of it as possible? 

All other conditions in the images are similar to those from 15 s prior. 

Figure 3.8-10 shows the images at 1040 s (17 min and 20 s) after ignition. The living room window has 

failed approximately 20 s prior and there were flames throughout the bedroom, living room, and 

corridor, reaching the stairwell. These were the conditions 5 s before the activation of the FBN. 

Figure 3.8-11 shows the images at 1080 s (18 min) after ignition. The FBN 1 with a fog nozzle has been 

flowing for 35 s into the bedroom window. There was still some burning in the bedroom and there does 

not appear to be much impact on the amount of flames in the living room. The visibility in the stairwell 

and room views was still zero. 

Figure 3.8-12 shows the images at 1200 s (20 min) after ignition. At this point the corridor view had 

been damaged and no longer provided video. The bedroom view was similarly lost by this time. FBN 1 

began flowing into the bedroom double window 155 s prior and ceased 76 s prior. The bulkhead had 

been closed 16 s prior. Combustion in the living room was visible from that view. Flames were still 

extending from the failed living room window. This view was captured 20 s prior to FBN 1 flow into 

the living room. 

Figure 3.8-13 shows the images at 1260 s (21 min) after ignition. The FBN was relocated to the living 

room window and flowed into the living room 41 s prior to this set of images. The water was still 

flowing and the visible flame in the living room was suppressed. 

Figure 3.8-14, Figure 3.8-15, and Figure 3.8-16 show the images at 1440 s (24 min), 1680 s (28 min), 

and 1920 s (32 min) after ignition, respectively. By this time the internal views on the fire floor were 

limited, and the external views indicate that a majority of the fire had been suppressed. The FBN was 

stopped at 1295 s (21.6 min). The use of the PPV fan rekindled a fire in part of the living room and 

cleared the stairwell of smoke. 
227

Figure 3.8-3. Experiment 5K, ignition. 
228

Figure 3.8-4. Experiment 5K, 240s after ignition. 
229

Figure 3.8-5. Experiment 5K, 480s after ignition. 
230

Figure 3.8-6. Experiment 5K, 720s after ignition. 
231

Figure 3.8-7. Experiment 5K, 830s after ignition. 
232

Figure 3.8-8. Experiment 5K, 960s after ignition. 
233

Figure 3.8-9. Experiment 5K, 975s after ignition. 
234

Figure 3.8-10. Experiment 5K, 1040s after ignition. 
235

Figure 3.8-11. Experiment 5K, 1080s after ignition. 
236

Figure 3.8-12. Experiment 5K, 1200s after ignition. 
237

Figure 3.8-13. Experiment 5K, 1260s after ignition. 
238

Figure 3.8-14. Experiment 5K, 1440s after ignition. 
239

Figure 3.8-15. Experiment 5K, 1680s after ignition. 
240

Figure 3.8-16. Experiment 5K, 1920s after ignition. 
241

3.8.2 Temperatures

Figure 3.8-17 through Figure 3.8-19 provide temperature data for five measurement locations on the fire 

floor at two elevations and throughout the height of the stairwell. The locations of the measurement 

points can be seen in Figure 3.8-2. The events that occurred during the experiment are listed on the top 

of the figures with lines at the time of the event. A time history for each thermocouple at each 

measurement location is located in Appendix D – Detailed Graphs. 

Figure 3.8-17 shows the temperatures versus time at 2.1 m (7 ft) above the floor at 5 measurement 

locations, the bedroom, just outside the fire apartment in the corridor, just outside Apartment 5G in the 

corridor, just outside the A stairwell doorway, and just inside the A stairwell on the landing. The 

bedroom temperature increased to approximately 500 oC (932 oF) by 315 s prior to the bottom left 

window pane failing. The wind introduced into the bedroom cooled the room. Doors were opened to 

provide more ventilation to the fire. Ultimately the bulkhead door needed to be opened to allow the fire 

to grow, fail more window panes, and develop a wind driven fire. At approximately 700 s the 

temperature increased from 350 oC (662 oF) to 700 oC (1292 oF) and ultimately to 900 oC (1652 oF) after 

the bedroom double window completely failed. The WCD was deployed at 975 s over half of the failed 

window and the bedroom temperature slightly increased. At 1048 s the FBN was directed into the 

bedroom and the bedroom temperature decreased from approximately 900 oC (1652 oF) to 100 oC 

(212 oF) very quickly and remained there for the remainder of the experiment. 

The corridor temperatures remained below 250 oC (482 oF) until 825 s when the wind driven condition 

was developed triggered by full bedroom involvement in flames extending into the living room. At this 

time the temperature in the corridor right outside the fire apartment increased from 250 oC (482 oF) to 

650 oC (1202 oF) in seconds. The two other corridor temperatures increased from approximately 200 oC 

(392 oF) to above 400 oC (752 oF) in seconds and climbed to a steady state of approximately 600 oC 

(1112 oF) in less than 1 min. The deployment of the WCD over half of the window had no significant 

impact on the corridor temperatures. During the flowing of the FBN into the bedroom the corridor 

temperatures decreased from above 600 oC (1112 oF) to approximately 300 oC (572 oF). The 

temperature just outside the fire apartment recovered to above 400 oC (752 oF) because of the continued 

burning in the living room but decreased once the FBN was directed into the living room suppressing 

the remaining fire. 

The stairwell 2.1 m (7 ft) temperature remained below 200 oC (392 oF) until the wind driven condition 

was developed. The temperature spiked quickly from 200 oC (392 oF) to 350 oC (662 oF) and steadily 

increased to over 600 oC (1112 oF). The WCD deployment had little effect on the temperature and the 

FBN activation decreased the stairwell temperature from 550 oC (1022 oF) to 250 oC (482 oF) while the 

water was flowing. The wind driven condition was eliminated once the bedroom was suppressed and 

the temperature decreased further once the living room was extinguished. 

Figure 3.8-18 shows the temperatures at 1.2 m (4 ft) which would be more representative to where 

firefighters would be operating or occupants would be evacuating. The temperature at this elevation in 

the bedroom behaved very similarly to the 2.1 m (7 ft) temperature. This was consistent with a well 

mixed ventilation limited fire. This temperature was within 100 oC (212 oF) for most of the experiment 

until about 825 s when there was enough oxygen from the broken window to create flashover conditions 

in the bedroom. From that time on the bedroom temperatures were uniform throughout. At 
242

approximately 825 s the flow path from the bedroom to the stairwell was well mixed and the 

temperatures were the same as the 2.1 m (7 ft) elevation showing that there was no longer a cool layer 

and the temperatures were increased from floor to ceiling. After the FBN was flowed into the bedroom 

and living room the temperatures decreased to approximately 200 oC (212 oF) which would allow fire 

fighters to advance to the fire apartment. 

Figure 3.8-19 shows the temperatures 1.2 m (4 ft) above the landing on floors 1, 2, 4, 6 and at the 

bulkhead. Temperatures in the stairwell above the fire floor began to escalate from 50 oC (122 oF), once 

the bulkhead door was opened and created a flow path through the bedroom and out of the top of the 

stairwell, to over 550 oC (1022 oF). The temperature on the 4th floor reached 300 oC (572 oF) before the 

deployment of the WCD. Blocking half of the flow through the bedroom window slowed the flow 

moving down the stairwell and decreased the temperature back down to 50 oC (122 oF). When the FBN 

was flowed into the living room and the bulkhead was closed the fire gases were pushed down the 

stairwell creating a temperature spike of 150 oC (302 oF) for a short period of time. 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: Ignition

BR: double failing

S5: opening

LBY: opening

S1: opening

BH: opening

BR: double clear

BR: placing WCD (double)

LR: window failing

BR: FBN flowing (double)

BR: FBN stopped (double)

BH: closed

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

S1: fan on

BH: opening

BH: closed

Removing air flow

Experiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

0

300

600

900

1200

1500

1800

32

572

1112

1652

2192

2732

3272

Temperature (F)

TC BR5KW 2.1m

TC Corr5KW 2.1m

TC Corr5GW 2.1m

TC CorrStair5W 2.1m

TC Stair5W 2.1m

Figure 3.8-17. 5K Temperature vs. time at 2.1 m above the floor 
243

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: Ignition

BR: double failing

S5: opening

LBY: opening

S1: opening

BH: opening

BR: double clear

BR: placing WCD (double)

LR: window failing

BR: FBN flowing (double)

BR: FBN stopped (double)

BH: closed

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

S1: fan on

BH: opening

BH: closed

Removing air flow

Experiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

0

300

600

900

1200

1500

32

572

1112

1652

2192

2732

Temperature (F)

TC BR5KW 1.2m

TC Corr5KW 1.2m

TC Corr5GW 1.2m

TC CorrStair5W 1.2m

TC Stair5W 1.2m

Figure 3.8-18. 5K Temperature vs. time at 1.2 m above the floor 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: Ignition

BR: double failing

S5: opening

LBY: opening

S1: opening

BH: opening

BR: double clear

BR: placing WCD (double)

LR: window failing

BR: FBN flowing (double)

BR: FBN stopped (double)

BH: closed

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

S1: fan on

BH: opening

BH: closed

Removing air flow

Experiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

0

200

400

600

800

32

392

752

1112

1472

Temperature (F)

TC Bulkhead MidW

TC Stair 6W

TC Stair 4W

TC Stair 2W

TC Stair1 MidW

Figure 3.8-19. 5K stairwell temperature vs. time 

3.8.3 Pressures

Average pressure measurements in the stairwell are shown in Figure 3.8-20. The differential pressure 

measurements were made at 1.2 m (4 ft) on the stairwell landing of every floor and referenced to an 

apartment on the same floor. With all of the doors to the stairwell closed the pressures fluctuated with 

an average pressure of approximately 10 Pa. The natural wind, number of damaged apartments from 

previous experiments and leaky stairwell doors caused the higher ambient pressures. After a window 

pane failed in the bedroom and the door to the stairwell was opened the pressure in the stair increased to 

40 Pa at the top of the stairwell and approximately 25 Pa in the area of the fire floor. Opening the 
244

bulkhead decreased the pressure in the stairwell to below 15 Pa. The fire floor pressure remained above 

25 Pa with the elevated temperatures from the wind driven fire and decreased once the WCD was 

deployed. The bulkhead door was closed at 1185 s and the pressure in the top three floors of the 

stairwell increased to above 30 Pa. Suppressing the living room fire decreased the pressures and adding 

the PPV fan increased the pressures in the entire stairwell to between 15 Pa and 25 Pa. 

Time (s)

Pressure (Pa)

BR: Ignition

BR: double failing

S5: opening

LBY: opening

S1: opening

BH: opening

BR: double clear

BR: placing WCD (double)

LR: window failing

BR: FBN flowing (double)

BR: FBN stopped (double)

BH: closed

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

S1: fan on

BH: opening

BH: closed

Removing air flow

Experiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

DP Stair 7W

DP Stair 6W

DP Stair 5W

DP Stair 4W

DP Stair 3W

DP Stair 2W

DP Stair 1W

Figure 3.8-20. 5K stairwell pressures vs. time 

3.8.4 Velocities

Average doorway velocities from 3 doors; the fire apartment door, the door from the fire floor to the 

stairwell, and the door at the base of the stairwell, were recorded versus time and shown in Figure 

3.8-21. The three bi-direction probes in each door were averaged to provide the bulk flow through the 

doors. A time history for each probe at each measurement location is located in Appendix D – Detailed 

Graphs. During the wind driven condition the velocity out of the fire apartment was as high as 9 m/s 

(20 mph). The velocity in through the 1st floor stair door was less than 1 m/s (2 mph) for most of the 

experiment and increased as the PPV fan was added later in the experiment. 
245

Time (s)

Velocity (m/s)

BR: Ignition

BR: double failing

S5: opening

LBY: opening

S1: opening

BH: opening

BR: double clear

BR: placing WCD (double)

LR: window failing

BR: FBN flowing (double)

BR: FBN stopped (double)

BH: closed

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

S1: fan on

BH: opening

BH: closed

Removing air flow

Experiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

-3

0

3

6

9

12

15

-7

0

7

13

20

27

34

Velocity (mph)

Exp 5K Stair5

Exp 5K Stair1

Exp 5K Apt5K

Figure 3.8-21. 5K Velocities vs. time 

3.8.5 Discussion

This experiment utilized the simulated wind directed into the bedroom and a wind driven condition was 

created which caused extremely hazardous conditions inside the building. Temperatures exceeded 

600 oC (1112 oF) throughout the fire floor at any elevation above the floor. These same temperatures 

entered the stairwell, extended to the top of the stairwell and created poor conditions from the top of the 

stairwell and down a floor to the 4th floor. The conditions created during this experiment were not 

conducive to a direct frontal fire attack and firefighters remote from the fire in the stairwell would have 

been threatened if they were in the flow path due to extreme temperatures. 

The first pane of the bedroom window failed at 304 s and the window completely failed at 831 s. The 

temperature in the center of the bedroom at 1.2 m (4 ft) at the time of window failure was approximately 

500 oC (932 oF). The temperature in the center of the room at the time of complete window failure was 

in excess of 900 oC (1652 oF). This demonstrates that when a portion of the window fails, the wind 

being introduced through the opening cools and slows the failure of the rest of the window. The 

majority of the window did not fail until the room transitioned to flashover. 

Similar to previous experiments the fire took a significant amount of time to develop even with a failed 

window pane in the fire room. The air was forced into the bedroom but had nowhere to travel to with 

the exception of leaks around doors. Once the stair door was opened the fire did not grow significantly. 

The first floor stair door was opened but even with a downward flow the smoke layer remains down to 

the floor level. Once the bulkhead door was opened the flow changes to up the stairwell and the fire was 

able to grow quickly. The open bulkhead door contributed to the development of the wind driven 

condition. A flow path is required for a wind driven fire condition to occur. 

The WCD device was deployed to block one half of the bedroom window. This was to gain insight into 

the question, if the WCD was not big enough to block an entire window, or if it can not be positioned 
246

into place, is there a benefit to blocking as much of it as possible and if you block half of the flow do 

you create better conditions in the structure? With the WCD in place, the conditions on the fire floor 

did not improve much. The greatest impact was in the stairwell. With half of the window blocked the 

temperatures below the fire floor returned to near ambient. This indicates that with the entire double 

window unblocked there was enough flow to split and move both up and down the stairwell. However 

with half the inlet area the flow did not have enough energy to split and the flow path up the stairwell 

could support the total flow. 

The 10.1 L/s (160 gpm) flow from the FBN 1 with a fog nozzle, directed into the bedroom, suppressed 

the bedroom fire. When the nozzle was flowing, the temperatures throughout the fire floor decreased. 

During the flowing of the FBN the corridor temperatures decreased from above 600 oC (1112 oF) to 

approximately 300 oC (572 oF). These temperatures were still above those that support fire fighters 

advancing down the corridor but the burning gases were stopped. Stairwell temperatures dropped to 

below 200 oC (392 oF) which would allow control to be gained of that door if it was lost previously. The 

flow into the bedroom did not suppress the living room fire which had vented itself out of the living 

room windows. The nozzle was redeployed to the living room window on the floor below and the fire 

was suppressed. This created conditions that would allow firefighters to advance and complete 

extinguishment and other operations on the fire floor. 

The use of the PPV fan after fire suppression reduced temperatures in the stairwell and returned 

visibility faster than if natural ventilation was used. Even with the fire suppressed, there was still smoke 

and hot gases being produced and the fan allowed these combustion products to be limited to the floor of 

origin and not spread throughout the stairwell. 
247

3.9 Experiment 5A

The ninth experiment was located on the 5th floor in apartment 5A. Experiment 5A was ignited in the 

bedroom furthest from the open apartment door (Figure 3.8-1). This experiment also utilized a 

simulated wind provided by the MVU. The simulated wind was subjected to the bedroom double 

window at a magnitude of approximately 9 m/s to 11 m/s (20 mph to 25 mph). The events that took 

place during the experiment to accomplish the experimental objectives bulleted below are shown in 

Table 3.9-1. 

Experimental Objectives 

• Create wind driven fire conditions from a bedroom fire 

• Examine window failure times and conditions 

• Examine building flows with different door opening configurations 

• Examine impact of the deployment of a WCD on fire room window 

• Control wind driven conditions with FBN in conjunction with WCD 

• Utilize portable PPV fans to control smoke movement 

The results for the experiment are presented in the following sections: observations, temperature, 

pressure, velocity, and discussion. Figure 3.8-2 shows the camera names and locations used in the 

observation section and the instrumentation names and locations used in the temperature, pressure and 

velocity sections. 
248

Figure 3.9-1. 5th floor apartment A floor plan with locations pertinent to Experiment 5A 
249

Table 3.9-1: Experiment 5A Timeline 

Start (s) End (s) Event Location Event Description 

0 0 Bedroom Ignition 

234 234 Bedroom double Bottom right pane failed 

322 325 Front lobby Right door opened 

359 361 1st floor stair A Door opened 

430 436 5th floor stair A Door opened 

528 532 Bulkhead door Opened 

588 588 Bedroom double Top right pane failed 

605 606 Bedroom single Top pane failing 

635 635 Bedroom double Bottom left pane failed 

660 661 Bedroom double Top left pane failed 

820 825 Bulkhead door Closed 

831 832 Bedroom single Bottom pane failed 

847 847 Bedroom single Clear 

895 902 Bedroom double WCD deployed 

986 996 Front lobby 2 - 27 inch fans activated 

1304 1336 Bedroom double WCD bottom corner peeled back 

1373 1373 Bedroom double FBN 2 started flowing (fog), blocked by WCD 

1378 1382 Bedroom double WCD bottom corner peeled away from nozzle 

1404 1404 Bedroom double FBN 2 stopped 

1573 1573 Experiment completed 
250

Figure 3.9-2. Instrumentation and camera locations with labels. 
251

3.9.1 Observations

The observations are presented as a series of images captured from eight camera locations, seven were 

video cameras and one was a thermal imaging cameras. The camera positions inside the building are 

shown in Figure 3.9-2. 

Figure 3.9-3 through Figure 3.9-16 present sets of eight images one from each camera position, at a 

given time, from the time of ignition to 24 min (1440 s) after ignition. Images were captured every 

4 min and at times when events had taken place that demonstrate the experimental objectives. Each 

image view is labeled. The first view (BEDROOM) at the top left of each figure shows the bedroom of 

apartment 5A, the bedroom furthest from the apartment entrance with a view of the single window 

straight across, double window to the right and ignition trashcan at the foot of the bed. The top right 

view (LIVINGRM) was of the living room looking across to the windows. The corridor view 

(CORRIDOR) shows the corridor leading up to the open apartment doorway. Next to that, the outside 

lobby view (LOBBY) shows the area just outside the lobby doors. The next two views (STAIR and 

STAIR IR) show the stairwell with a visual and a thermal imaging camera from the floor below the fire 

looking up to the fire floor. The bottom left view (ROOF) shows the bulkhead door at the top of the 

stairwell and the bottom right view (OUTSIDE) shows an external view of the fire apartment. 

Figure 3.9-3 shows the images at the time of ignition. At this point, the seven video views were clear 

and unobstructed. However, the thermal image provided limited thermal contrast because the surfaces 

in the view are at nearly equal temperature. Soot and thermal damage visible in the corridor and stair 

views are from previous experiments 

Figure 3.9-4 shows the images at 240 s (4 min) after ignition. The bedroom double window began to 

fail 6 seconds prior. Smoke had reached the floor in the living room, corridor, and bedroom views; a 

significant volume of smoke was leaking around the closed 5th floor stair A door as well. 

Figure 3.9-5 shows the images at 420 s (7 min) after ignition. At this point the front lobby door is open 

and the 1st Floor door to stair A has been open for a minute. The smoke level in stair A is moving below 

the 5th floor landing and the thermal imager view shows that the area around the stair door has become 

hotter. 

Figure 3.9-6 shows the images at 440 s (7 min and 20 s) after ignition. These images were recorded 4 s 

after the 5th stair door was opened. The fire continued to burn in the bedroom. Smoke obscuration in 

the stair increased after the door to the fire floor was opened. 

Figure 3.9-7 shows the images at 480 s (8 min) after ignition. No changes had been made since the 5th

stair door was opened. Conditions in the stair continued to decay. Visibility was nearly zero in the 

stairwell view, and the stair IR view was saturated by hot gases. 

Figure 3.9-8 shows the images at 600 s (10 min) after ignition. These images were recorded 

approximately 1 min after the bulkhead door was opened and 12 seconds after the top right pane of the 

bedroom double window failed. The increased ventilation to the fire apartment enabled the flames to 

spread to the living room. The visibility in the corridor and the stair had improved by a small amount. 
252

Figure 3.9-9 shows the images at 720 s (12 min) after ignition. At this point the bedroom double 

window had completely failed and the top portion of the bedroom single window had cracked and was 

leaking smoke. The fire had intensified in the bedroom. Flames were no longer visible in the living 

room. Smoke was venting from the open bulkhead door. 

Figure 3.9-10 shows the images at 890 s (14 min and 50 s) after ignition. At 847 s the bedroom single 

window failed (opened) completely. As a result of both the window and door openings to the bedroom 

the excess fuel in the hot gas layer burned away and the fire was reduced to flames attached to the 

burning objects in the room. The bulkhead door was closed approximately 1 min before the images 

were recorded. The conditions in the stair had not changed significantly 

Figure 3.9-11 shows the images at 910 s (15 min and 10 s) after ignition. The WCD deployment, over 

the bedroom double window opening, was completed 8 s before the images were recorded. Flames were 

extending out of the bedroom single window opening. 

Figure 3.9-12 shows the images at 960 s (16 min) after ignition. The flames which had been pushing out 

of the bedroom single window had withdrawn by this point. The hot gas layer in the living room had 

increased in thickness. 

Figure 3.9-13 shows the images at 1200 s (20 min) after ignition. The two 27 inch fans positioned in 

front of the lobby doors were activated 204 s prior. The fuel throughout the bedroom had largely burned 

out. The fans had improved visibility from the stair through the corridor and into the fire apartment, by 

venting the smoke through the bedroom single window opening. 

Figure 3.9-14 shows the images at 1365 s (22 min and 45 s) after ignition; approximately 30 s after the 

WCD was partially removed. The reintroduction of wind into the bedroom increased the fire size and 

flames were observed exiting the bedroom single window opening. 

Figure 3.9-15 shows the images at 1385 s (23 min and 5 s) after ignition. FBN 2 had been deployed and 

was flowing 160 gpm. The fire in the bedroom was suppressed and steam was being forced out of the 

bedroom window openings. Visibility in the stair improved. 

Figure 3.9-16 shows the images at 1440 s (24 min) after ignition. The water had flowed into the 

bedroom unobstructed for approximately 20 s. Some debris in the bedroom was still burning. Smoke 

had not yet cleared. 
253

Figure 3.9-3. Experiment 5A, ignition. 
254

Figure 3.9-4. Experiment 5A, 240s after ignition. 
255

Figure 3.9-5. Experiment 5A, 420s after ignition. 
256

Figure 3.9-6. Experiment 5A, 440s after ignition. 
257

Figure 3.9-7. Experiment 5A, 480s after ignition. 
258

Figure 3.9-8. Experiment 5A, 600s after ignition. 
259

Figure 3.9-9. Experiment 5A, 720s after ignition. 
260

Figure 3.9-10. Experiment 5A, 890s after ignition. 
261

Figure 3.9-11. Experiment 5A, 910s after ignition. 
262

Figure 3.9-12. Experiment 5A, 960s after ignition. 
263

Figure 3.9-13. Experiment 5A, 1200s after ignition. 
264

Figure 3.9-14. Experiment 5A, 1365s after ignition. 
265

Figure 3.9-15. Experiment 5A, 1385s after ignition. 
266

Figure 3.9-16. Experiment 5A, 1440s after ignition. 
267

3.9.2 Temperatures

Figure 3.9-17 through Figure 3.9-19 provide temperature data for five measurement locations on the fire 

floor at two elevations and throughout the height of the stairwell. The locations of the measurement 

points can be seen in Figure 3.9-2. The events that occurred during the experiment are listed on the top 

of the figures with lines at the time of the event. A time history for each thermocouple at each 

measurement location is located in Appendix D – Detailed Graphs. 

Figure 3.9-17 shows the temperatures versus time at 2.1 m (7 ft) above the floor at 5 measurement 

locations, the bedroom, just outside the fire apartment in the corridor, just outside Apartment 5E in the 

corridor, just outside the A stairwell doorway, and just inside the A stairwell on the landing. Opening 

the bulkhead door at 532 s, coupled with the partially opened bedroom double window resulted in the 

bedroom transitioning through flashover. As the bedroom double window vented completely, 

temperatures throughout the 5th floor increased. Note that the temperatures in the flow path were higher, 

while the temperature measurement position in front of Apartment 5E, out of the flow path, provided the 

lowest temperature. The deployment of the WCD at approximately 900 s reduced the temperature in the 

bedroom by almost 200 oC (392 oF). The addition of the two PPV fans in front of the lobby door 

provided additional temperature reductions in the stair and throughout the 5th floor. Partial removal of 

the WCD at approximately 1330 s resulted in increased temperatures in the bedroom and downstream 

locations, until the fire was suppressed with the FBN. 

Figure 3.9-18 shows the temperatures at 1.2 m (4 ft) which would be more representative to where 

firefighters would be operating or occupants would be evacuating. The temperature time histories at 

1.2 m (4 ft) above the floor in this experiment are very similar to the temperature time histories at 2.1 m 

(7 ft) above the floor. 

 

Figure 3.9-19 shows the temperatures 1.2 m (4 ft) above the landings on floors 1, 2, 4 and at the landing 

above the 7th floor with access to the roof. The temperatures at the bulkhead level began to increase first 

as the hot gases that leaked past the 5th floor stair door rose to the top of the stairwell. After the 5th floor 

stair door was opened, the temperatures at the bulkhead decreased, while the temperatures at the 

remaining measurement positions in the stairwell increased. Opening the bulkhead door reduced the 

temperatures throughout the stairwell, until the bedroom transitioned to flashover. Then the 

temperatures at the 4th floor landing and the bulkhead landing increased. After the bedroom single 

window failed, the temperature at the bulkhead landing decreased, but the temperatures increased at the 

4th and 2nd floor landings. Once the WCD was deployed, the temperatures throughout the stairwell were 

reduced. The addition of the PPV fans brought all the temperatures to near ambient conditions, with the 

exception of the bulkhead landing. The temperatures at the bulkhead landing were down to 

approximately 100 oC (212 oF), until the WCD was partially removed. Then the temperatures at the 4th

floor landing and the bulkhead increased until the end of the experiment. The temperature at the 4th

floor decreased to ambient temperatures during the period of water application. 
268

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: IgnitionBR: double failingLBY: right openingS1: openingS5: openingBH: openingBR: double half clearBR: single failingBR: double clearBH: closedBR: single clearBR: placing WCD (double)LBY: fans onBR: moving WCD (double)BR: FBN flowing (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)Experiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

0

300

600

900

1200

1500

32

572

1112

1652

2192

2732

Temperature (F)

TC BR5AE 2.1m

TC Corr5AE 2.1m

TC CorrStair5E 2.1m

TC Stair5E 2.1m

TC Corr5EE 2.1m

Figure 3.9-17. 5A Temperature vs. time at 2.1 m above the floor 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: IgnitionBR: double failingLBY: right openingS1: openingS5: openingBH: openingBR: double half clearBR: single failingBR: double clearBH: closedBR: single clearBR: placing WCD (double)LBY: fans onBR: moving WCD (double)BR: FBN flowing (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)Experiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

32

392

752

1112

1472

1832

2192

Temperature (F)

TC BR5AE 1.2m

TC Corr5AE 1.2m

TC Corr5EE 1.2m

TC CorrStair5E 1.2m

TC Stair5E 1.2m

Figure 3.9-18. 5A Temperature vs. time at 1.2 m above the floor 
269

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: IgnitionBR: double failingLBY: right openingS1: openingS5: openingBH: openingBR: double half clearBR: single failingBR: double clearBH: closedBR: single clearBR: placing WCD (double)LBY: fans onBR: moving WCD (double)BR: FBN flowing (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)Experiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

0

100

200

300

400

500

32

212

392

572

752

932

Temperature (F)

TC Bulkhead MidE

TC Stair 4E

TC Stair 2E

TC Stair1 MidE

Figure 3.9-19. 5A stairwell temperature vs. time 

3.9.3 Pressures

Average pressure measurements in the stairwell are shown in Figure 3.9-20. The differential pressure 

measurements were made at 1.2 m (4 ft) on the stairwell landing of every floor and referenced to an 

apartment on the same floor. With all of the doors to the stairwell closed the pressures remained below 

5 Pa and only fluctuated slightly. After the 5th floor stair door was opened the pressure in the stair 

increased with the pressures above the fire floor above 30 Pa. 

The impact of opening the bulkhead door was a drop in pressure throughout the height of the stairwell. 

The pressures increased again for the period between 588 s (venting of the top right portion of the 

bedroom double window and 606 s (venting of the top portion of the bedroom single window). 

Pressures in the stair remained low until the bulkhead door was closed at 825 s. 

Pressures in the stairwell ranged from near 0 Pa at the 1st floor up to approximately 60 Pa at the floors 

above the fire floor. Deploying the WCD reduced all of the pressures in the stairwell to less than 10 Pa. 

The PPV fans increased the pressures in the stair to a range of 10 to 20 Pa. Once the WCD was partially 

removed, the pressure from the wind drove the pressures in the stairwell up to approximately 40 Pa. The 

period of suppression, led to another decrease in pressure in the stairwell. 
270

Time (s)

Pressure (Pa)

BR: IgnitionBR: double failingLBY: right openingS1: openingS5: openingBH: openingBR: double half clearBR: single failingBR: double clearBH: closedBR: single clearBR: placing WCD (double)LBY: fans onBR: moving WCD (double)BR: FBN flowing (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)Experiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

-20

0

20

40

60

80

DP Stair 7E

DP Stair 6E

DP Stair 5E

DP Stair 4E

DP Stair 3E

DP Stair 2E

DP Stair 1E

Figure 3.9-20. 5A stairwell pressures vs. time 

3.9.4 Velocities

Average doorway velocities from 3 doors; the fire apartment door, the door from the fire floor to the 

stairwell, and the door at the base of the stair, were recorded versus time and shown in Figure 3.9-21. 

The three bi-directional probes in each door were averaged to provide the bulk flow through the doors. 

The peak velocities on the fire floor occurred with the bulkhead door open and half of the bedroom 

double window open. With the WCD in place, the PPV fans were able to reverse the flow through the 

fire floor. A time history for each probe at each measurement location is located in Appendix D – 

Detailed Graphs. 

The velocity reinforces the concept of the flow path. Prior to the failure of the upwind window in the 

bedroom, (room of fire origin), there is no significant flow out of the apartment 5A. After panes of the 

upwind window began to self vent, the flow out of the apartment began to increase. Providing a 

potential flow path between the fire apartment and the 1st floor, by opening the lobby doors, the 1st floor 

stair door and the 5th floor stair door, increased the flow from the fire apartment to approximately 

2 m/s (4 mph). Given that the combustion products entering the stairwell are buoyant, they have 

tendency to flow up instead of down the stairs. Hence when the bulkhead door was opened to provide 

an flow path to the roof, the velocity into the stair increased to approximately 4 m/s (9 mph). With this 

“preferred” flow path from the upwind window to the bulkhead open the fire continued to grow, 

additional portions of the window failed and the velocity out of the apartment and into the stair peaked 

at approximately 6 m/s (13 mph). The impact of closing the bulkhead door at 825 s after ignition 

reduced the flow out of the fire apartment to less than 1 m/s (2 mph). With the WCD was in place and 

the bulkhead door closed, the wind driven conditions were stopped. By using PPV fans on the 1st floor, 

the flow into the stairwell was reversed as fresh air was pushed from the higher pressure in the stairwell 

onto the fire floor and back through the fire apartment. This flow continued until the WCD was 

removed and suppression began. 
271

Time (s)

Velocity (m/s)

BR: IgnitionBR: double failingLBY: right openingS1: openingS5: openingBH: openingBR: double half clearBR: single failingBR: double clearBH: closedBR: single clearBR: placing WCD (double)LBY: fans onBR: moving WCD (double)BR: FBN flowing (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)Experiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

-9

-4

0

4

9

13

18

22

Velocity (mph)

Exp 5A Stair1

Exp 5A Stair5

Exp 5A Apt5A

Figure 3.9-21. 5A Velocities vs. time 

3.9.5 Discussion

In this experiment, a simulated wind driven fire condition was created which caused extremely 

hazardous conditions inside the building. The peak temperatures were generated by the creation of a 

flow path between the bedroom and the vented stairwell. The failure (self venting) of half of the 

bedroom double window combined with the open door between the fire floor and the stairwell and the 

open bulkhead door at the top of the stair led to the creation of a flow path. Temperatures in the flow 

path between the open bedroom window and the 5th floor stair exceeded 400 oC (752 oF) throughout the 

fire floor at both the 2.1 m (7 ft) and 1.2 m (4 ft) elevations above floor level. Heat and smoke entered 

the stair, resulting in poor visibility and increased temperatures both above and below the fire floor. In 

addition, the ventilation condition caused by the venting and doors resulted in a peak gas velocity of 

approximately 8 m/s (18 mph) on the fire floor. The thermal conditions created during this experiment 

were not conducive to a direct frontal fire attack and firefighters remote from the fire in the stairwell 

would have been threatened if they were in the flow path due to extreme temperatures. 

The first pane of the bedroom window failed at 234 s and the window completely failed at 661 s. The 

temperature in the center of the bedroom at 1.2 m (4 ft) at the time of window failure was approximately 

400 oC (752 oF). The temperature in the center of the room at the time of complete window failure was 

in excess of 900 oC (1652 oF). This demonstrates that when a portion of the window fails the wind being 

introduced through the opening cools and slows the development of the fire and the failure of the 

remaining sections of this type of window. However, given the fuel load, the partial failure of the 

window and the ventilation from the open stair door on the fire floor provided the oxygen required to 

achieve flashover. The majority of the window did not fail until after the room transitioned to flashover. 

Similar to previous experiments, the fire took a significant amount of time to develop even with a failed 

window pane in the fire room. The air was forced into the bedroom but had nowhere to travel to with 

the exception of leaks around doors. Once the stair door was opened the fire began to grow slowly. 
272

With the first floor stair door opened heat and smoke were pushed down the stairs. This flow was 

reversed at approximately 530 s when the bulkhead door was opened. Once the bulkhead door was 

opened, the pressure in the stairwell dropped and the hot gases flowed up the stairwell. This increase in 

flow through the fire apartment enabled the fire grow rapidly. The open bulkhead door provided the 

flow path needed to draw fire out of the room of origin and enable the thermal hazards of a wind driven 

condition on the fire floor. In this experiment the most notable changes in temperature, pressure and 

velocity were caused by opening or closing the bulkhead door. This shows that interrupting the flow 

path, anywhere on the flow path, can have a significant effect on the thermal conditions in the structure. 

The WCD device was only deployed over the upwind bedroom double window only. This was done to 

examine the effect that another open vent to the outside (bedroom single window) would have on the 

conditions in the building and what impact, if any, it would have on the WCD. The deployment was 

completed at approximately 900 s; more than a minute after the bulkhead door was closed. With the 

WCD in place the temperatures in the bedroom decreased from approximately 800 oC (1472 oF) to 

600 oC (1112 oF). Temperatures at other locations on the fire floor and the stairwell also decreased. 

The introduction of PPV, approximately 90 s after the deployment of the WCD, pressurized the stairwell 

and as a result reversed the flow of combustion products back through the fire apartment to be vented 

out of the bedroom single window opening. The PPV fans improved the visibility and reduced the 

temperatures in the stairwell. 

The 10.1 L/s (160 gpm) flow from the FBN 2 with a fog nozzle, directed into the bedroom, rapidly 

suppressed the decaying bedroom fire. The FBN only flowed water for approximately 30 s. While the 

water was flowing, the temperature in the bedroom decreased from approximately 600 oC (1112 oF) to 

approximately 100 oC (212 oF). Since the WCD was partially removed, after the water flow was 

stopped, the temperatures increased due to the wind pushing heat from the bedroom through the fire 

floor and into the stairwell. 
273

3.10Experiment 5G

The tenth experiment was located on the 5th floor in apartment 5G. Experiment 5G was ignited in the 

bedroom furthest from the open apartment door (Figure 3.10-1). This experiment also utilized a 

simulated wind provided by the MVU. The simulated wind was subjected to the bedroom double 

window at a magnitude of approximately 9 m/s to 11 m/s (20 mph to 25 mph). The events that took 

place during the experiment to accomplish the experimental objectives bulleted below are shown in 

Table 3.10-1. 

Experimental Objectives 

• Create wind driven fire conditions from a bedroom fire 

• Examine window failure times and conditions 

• Examine building flows with different door opening configurations 

• Examine impact of the deployment of a WCD on fire room window 

• Utilize portable PPV fans to control smoke movement 

The results for the experiment are presented in the following sections: observations, temperature, 

pressure, velocity, and discussion. Figure 3.10-2 shows the camera names and locations used in the 

observation section and the instrumentation names and locations used in the temperature, pressure and 

velocity sections. 
274

Figure 3.10-1. 5th floor apartment G floor plan with locations pertinent to Experiment 5G 
275

Table 3.10-1: Experiment 5G Timeline 

Start (s) End (s) Event Location Event Description 

0 0 Bedroom Ignition 

425 425 Bedroom double Bottom left pane failed 

491 493 Front lobby Left door opened 

503 506 1st floor stair A Door opened 

541 549 5th floor stair A Door opened 

569 576 Bulkhead door Opened 0.02 m (0.75 in) 

602 602 Bedroom double Top right pane failed 

628 628 Bedroom double Bottom right pane failed 

632 638 Bulkhead door Opened (all the way) 

648 648 Bedroom double Top left pane failed 

671 Bedroom single Failed 

877 879 Bedroom single WCD deployed 

959 1008 Living room window Manually vented 

1326 1326 Experiment completed 
276

Figure 3.10-2. Instrumentation and camera locations with labels. 
277

3.10.1Observations

The observations are presented as a series of images captured from eight camera locations, seven were 

video cameras and one was a thermal imaging camera. The camera positions inside the building are 

shown in Figure 3.10-2. 

Figure 3.10-3 through Figure 3.10-12 present sets of eight images one from each camera position, at a 

given time, from the time of ignition to 28 min (1680 s) after ignition. Images were captured every 

4 min and at times when events had taken place that demonstrate the experimental objectives. Each 

image view is labeled. The first view (BEDROOM) at the top left of each figure shows the bedroom of 

apartment 5G, the bedroom furthest from the apartment entrance with a view of the single window 

straight across, double window to the right and ignition trashcan at the foot of the bed. The top right 

view (LIVINGRM) was of the living room looking across to the windows. The corridor view 

(CORRIDOR) shows the corridor leading up to the open apartment doorway. Next to that, the outside 

lobby view (LOBBY) shows the area just outside the lobby doors. The next two views (STAIR and 

STAIR IR) show the stairwell with a visual and a thermal imaging camera from the floor below the fire 

looking up to the fire floor. The bottom left view (ROOF) shows the bulkhead door at the top of the 

stairwell, this view is disconnected shortly after ignition. The bottom, right view (OUTSIDE) shows an 

external view of the fire apartment. 

Figure 3.10-3 shows the images at the time of ignition. At this point, the seven video views were clear 

and unobstructed. However, the thermal image provided limited thermal contrast because the surfaces 

in the view are at nearly equal temperature. The damage to the corridor and stairwell from Experiment 

5K can be seen as the existing condition in these areas. 

Figure 3.10-4 shows the images at 240 s (4 min) after ignition. The fire ignited in the trash container at 

the base of the bed has just spread to the comforter and sheets on the bed. The smoke layer in the 

ignition bedroom has descended to about 0.9 m (3 ft) above the floor. The smoke in the living room or 

corridor was light in color and not very dense. At this point the roof view had malfunctioned and was 

lost for the remainder of this experiment. 

Figure 3.10-5 shows the images at 480 s (8 min) after ignition. The lower left pane of the bedroom

double window had failed 55 s prior. Smoke had filled the bedroom, living room, and corridor reducing 

the visibility in those views to nearly zero. Smoke which was leaking past the 5th floor stair A door was 

descending the stairwell. 

Figure 3.10-6 shows the images at 550 s (9 min and 10 s) after ignition. The stairwell door on the 5th

floor was opened and visibility in the stairwell on the floor below the fire was reduced further. Heat was 

also flowing down the stairwell as seen in the thermal imaging view. The lobby doors were opened 44 s 

prior creating a flow path down the stairwell. No flames are visible from the Tower View and the 

bedroom camera has been obscured by soot. 

Figure 3.10-7 shows the images at 575 s (9 min and 35 s) after ignition. Flames were now visible in the 

living room and smoke was flowing out of the lobby doors. Flames were visible from the corridor and 

the density of the smoke in the stairwell was decreasing. There was still only one failed window pane in 
278

the bedroom so the fire was still growing after being cooled initially by the introduction of cold air from 

the outside. 

Figure 3.10-8 shows the images at 630 s (10 min and 30 s) after ignition. The remainder of the bedroom 

double window’s panes had failed and flames were pulsing back out toward the simulated wind. 

Visibility worsened in the corridor and stairwell and more heat was being forced down the stairwell. 

The amount of smoke coming out of the lobby from the stairwell was increasing. 

Figure 3.10-9 shows the images at 720 s (12 min) after ignition. The bulkhead door had been opened 

completely 82 s prior. Smoke density in the stairwell was noticeably reduced. Flames were no longer 

pushing from the bedroom double window. Smoke was still coming out of the lobby and the thermal 

imaging camera had malfunctioned due to extreme heat exposure. 

Figure 3.10-10 shows the images at 885 s (14 min and 45 s) after ignition. A WCD was deployed over 

the bedroom single window to prevent the loss of wind flow through that window and create worse 

conditions downstream in the structure. Visibility was beginning to return to the living room and no 

flames were visible. Flames were pulsing out of the bedroom double window again. 

Figure 3.10-11 shows the images at 960 s (16 min) after ignition. Smoke density in the stairwell had 

decreased noticeably from 80 s prior when the WCD was deployed over the bedroom single window 

indicating less burning and more flow moving up the stairwell. There was no longer smoke coming 

from the lobby doors. 

Figure 3.10-12 shows the images at 1200 s (20 min) after ignition. The living room windows had been 

manually ventilated at 1008 s to see if there was any fire in the living room and to see if it would 

intensify. At this time there did not appear to be any fire in the living room. Smoke had largely cleared 

the stairwell at this point. Visibility in the corridor had also improved significantly. The tower view 

was temporarily disabled during this period. 
279

Figure 3.10-3. Experiment 5G, ignition. 
280

Figure 3.10-4. Experiment 5G, 240s after ignition. 
281

Figure 3.10-5. Experiment 5G, 480s after ignition. 
282

Figure 3.10-6. Experiment 5G, 550s after ignition. 
283

Figure 3.10-7. Experiment 5G, 575s after ignition. 
284

Figure 3.10-8. Experiment 5G, 630s after ignition. 
285

Figure 3.10-9. Experiment 5G, 720s after ignition. 
286

Figure 3.10-10. Experiment 5G, 885s after ignition. 
287

Figure 3.10-11. Experiment 5G, 960s after ignition. 
288

Figure 3.10-12. Experiment 5G, 1200s after ignition. 
289

3.10.2 Temperatures

Figure 3.10-13 through Figure 3.10-15 provide temperature data for five measurement locations on the 

fire floor at two elevations and throughout the height of the stairwell. The locations of the measurement 

points can be seen in Figure 3.10-2. The events that occurred during the experiment are listed on the top 

of the figures with lines at the time of the event. A time history for each thermocouple at each 

measurement location can be found in Appendix D – Detailed Graphs. 

Figure 3.10-13 shows the temperatures versus time at 2.1 m (7 ft) above the floor at 5 measurement 

locations, the bedroom, just outside the fire apartment in the corridor, just outside Apartment 5K in the 

corridor, just outside the A stairwell doorway, and just inside the A stairwell on the landing. The 

temperature in the bedroom increased to above 300 oC (572 oF) and became ventilation limited. The 

temperature remained constant until the window began to fail. After the first pane failed the temperature 

increased to over 600 oC (1112 oF). The temperature decreased again and then climbed above 800 oC 

(1472 oF) with the fire floor stairwell door opened. The temperature in the bedroom remained above 

700 oC (1292 oF) for the remainder of the experiment. 

Corridor and stairwell temperatures at 2.1 m (7 ft) remained below 200 oC (392 oF) until the 5th floor 

stairwell door was opened and the temperatures increased to above 300 oC (572 oF). The corridor 

temperature peaked at approximately 450 oC (842 oF). A wind driven fire never fully developed and the 

temperatures decreased after 800 s because the fuel was burning down in the bedroom and the living 

room never ignited. 

Figure 3.10-14 shows the temperatures at 1.2 m (4 ft) which would be more representative to where 

firefighters would be operating or occupants would be evacuating. The temperature in the bedroom at 

1.2 m (4 ft) increased to approximately 250 oC (482 oF) and became ventilation limited. The 

temperature remained constant until the window began to fail. After the first pane failed the temperature 

increased to over 500 oC (932 oF). The temperature decreased again and then climbed above 800 oC 

(1472 oF) with the fire floor stairwell door opened. The bedroom transitioned to flashover and the 

temperatures at every elevation remained above 700 oC (1292 oF) for the remainder of the experiment. 

Corridor and stairwell temperatures at 1.2 m (4 ft) remained below 200 oC (392 oF) until the 5th floor 

stairwell door was opened and the temperatures increased to above 300 oC (572 oF). The corridor 

temperature tracked with the 2.1 m (7 ft) elevation for the remainder of the experiment, while the wind 

was flowing into the bedroom creating a well mixed flow and no lower layer. 

Figure 3.10-15 shows the temperatures 1.2 m (4 ft) above the landing on floors 1, 2, 4, 6 and at the 

landing above the 7th floor with access to the roof. After the fire floor stairwell door was opened the 

temperature on the landing above and below the fire floor increased to over 200 oC (392 oF). Once the 

bulkhead door was opened the temperature below the fire floor decreased and the temperature above the 

fire floor increased to 340 oC (644 oF) and the temperature at the top of the stairwell increased to 250 oC 

(482 oF). 
290

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: IgnitionBR: double failingLBY: left openingS1: openingS5: openingBH: opening 0.02 mBH: openBR: double clearBR: placing WCD (single)LR: window ventingExperiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

32

392

752

1112

1472

1832

2192

Temperature (F)

TC BR5GW 2.1m

TC Corr5GW 2.1m

TC Corr5KW 2.1m

TC CorrStair5W 2.1m

TC Stair5W 2.1m

Figure 3.10-13. 5G Temperature vs. time at 2.1 m above the floor 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: IgnitionBR: double failingLBY: left openingS1: openingS5: openingBH: opening 0.02 mBH: openBR: double clearBR: placing WCD (single)LR: window ventingExperiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

32

392

752

1112

1472

1832

2192

Temperature (F)

TC BR5GW 1.2m

TC Corr5GW 1.2m

TC Corr5KW 1.2m

TC CorrStair5W 1.2m

TC Stair5W 1.2m

Figure 3.10-14. 5G Temperature vs. time at 1.2 m above the floor 
291

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: IgnitionBR: double failingLBY: left openingS1: openingS5: openingBH: opening 0.02 mBH: openBR: double clearBR: placing WCD (single)LR: window ventingExperiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

0

100

200

300

400

32

212

392

572

752

Temperature (F)

TC Bulkhead MidW

TC Stair 6W

TC Stair 4W

TC Stair 2W

TC Stair1 MidW

Figure 3.10-15. 5G stairwell temperature vs. time 

3.10.3 Pressures

Average pressure measurements in the stairwell are shown in Figure 3.10-16. The differential pressure 

measurements were made at 1.2 m (4 ft) on the stairwell landing of every floor and referenced to an 

apartment on the same floor. With all of the doors to the stairwell closed the pressures remained below 

8 Pa and only fluctuated slightly. When the window in the fire room failed the pressures in the stairwell 

increased slightly due to the leaks around the fire floor door. After the fire floor door was opened the 

pressure in the top of the stairwell increased to as high as 68 Pa at the top of the stairwell and 

approximately 50 Pa in the area of the fire floor. Pressures below the 4th floor remained below 20 Pa 

due to the 1st floor door being opened. The bulkhead door was opened at 635 s and the pressures 

decreased to below 10 Pa with the exception of the fire floor. 
292

Time (s)

Pressure (Pa)

BR: IgnitionBR: double failingLBY: left openingS1: openingS5: openingBH: opening 0.02 mBH: openBR: double clearBR: placing WCD (single)LR: window ventingExperiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

-20

0

20

40

60

80

DP Stair 7W

DP Stair 6W

DP Stair 5W

DP Stair 4W

DP Stair 3W

DP Stair 2W

DP Stair 1W

Figure 3.10-16. 5G stairwell pressures vs. time 

3.10.4 Velocities

Average doorway velocities from 4 doors; the fire apartment door, the door from the fire floor to the 

stairwell, the door at the base of the stair and the door at the bulkhead, were recorded versus time and 

shown in Figure 3.10-17. The three bi-direction probes in each door were averaged to provide the bulk 

flow through the doors. A time history for each probe at each measurement location is located in 

Appendix D – Detailed Graphs. 

Velocities out of the fire apartment and into the corridor were approximately 1 m/s (2 mph) after the 

windows failed and increased to 3 m/s (7 mph) with the fire floor door open and increased further to 

approximately 7 m/s (16 mph) after the bulkhead door was opened. Flows out of the bulkhead door 

reached 10 m/s (22 mph) at the peak and bulk flows into the 1st floor stairwell door were approximately 

1 m/s (2.2 mph). 
293

Time (s)

Velocity (m/s)

BR: IgnitionBR: double failingLBY: left openingS1: openingS5: openingBH: opening 0.02 mBH: openBR: double clearBR: placing WCD (single)LR: window ventingExperiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

-34

-22

-11

0

11

22

Velocity (mph)

Exp 5G Bulkhead

Exp 5G Stair1

Exp 5G Stair5

Exp 5G Apt5G

Figure 3.10-17. 5G Velocities vs. time 

3.10.5 Discussion

This experiment began in a similar way to many of the others, with a growing fire in the bedroom that 

became ventilation limited until the window failed. The difference in this experiment was that a fully 

developed wind driven condition was never created and the fire ran out of fuel before flames could be 

forced into the corridor. A possible reason for this could be that the single window in the bedroom 

failed allowing a loss of flow and more burning locally to consume the fuel faster. The source of wind 

was directed at the bedroom double window and when the single window failed that became the path of 

least resistance. There was more flow entering the room than could leave out the single window so flow 

did force hot gases into the corridor and hallway but flames being forced into the living room from floor 

to ceiling did not occur. Flames temporarily were forced into the living room, but nothing was ignited. 

A WCD was deployed to block the loss of flow out of the single window, but by that time in the 

experiment, there was not enough fuel remaining in the bedroom to generate the energy and conditions 

for flashover. 

While a fully developed wind driven condition was not achieved a possible tactic was highlighted. If it 

can be determined from the team above the fire apartment that the wind is only subjected to one side of 

the fire room and there is a second window on the downwind side of the fire room that has not self 

ventilated then manually ventilating that window could reduce the impact of the wind down stream by 

providing a low pressure relief locally to the fire. Another vent should not be made on the upwind side 

or if it is suspected that the wind could shift, because this could lead to additional wind pushing into the 

fire room, which could add to the wind driven fire flows in the structure. 

The first pane of the bedroom window failed at 425 s and the window completely failed at 648 s. The 

temperature in the center of the bedroom at 1.2 m (4 ft) at the time of window failure was approximately 

240 oC (464 oF). The temperature in the center of the room at the time of complete window failure was 

in excess of 800 oC (1472 oF). This demonstrates that when a portion of the window fails the wind being 
294

introduced through the opening cools and slows the failure of the rest of the window. The majority of 

the window did not fail until the room transitioned to flashover. The single window in the room failed at 

671 s when the room temperature was approximately 850 oC (1562 oF). 

Once again during this experiment the fire could not grow until a ventilation path was created. When 

the flow path was made to go down the stairs and out the 1st floor the fire grew but did so slowly. When 

the path was transitioned to travel up the stairs and out of the bulkhead the fire peaked but had run low 

on fuel. The hot gases traveled past the living room but did not ignite it because of lack of oxygen in the 

living room and lack of a flow path toward the living room windows. When the living room window 

was manually ventilated to try to flow past the sofas the fire in the bedroom had already burned down 

and would not spread. 
295

3.11Experiment 5G2

The eleventh experiment in the structure was located in the same apartment as the tenth experiment, 5G. 

Experiment 5G2 was ignited in the living room on the top of sofa that backed to the bedroom (Figure 

3.11-1). The fire in the bedroom did not extend beyond the room of origin so the apartment was cleared 

of smoke and the experiment was ignited. Both windows in the back bedroom had failed in the previous 

experiment so they remained open during this experiment. The living room window was also manually 

ventilated during the previous experiment so this experiment began with the window open. This 

experiment also utilized a simulated wind provided by the MVU. The simulated wind was subjected 

into the living room window at a magnitude of approximately 9 m/s to 11 m/s (20 mph to 25 mph). The 

events that took place during the experiment to accomplish the experimental objectives below are shown 

in Table 3.11-1. 

Experimental Objectives 

• Create wind driven fire conditions from a living room fire 

• Examine building flows with different door opening configurations 

• Examine impact of the deployment of a WCD on fire room window 

• Utilize portable PPV fans to control smoke movement 

• Control wind driven conditions with FBN in conjunction with WCD 

The results for the experiment are presented in the following sections: observations, temperature, 

pressure, velocity, and discussion. Figure 3.11-2 shows the camera names and locations used in the 

observation section and the instrumentation names and locations used in the temperature, pressure and 

velocity sections. 
296

Figure 3.11-1. 5th floor apartment G floor plan with locations pertinent to Experiment 5G2 
297

Table 3.11-1: Experiment 5G2 Timeline 

Start (s) End (s) Event Location Event Description 

0 0 Living room Ignition (window vented) 

39 44 1st floor stair A 27 inch fan deactivated 

177 187 5th floor stair A Door closed 

518 521 5th floor stair A Door opened 

543 547 Bulkhead door Opened 

687 706 Living room window WCD deployed 

746 748 Front lobby 2 - 27 inch fans activated 

801 803 Living room window WCD pulled back at bottom right 

819 825 Bulkhead door Closed 

823 834 Living room window FBN 2 inserted, bottom right replaced 

879 879 Living room window FBN 2 started flowing water (fog) 

932 932 Living room window FBN 2 stopped 

933 944 Living room window WCD pulled back at bottom right 

953 953 Living room window FBN 2 started flowing water (fog) 

978 978 Living room window FBN 2 stopped 

1084 1085 Living room window WCD replaced 

1125 1157 Front lobby One 27 inch fan moved inside 

1138 1141 Front lobby Right door opened 

1172 1175 Front lobby Right door closed 

1350 1350 Experiment completed 
298

Figure 3.11-2. Instrumentation and camera locations with labels. 
299

3.11.1Observations

The observations are presented as a series of images captured from eight camera locations, seven were 

video cameras and one was a thermal imaging camera. The camera positions inside the building are 

shown in Figure 3.11-2. 

Figure 3.11-3 through Figure 3.11-15 present sets of eight images one from each camera position, at a 

given time, from the time of ignition to 28 min (1680 s) after ignition. Images were captured every 

4 min and at times when events had taken place that demonstrate the experimental objectives. Each 

image view is labeled. The first view (BEDROOM) at the top left of each figure shows the bedroom of 

apartment 5G, the bedroom furthest from the apartment entrance with a view of the single window 

straight across, double window to the right and ignition trashcan at the foot of the bed. The top right 

view (LIVINGRM) was of the living room looking across to the windows. The corridor view 

(CORRIDOR) shows the corridor leading up to the open apartment doorway. Next to that, the outside 

lobby view (LOBBY) shows the area just outside the lobby doors. The next two views (STAIR and 

STAIR IR) show the stairwell with a visual and a thermal imaging camera from the floor below the fire 

looking up to the fire floor. The bottom left view (ROOF) shows the bulkhead door at the top of the 

stairwell, this view is disconnected shortly after ignition. The bottom, right view (OUTSIDE) shows an 

external view of the fire apartment. 

Figure 3.11-3 shows the images at the time of ignition. The bedroom and roof views were still missing 

from the previous experiment (experiment 5G). The living room window was vented in the previous 

experiment. The firefighters in the corridor view were performing a remote ignition of the living room 

and retreated from that area shortly after. 

Figure 3.11-4 shows the images at 240 s (4 min) after ignition. At this point the sofa where ignition 

occurred was mostly involved in flames, and those flames were visible from the corridor view, which 

looks directly into the living room area through the apartment entrance. While there was no visible 

smoke layer, the amount of smoke in the living room, stairwell, and corridor had increased noticeably. 

Figure 3.11-5 shows the images at 480 s (8 min) after ignition. At this point the sofa which provided the 

ignition location in the living room was fully involved. Visibility in the corridor has reduced to zero. 

Conditions in the stairwell had not changed noticeably from 240 s prior. 

Figure 3.11-6 shows the images at 565 s (9 min and 25 s) after ignition. The living room was 

transitioning to flashover and flames were beginning to spread into the corridor. High heat conditions 

have made it to the open stairwell and smoke was exiting the front lobby doors. The bulkhead door was 

opened 18 s earlier. 

Figure 3.11-7 shows the images at 695 s (11 min and 35 s) after ignition. The WCD deployment began 

over the living room window 8 s prior to this image. The view in the living room and corridor was 

darkened down due to under-ventilated conditions. Visibility in the stairwell was zero and heat was still 

visible coming down the stairs. 
300

Figure 3.11-8 shows the images at 720 s (12 min) after ignition. At this point the corridor camera view 

was lost for the remainder of the test. Significant volumes of smoke were venting down the stairwell 

and out the open lobby doors. The conditions in the stairwell remained the same from the previous set 

of images. 

Figure 3.11-9 shows the images at 820 s (13 min and 40 s) after ignition. This image showed the WCD 

being pulled back so that the FBN 2 could be inserted from below. Flames were visible in the living 

room and conditions in the stairwell were still poor. Two PPV fans were operating outside the lobby 

doors. Shortly after this image the WCD was placed back into place to cover the FBN 2. 

Figure 3.11-10 shows the images at 945 s (15 min and 45 s) after ignition. The FBN 2 with a fog nozzle 

was flowed into the living room for 53 s and then the WCD was pulled back to observe its effectiveness. 

There were no longer flames visible from the outside or inside views. There was no longer smoke 

coming out of the lobby doors and the stairwell view was not clear but could be obscured by soot 

deposited on the lens of the camera. 

Figure 3.11-11 shows the images at 960 s (16 min) after ignition. At this point conditions had not 

changed significantly from 15 s prior. The FBN 2 was flowed again with the WCD pulled back to 

further extinguish the fire. Some steam was coming out of the living room and conditions in the 

stairwell were improved. 

Figure 3.11-12 shows the images at 1200 s (20 min) after ignition. The fire in the living room was 

largely extinguished, and visibility had returned to all of the remaining views. One PPV fan was moved 

inside to the 1st floor doorway. It was activated 44 s prior and the visibility in the stairwell improved. 
301

Figure 3.11-3. Experiment 5G2, ignition. 
302

Figure 3.11-4. Experiment 5G2, 240s after ignition. 
303

Figure 3.11-5. Experiment 5G2, 480s after ignition. 
304

Figure 3.11-6. Experiment 5G2, 565s after ignition. 
305

Figure 3.11-7. Experiment 5G2, 695s after ignition. 
306

Figure 3.11-8. Experiment 5G2, 720s after ignition. 
307

Figure 3.11-9. Experiment 5G2, 820s after ignition. 
308

Figure 3.11-10. Experiment 5G2, 945s after ignition. 
309

Figure 3.11-11. Experiment 5G2, 960s after ignition. 
310

Figure 3.11-12. Experiment 5G2, 1200s after ignition. 
311

3.11.2 Temperatures

Figure 3.11-13 through Figure 3.11-15 provide temperature data for four measurement locations on the 

fire floor at two elevations and throughout the height of the stairwell. The locations of the measurement 

points can be seen in Figure 3.11-2. The events that occurred during the experiment are listed on the top 

of the figures with lines at the time of the event. A time history for each thermocouple at each 

measurement location is located in Appendix D – Detailed Graphs. 

Figure 3.11-13 shows the temperatures versus time at 2.1 m (7 ft) above the floor at 4 measurement 

locations; just outside the fire apartment in the corridor, just outside Apartment 7K in the corridor, just 

outside the A stairwell doorway, and just inside the A stairwell on the landing. The temperatures in the 

hallway increased as the fire in the living room increased. The fire transitioned to flashover at 

approximately 565 s, 30 s after the bulkhead door was opened. Shortly after this time the temperatures 

in the flow path increased from 250 oC (482 oF) to over 600 oC (1112 oF) in seconds. The temperature in 

the corridor peaked at 800 oC (1472 oF) and decreased to just over 600 oC (1112 oF) before the WCD 

was deployed. The WCD maintained temperatures below 600 oC (1112 oF) by eliminating the wind but 

air was still available to the fire from the open bedroom windows. Temperatures dropped further when 

the FBN was directed into the living room. The water decreased the temperature to below 300 oC 

(572 oF) in less than 1 min of flowing. 

Figure 3.11-14 shows the temperatures at 1.2 m (4 ft) which would be more representative to where 

firefighters would be operating or occupants would be evacuating. These temperatures were almost 

identical to the 2.1 m (7 ft) measurements because the wind was flowing into the apartment for the 

duration of the experiment. The wind was mixing all the gases and there was no layering in the corridor 

or stairwell. 

Figure 3.11-15 shows the temperatures 1.2 m (4 ft) above the landing on floors 1, 2, 4, 6 and at the 

bulkhead. After the 5th floor stairwell door was opened there was a rush of heat into the stairwell, 

including increases in temperature all the way down to the lobby of 100 oC (212 oF). The bulkhead door 

was opened 16 s later and the flow transitioned to up the stairwell strictly. Temperatures as high as 

600 oC (1112 oF) were measured at the floor above the fire and the bulkhead temperature peaked at 

approximately 400 oC (752 oF). The WCD maintained stairwell temperatures below 500 oC (932 oF) and 

the FBN decreased the temperatures to less than 200 oC (392 oF) quickly. The combination of these 

tactics would allow a fire fighting crew to advance to the fire apartment. 
312

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

LR: Ignition

S1: fan off

S5: closed

S5: opening

BH: opening

LR: placing WCD

LBY: fans on

LR: moving WCD

BH: closed

LR: WCD replaced

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

LR: moving WCD

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

LR: WCD replaced

LBY: fan moved

Experiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

0

200

400

600

800

1000

32

392

752

1112

1472

1832

Temperature (F)

TC Corr5GW 2.1m

TC Corr5KW 2.1m

TC CorrStair5W 2.1m

TC Stair5W 2.1m

Figure 3.11-13. 5G2 Temperature vs. time at 2.1 m above the floor 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

LR: Ignition

S1: fan off

S5: closed

S5: opening

BH: opening

LR: placing WCD

LBY: fans on

LR: moving WCD

BH: closed

LR: WCD replaced

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

LR: moving WCD

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

LR: WCD replaced

LBY: fan moved

Experiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

0

200

400

600

800

1000

32

392

752

1112

1472

1832

Temperature (F)

TC Corr5GW 1.2m

TC Corr5KW 1.2m

TC CorrStair5W 1.2m

TC Stair5W 1.2m

Figure 3.11-14. 5G2 Temperature vs. time at 1.2 m above the floor 
313

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

LR: Ignition

S1: fan off

S5: closed

S5: opening

BH: opening

LR: placing WCD

LBY: fans on

LR: moving WCD

BH: closed

LR: WCD replaced

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

LR: moving WCD

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

LR: WCD replaced

LBY: fan moved

Experiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

0

200

400

600

800

32

392

752

1112

1472

Temperature (F)

TC Bulkhead MidW

TC Stair 6W

TC Stair 4W

TC Stair 2W

TC Stair1 MidW

Figure 3.11-15. 5G2 stairwell temperature vs. time 

3.11.3 Pressures

Average pressure measurements in the stairwell are shown in Figure 3.11-16. The differential pressure 

measurements were made at 1.2 m (4 ft) on the stairwell landing of every floor and referenced to an 

apartment on the same floor. The wind was subjected to the fire apartment from ignition time on so 

there was no ambient pressure. The initial pressures were 20 Pa to 40 Pa at the top of the stairwell and 0 

Pa to 20 Pa in the lower portion of the stairwell with the fire floor door open and the 1st floor stair door 

open. When the 5th floor door was closed the pressures all dropped below 20 Pa. Opening the fire floor 

door again when the fire was growing increased the pressures to as high as 60 Pa. The pressures 

dropped again when the bulkhead door was opened 16 s later. Pressures remained low until the WCD 

was pulled back for the nozzle and the PPV fans were turned on. Pressures reached as high as 80 Pa 

with the effects of the fire, wind and fans. 
314

Time (s)

Pressure (Pa)

LR: Ignition

S1: fan off

S5: closed

S5: opening

BH: opening

LR: placing WCD

LBY: fans on

LR: moving WCD

BH: closed

LR: WCD replaced

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

LR: moving WCD

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

LR: WCD replaced

LBY: fan moved

Experiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

DP Stair 7W

DP Stair 6W

DP Stair 5W

DP Stair 4W

DP Stair 3W

DP Stair 2W

DP Stair 1W

Figure 3.11-16. 5G2 stairwell pressures vs. time 

3.11.4 Velocities

Average doorway velocities from 3 doors; the fire apartment door, the door from the fire floor to the 

stairwell and the door at the base of the stair, were recorded versus time and shown in Figure 3.11-17. 

The three bi-direction probes in each door were averaged to provide the bulk flow through the doors. A 

time history for each probe at each measurement location is located in Appendix D – Detailed Graphs. 

The initial velocities while the fire was growing were approximately 3 m/s (7 mph) into the fire 

apartment and down the stairwell to the first floor. This bulk velocity decreased to less than 1 m/s 

(2 mph) when the stairwell was closed. The peak velocity out of the fire apartment and into the stairwell 

was approximately 7 m/s (16 mph) when the fire was at its peak and the stair and bulkhead doors were 

open. Deploying the WCD slowed the velocity and suppressing the fire decreased the velocity to less 

than 2 m/s (4 mph). 
315

Time (s)

Velocity (m/s)

LR: Ignition

S1: fan off

S5: closed

S5: opening

BH: opening

LR: placing WCD

LBY: fans on

LR: moving WCD

BH: closed

LR: WCD replaced

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

LR: moving WCD

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

LR: WCD replaced

LBY: fan moved

Experiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

-9

-4

0

4

9

13

18

Velocity (mph)

Exp 5G2 Stair1

Exp 5G2 Stair5

Exp 5G2 Apt5G

Figure 3.11-17. 5G2 Velocities vs. time 

3.11.5 Discussion

Wind driven fire conditions were created utilizing the simulated wind from the MVU. Flames entered 

the corridor and temperatures in the stairwell exceeded 600 oC (1112 oF). Large amounts of smoke were 

forced out of the front lobby door displaying untenable conditions throughout the entire stairwell. The 

condition created during this experiment were not conducive to a direct frontal fire attack and 

firefighters remote from the fire in the stairwell would have been threatened if they were in the flow path 

due to extreme temperatures. 

The wind was able to flow into the living room through the open door so the fire had to grow with cool 

air moving past it, which it was able to do. As in many of the experiments, the fire did not grow quickly 

when the flow path was down the stairs but transitioned quickly when the bulkhead door was opened. 

The fire transitioned to flashover and failed to result in a wind driven condition. The hot gases were 

primarily being forced to the stairwell and up the stairs to the open bulkhead door. Once the WCD was 

deployed the conditions changed. The flow was stopped but the fire still was able to burn because of the 

air available from the open windows in the bedrooms and the open stairwell. The fire floor door is a 

key door to control to limit the impact to the rest of the structure. With this door open all floors were 

threatened with untenable conditions for firefighters and occupants. 

The WCD was effective at minimizing the impact of the wind, but in this scenario there was still plenty 

of oxygen available to the fire from the opening made from the previous experiment. The WCD relies 

on limiting the oxygen to slow the burning and lower the temperatures. The WCD held up well to 

extreme temperature above 500 oC (932 oF) for more than 150 s. The WCD was also controlled by the 

crew to be able to pull a corner of the WCD away to insert the FBN. At one point, the WCD was 

wrapped around the FBN, but that was fixed by the deployment crews. 
316

The PPV fans were activated to push the smoke up the stairwell once the WCD was deployed. The fans 

were effective when the wind was blocked but were less effective when the WCD was pulled back for 

the nozzle to be inserted. The fans just don’t increase the pressure enough to stop the higher flow from 

the wind. Stairwell temperatures in the area of the fire floor decreased by over 200 oC (392 oF) when the 

fans were activated and the WCD was in place. After the fire was suppressed the fans did a good job of 

keeping the smoke out of the stair, even with a little wind effect. 

The FBN 2 with a fog nozzle was flowed at approximately 160 gpm for 60 s. The fire in the living room 

was suppressed but not extinguished. The temperature in the corridor decreased significantly from 

above 600 oC (1112 oF) to under 300 oC (572 oF) in seconds. The FBN performed well in conjunction 

with the WCD but this was very labor intensive and required practice by the crews involved to execute 

properly. 
317

3.12Experiment 3E

The twelfth experiment in the structure was located on the 3rd floor in apartment 3E. Experiment 3E 

was ignited in both the bedroom and the living room in an effort have both rooms involved in fire 

simultaneously to examine the impact of a FBN deployed in the bedroom (Figure 3.11-1). This 

experiment also utilized a simulated wind provided by the MVU. The simulated wind was subjected to 

the bedroom window at a magnitude of approximately 9 m/s to 11 m/s (20 mph to 25 mph). The events 

that took place during the experiment to accomplish the experimental objectives below are shown in 

Table 3.12-1. 

Experimental Objectives 

• Create wind driven fire conditions from a bedroom and living room fire 

• Examine window failure times and conditions 

• Examine building flows with different door opening configurations 

• Control wind driven conditions with FBN 

• Examine use of an aerosol generation suppression device 

• Utilize portable PPV fans to control smoke movement 

The results for the experiment are presented in the following sections: observations, temperature, 

pressure, velocity, and discussion. Figure 3.11-2 shows the camera names and locations used in the 

observation section and the instrumentation names and locations used in the temperature, pressure and 

velocity sections. 
318

Figure 3.12-1. 3rd floor apartment E floor plan with locations pertinent to Experiment 3E 
319

Table 3.12-1: Experiment 3E Timeline 

Start (s) End (s) Event Location Event Description 

0 0 Bedroom and living room Ignition 

272 274 Front lobby Doors opened 

300 303 1st floor stair A Door opened 

318 324 3rd floor stair A Door opened 

379 383 Bulkhead door Opened 

493 494 Bedroom double Bottom right pane failed 

500 501 Bedroom double Top right pane failed 

525 526 Bedroom double Top left pane failed 

632 632 Bedroom double Bottom left pane failed 

943 943 Bedroom double FBN 2 started flowing (Smooth Bore) 

1017 1017 Bedroom double FBN 2 stopped 

1094 1097 Living room window Center pane vented manually 

1264 1264 Living room window Top right pane failed 

1301 1301 Bedroom double FBN 2 started flowing (Smooth Bore) 

1347 1348 Bedroom double FBN 2 stopped 

1362 1362 Living room window Aearosol generating device activated 

1368 1403 Living room window WCD deploying 

1513 1517 Living room window WCD removed 

1551 1554 Bulkhead door Closed 

1648 1680 1st floor stair A 27 inch fan on 

1653 1678 Front lobby 2 - 27 inch fans activated 

2155 2156 Living room window FBN 1 started flowing (Smooth Bore) 

2175 2175 Living room window FBN 1 stopped 

2298 2298 Experiment completed 
320

Figure 3.12-2. Instrumentation and camera locations with labels. 

3.12.1Observations

The observations are presented as a series of images captured from eight video camera locations. The 

camera positions inside the building are shown in Figure 3.12-2. 

Figure 3.12-3 through Figure 3.12-19 present sets of eight images one from each camera position, at a 

given time, from the time of ignition to 36 min and 30 s (2190 s) after ignition. Images were captured 
321

every 4 min and at times when events had taken place that demonstrate the experimental objectives. 

Each image view is labeled. The first view (LIV RM A) at the top left of each figure shows the living 

room of apartment 3A; across the view are the windows. The top right view (LIV RM E) was of the 

living room in apartment 3E looking across to the windows. The corridor view (CORRIDOR) shows 

the corridor leading up to the open apartment doorway. Next to that, the outside lobby view (LOBBY) 

shows the area just outside the lobby doors. The view (STAIR) shows the stairwell with a camera from 

the floor below the fire looking up to the fire floor. Next to that is the outside view (OUTSIDE) which 

shows an alternate view of the outside of the apartment from a window in another wing of the building. 

The bottom left view (ROOF) shows the bulkhead door at the top of the stairwell and the bottom right 

view (TOWER) shows an external view of the fire apartment. 

Figure 3.12-3 shows the images at the time of ignition. At this point, the eight video views were clear 

and unobstructed. As noted earlier, no thermal imagers were used for this experiment. 

Figure 3.12-4 shows the images at 240 s (4 min) after ignition. At this point smoke from the fire in the 

bedroom had reduced the visibility in the living room of apartment 3E and the public corridor to nearly 

zero. Some smoke had leaked around the closed 3rd floor stair A door, and a small amount of smoke 

was visible at the ceiling level of the living room in apartment 3A. 

Figure 3.12-5 shows the images at 480 s (8 min) after ignition. By this time the lobby doors, the 1st floor 

stair A door, the 3rd floor stair A door, and the bulkhead doors had been opened 206, 177, 156, and 97 s 

prior, respectively. A significant volume of smoke can be seen venting from the bulkhead door. The 

smoke layer had moved into the stairwell. The views of the living room in apartment 3E and the public 

corridor are still obscured. The smoke in living room 3A had increased, but a clear smoke layer was not 

yet visible in the living room 3A view. 

Figure 3.12-6 shows the images at 600 s (10 min) after ignition. At this point three of the four panes of 

the bedroom double window were broken by the fire. Flames can be seen pushing out of the window, 

against the wind. The amount of smoke in the stairwell had increased and had descended below the fire 

floor level. Significant amounts of smoke were flowing out of the bulkhead doorway. 

Figure 3.12-7 shows the images at 720 s (12 min) after ignition. The bedroom double window in the 

ignition bedroom had completely failed at 632 s. Smoke from the bulkhead door had flooded the roof 

area outside the door completely obscuring the view. The smoke layer had descended about halfway 

down stairway A between floor 2 and 3. The smoke in the living room of apartment 3A continued to 

reduce visibility in that view. Smoke can be seen leaking to the outside from the living room windows in 

apartment 3E. 

Figure 3.12-8 shows the images at 930 s (15 min and 30 s) after ignition. These images show the 

conditions prior to the start of suppression. FBN 2 is being put into position. The window frame has 

been partially detached from the building. 

Figure 3.12-9 shows the images at 960 s (16 min) after ignition. FBN 2 began flowing approximately 

200 gpm in a solid stream into the ignition bedroom 17 s prior. The effects of FBN 2 are not yet visible 

in any of the 8 views however. 
322

Figure 3.12-10 shows the images at 1200 s (20 min) after ignition. The water flow was stopped at 

1017 s. The fire in the bedroom was reduced. The center pane of apartment 3E’s living room window 

was vented manually at 1097 s. The smoke layer had descended the stairwell from floor 3 to floor 2. 

Flames were visible in the living room E view. 

Figure 3.12-11 shows the images at 1360 s (22 min and 40 s) after ignition. The fire in the living room

of apartment 3E continued to burn. The flames from the living room can be seen exiting the window. 

During the time period from 1301 s to 1348 s, the FBN 2 nozzle was flowing into the bedroom double 

window opening. The stream did not have a “straight shot” down the hallway. There was no visible 

suppression effect on the fire in the living room from the water that was discharged into the bedroom. 

At 1362 s after ignition, an aearosol generating device was activated and lowered into the living room 

window opening from above. Within seconds, the deployment of a WCD was started in an attempt to 

keep the fire extinguishing agent in the living room. The agent suppressed the flames in the living room 

for approximately 50 seconds. At 1420 s, the furnishings in the living room appeared to be fully 

involved again. Figure 3.12-12 shows the images at 1440 s (24 min) after ignition. The WCD, which 

did not fully cover the window, can be seen in the outside view. Smoke flow out of the bulkhead door 

increased significantly. 

Figure 3.12-13 shows the images at 1560 s (26 min) after ignition. The bulkhead door had just been 

closed. The WCD was removed approximately 45 s prior. Flames from the apartment 3E doorway can 

be seen in the center of the corridor view. Smokey conditions remained in apartment 3A. 

Figure 3.12-14 shows the images at 1680 s (28 min) after ignition. Smoke had descended down the 

stairwell view, reducing visibility in that view. The fire in the living room continued to burn. 

Figure 3.12-15 shows the images at 1710 s (28 min and 30 s) after ignition. All three of the 27 inch PPV 

fans were operating by this time. Two PPV fans were located outside in front of the lobby doors, and 

one PPV fan was located in front of the 1st floor doorway to stair A. As a result, the stair was cleared of 

smoke and additional smoke can be seen pushing around the edges of the closed bulkhead door. 

Figure 3.12-16 shows the images at 1920 s (32 min) after ignition. Flames from the living room of 

apartment 3E were visible in the corridor view. The stair remained clear of smoke. 

Figure 3.12-17 shows the images at 2155 s (35 min and 55 s) after ignition. These images were 

recorded at the time that FBN 2, began to flow water into the living room. The flow rate was 

approximately 210 gpm through a smooth bore tip. 

Figure 3.12-18 shows the images at 2160 s (36 min) after ignition. FBN 2 continued to flow water into 

the window of living room E. Flames were no longer visible in the living room E view. 

Figure 3.12-19 shows the images at 2190 s (36 min and 30 s) after ignition. These conditions are 

representative of the conditions at the conclusion of the experiment. The fires in the bed room and 

living room were extinguished with the FBNs. The stair was kept clear from smoke with the fans on the 

1st floor. The smoke that had leaked into apartment A appeared to be at its worst at 16 minutes after 
323

ignition. The smoke began to slowly dissipate after that however visible smoke remained in the living 

room of apartment A at the conclusion of the experiment. 
324

Figure 3.12-3. Experiment 3E, ignition. 
325

Figure 3.12-4. Experiment 3E, 240s after ignition. 
326

Figure 3.12-5. Experiment 3E, 480s after ignition. 
327

Figure 3.12-6. Experiment 3E, 600s after ignition. 
328

Figure 3.12-7. Experiment 3E, 720s after ignition. 
329

Figure 3.12-8. Experiment 3E, 930s after ignition. 
330

Figure 3.12-9. Experiment 3E, 960s after ignition. 
331

Figure 3.12-10. Experiment 3E, 1200s after ignition. 
332

Figure 3.12-11. Experiment 3E, 1360s after ignition. 
333

Figure 3.12-12. Experiment 3E, 1440s after ignition. 
334

Figure 3.12-13. Experiment 3E, 1560s after ignition. 
335

Figure 3.12-14. Experiment 3E, 1680s after ignition. 
336

Figure 3.12-15. Experiment 3E, 1710s after ignition. 
337

Figure 3.12-16. Experiment 3E, 1920s after ignition. 
338

Figure 3.12-17. Experiment 3E, 2155s after ignition. 
339

Figure 3.12-18. Experiment 3E, 2160s after ignition. 
340

Figure 3.12-19. Experiment 3E, 2190s after ignition. 
341

3.12.2 Temperatures

Figure 3.12-20 through Figure 3.12-22 provide temperature data for five measurement locations on the 

fire floor at two elevations and throughout the height of the stairwell. The locations of the measurement 

points can be seen in Figure 3.4-2. The events that occurred during the experiment are listed on the top 

of the figures with lines at the time of the event. A time history for each thermocouple at each 

measurement location is located in Appendix D – Detailed Graphs. 

Figure 3.12-20 shows the temperatures versus time at 2.1 m (7 ft) above the floor at 5 measurement 

locations, the bedroom, just outside the fire apartment, 3E, in the corridor, just outside Apartment 3A in 

the corridor, just outside the A stairwell doorway, and just inside the A stairwell on the landing. The 

temperature in the bedroom peaked 500 oC (932 oF), approximately 200 s after ignition. The 

temperature in the bedroom began to decrease due to ventilation limitations. After opening the 3rd floor 

door to the stair, at 320 s, the temperature in the bedroom began to increase again. After opening the 

bulkhead door, the temperatures in the bedroom went up to approximately 600 oC (1112 oF) and stayed 

at that level until the bedroom double window on the upwind side began to fail. Initially the wind driven 

flow cooled the bedroom. Then as the one side of the bedroom double window self vented the fire in the 

bedroom, quickly transitioned to flashover. At 600 s, temperatures throughout the fire floor are in 

excess of 400 oC (752 oF). The use of the FBN dramatically decreased the temperature in the bedroom. 

For the remainder of the experiment, the temperatures in the bedroom remained at less than 100 oC 

(212 oF) until the end of the experiment. 

Figure 3.12-21 shows the temperatures at 1.2 m (4 ft) which would be more representative to where 

firefighters would be operating or occupants would be evacuating. These temperatures at 1.2 m (4 ft) 

followed the same trends as described in Figure 3.12-20. Until the living room window was manually 

vented at approximately 1100 s. The temperatures at 1.2 m (4 ft above the floor) exceed the 

temperatures at 2.1 m (7 ft) above the floor in the areas outside of the apartment due to the horizontal 

wind driven hot gas flows. The temperatures on the fire floor remained elevated until the PPV fans were 

activated at which point the temperatures cooled to less than 100 oC (212 oF), with the exception of a 

few brief spikes. 

Figure 3.12-22 shows the temperatures 1.2 m (4 ft) above the landing on floors 1, 2, and at the landing 

above the 7th floor with access to the roof. The sensors located at floors 4 and 6 were damaged in 

previous experiments. The temperature at the bulkhead level tracked with the fire development in the 

bedroom from the time that the 3rd floor stair door was opened through suppression. At approximately 

1100 s through the end of the experiments, the stair temperatures were driven by the living room fire. 

After the initial suppression of the fire, temperatures in the bedroom were within the tenable range for 

fully protected firefighters. 
342

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

Multiple IgnitionsLBY: openingS1: openingS3: openingBH: openingBR: double failingBR: double clearBR: FBN flowing (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)LR: window failingBR: FBN flowing (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)LR: device activatedLR: placing WCDLR: WCD removedBH: closedLBY: fans onS1: fan onLR: FBN flowingLR: FBN stoppedExperiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

32

392

752

1112

1472

1832

2192

Temperature (F)

TC BR3EE 2.1m

TC Corr3EE 2.1m

TC Corr3AE 2.1m

TC CorrStair3E 2.1m

TC Stair3E 2.1m

Figure 3.12-20. 3E Temperature vs. time at 2.1 m above the floor 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

Multiple IgnitionsLBY: openingS1: openingS3: openingBH: openingBR: double failingBR: double clearBR: FBN flowing (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)LR: window failingBR: FBN flowing (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)LR: device activatedLR: placing WCDLR: WCD removedBH: closedLBY: fans onS1: fan onLR: FBN flowingLR: FBN stoppedExperiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400

0

200

400

600

800

1000

32

392

752

1112

1472

1832

Temperature (F)

TC BR3EE 1.2m

TC Corr3EE 1.2m

TC Corr3AE 1.2m

TC CorrStair3E 1.2m

TC Stair3E 1.2m

Figure 3.12-21. 3E Temperature vs. time at 1.2 m above the floor 
343

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

Multiple IgnitionsLBY: openingS1: openingS3: openingBH: openingBR: double failingBR: double clearBR: FBN flowing (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)LR: window failingBR: FBN flowing (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)LR: device activatedLR: placing WCDLR: WCD removedBH: closedLBY: fans onS1: fan onLR: FBN flowingLR: FBN stoppedExperiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

32

212

392

572

752

932

1112

Temperature (F)

TC Bulkhead MidE

TC Stair 2E

TC Stair1 MidE

Figure 3.12-22. 3E stairwell temperature vs. time 

3.12.3 Pressures

Average pressure measurements in the stairwell are shown in Figure 3.12-23. The differential pressure 

measurements were made at 1.2 m (4 ft) on the stairwell landing of every floor and referenced to an 

apartment on the same floor. With all of the doors to the stairwell closed the pressures remained below 

5 Pa and only fluctuated slightly. During the period that the bulkhead door was open (380 s to 1550 s), 

the pressures decreased as the stairwell became part of the flow path exhausting combustion products 

out of the building. Once the bulkhead door was closed, the pressure increased in the stair. After the 

PPV fans were activated, pressures in the lower portion of the stairwell increased, while the pressures in 

the upper portion decreased due to cooling. 
344

Time (s)

Pressure (Pa)

Multiple IgnitionsLBY: openingS1: openingS3: openingBH: openingBR: double failingBR: double clearBR: FBN flowing (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)LR: window failingBR: FBN flowing (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)LR: device activatedLR: placing WCDLR: WCD removedBH: closedLBY: fans onS1: fan onLR: FBN flowingLR: FBN stoppedExperiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400

-20

0

20

40

60

80

DP Stair 7E

DP Stair 6E

DP Stair 4E

DP Stair 3E

DP Stair 2E

DP Stair 1E

Figure 3.12-23. 3E stairwell pressures vs. time 

3.12.4 Velocities

Average doorway velocities from 2 doorways; the doorway from the first floor to the stairwell, and the 

doorway at the bulkhead, were recorded versus time and shown in Figure 3.12-24. The three bidirection probes in each door were averaged to provide the bulk flow through the doors. A time history 

for each probe at each measurement location is located in Appendix D – Detailed Graphs. Once the 

bulkhead door was opened the velocity (negative direction equates to flow out of the doorway) increased 

from zero to approximately 10 m/s (22 mph) as the bedroom flashed over and the bedroom double 

window opening was cleared. While the fire in the bedroom was being actively suppressed, the velocity 

of the flow out of the bulkhead went to zero. After suppression stopped and the living room window 

was manually vented the flow had an average velocity of approximately 8 m/s (18 mph) until the 

bulkhead door was closed. Hence the second application of water from the bedroom, the suppression 

device nor the partial WCD had an impact on the flow through the stairwell and the bulkhead doorway. 

 
345

Time (s)

Velocity (m/s)

Multiple IgnitionsLBY: openingS1: openingS3: openingBH: openingBR: double failingBR: double clearBR: FBN flowing (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)LR: window failingBR: FBN flowing (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)LR: device activatedLR: placing WCDLR: WCD removedBH: closedLBY: fans onS1: fan onLR: FBN flowingLR: FBN stoppedExperiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400

-15

-12

-9

-6

-3

0

3

-34

-27

-20

-13

-7

0

7

Velocity (mph)

Exp 3E Bulkhead

Exp 3E Stair1

Figure 3.12-24. 3E Velocities vs. time 

3.12.5 Discussion

The development of this fire was similar to previous fires. The fire grew until it became ventilation 

limited, the energy release and hence the temperature decreased until additional ventilation was provided 

via a window opening and/or ventilation from the stair. Hazardous thermal conditions for firefighters in 

full structural firefighting PPE are limited to the room of origin until a flow path through the structure is 

created. In this experiment, that flow path went from the open bedroom double window through 

apartment 3E, through the corridor and into the stairwell to the bulkhead doorway on the roof. As long 

as that flow path existed and there was a post flashover fire in the bedroom, hazardous thermal 

conditions existed on the fire floor for firefighters. 

Suppressing the bedroom fire with the FBN 2 mitigated the thermal hazard within seconds. The second 

portion of the fire experiment began with the manual ventilation of the living room. While the fire in the 

living developed to the point where all of the fuels in the room were burning, it never created the level 

of thermal hazard that the bedroom fire did. The living room was rapidly extinguished with an 

externally applied water stream. 

Positive pressure ventilation was used to clear and cool the stairwell in the latter stages of the fire. 

Again nothing that had not been demonstrated under more severe thermal conditions in previous 

experiments. 

Based on the manufacturer’s guide, the aerosol generator has been found to be effective in contained 

spaces [46]. In this experiment, the aerosol generator suppression device had a short term, 

approximately 50 s, impact on the fire in the living room. The WCD was deployed after the suppression 

device was placed via rope into the living room window in an effort to contain the extinguishing agent in 
346

the fire room. However, given the “wind driven” ventilation flowing through the living room and the 

limited coverage of the WCD, this was not an ideal application for this type of device. 
347

3.13Experiment 3A

The thirteenth experiment in the structure was located on the 3rd floor in apartment 3A. Experiment 3A 

was ignited in both the bedroom and the living room in an effort have both rooms involved in fire to 

examine the impact of a FBN deployed in the bedroom (Figure 3.11-1). This experiment also utilized a 

simulated wind provided by the MVU. The simulated wind was aimed into the bedroom window with a 

magnitude of approximately 9 m/s to 11 m/s (20 mph to 25 mph). The events that took place during the 

experiment to accomplish the experimental objectives below are shown in Table 3.13-1. 

Experimental Objectives 

• Create wind driven fire conditions from a bedroom fire 

• Examine window failure times and conditions 

• Examine building flows with different door opening configurations 

• Control wind driven conditions with FBN 

• Utilize portable PPV fans to control smoke movement 
348

Figure 3.13-1. 3rd floor apartment A floor plan with locations pertinent to Experiment 3A 
349

Table 3.13-1: Experiment 3A Timeline 

Start (s) End (s) Event Location Event Description 

0 0 Bedroom and living room Ignition 

279 283 Front lobby Right door opened 

286 290 1st floor stair A Door opened 

288 295 3rd floor stair A Opened and closed 

329 331 3rd floor stair A Opened 

381 383 Bulkhead door Opened 

496 497 Bedroom double Top left pane failed 

504 504 Bedroom double Top right pane failed 

559 561 Bedroom double Bottom right pane failed 

610 611 Bedroom double Bottom left pane failed 

695 695 Bedroom double FBN 1 started flowing (Smooth Bore) 

732 732 Bedroom double FBN 1 stopped 

772 773 Living room window Center pane failed 

838 838 Living room window Top left pane failed 

860 860 Living room window Top right pane failed 

877 877 Living room window Bottom left pane failed 

902 902 Living room window Bottom right pane failed 

922 922 Living room window FBN 1 started flowing (Smooth Bore) 

932 932 Living room window FBN 1 stopped 

954 954 Living room window FBN 1 started flowing (Smooth Bore) 

976 976 Living room window FBN 1 stopped 

1030 1044 1st floor stair A 27 inch fan added 

1077 1079 Bulkhead door Closed 

1200 1200 Experiment completed 
350

Figure 3.13-2. Instrumentation and camera locations with labels. 

3.13.1Observations

The observations are presented as a series of images captured from eight video camera locations. The 

camera positions inside the building are shown in Figure 3.13-2. 

Figure 3.13-3 through Figure 3.13-15 present sets of eight images one from each camera position, at a 

given time, from the time of ignition to 20 min (1200 s) after ignition. Images were captured every 
351

4 min and at times when events had taken place that demonstrate the experimental objectives. Each 

image view is labeled. The first view (LIV RM A) at the top left of each figure shows the living room 

of apartment 3A; across the view are the windows. The top right view (LIV RM E) was of the living 

room in apartment 3E looking across to the windows. The corridor view (CORRIDOR) shows the 

corridor leading up to the open apartment doorway. Next to that, the outside lobby view (LOBBY) 

shows the area just outside the lobby doors. The view (STAIR) shows the stairwell with a camera from 

the floor below the fire looking up to the fire floor. Next to that is the outside view (OUTSIDE) which 

shows an alternate view of the outside of the apartment from a window in another wing of the building. 

The bottom left view (ROOF) shows the bulkhead door at the top of the stairwell and the bottom right 

view (TOWER) shows an external view of the fire apartment. 

Figure 3.13-3 shows the images at the time of ignition. At this point, the eight video views were clear 

and unobstructed. However, the view of the living room from the previous experiment was dark due to 

the fire damage it sustained from the previous experiment. The damage to the corridor from the 

previous experiment was also visible. 

Figure 3.13-4 shows the images at 240 s (4 min) after ignition. Visibility in the corridor and the 3A

living room was nearly zero at this point. No smoke was visible leaking past the closed 3rd floor stair A 

door. No smoke was visible from the outside of the structure at this time. 

Figure 3.13-5 shows the images at 480 s (8 min) after ignition. By this time the lobby doors, the 1st floor 

stair A door, the 3rd floor stair A door, and the bulkhead doors had been opened 200s, 190s, 153s, and 

98 s prior, respectively. Smoke was flowing up the stairwell through the open 3rd floor stair A door and 

out of the open bulkhead door. Visibility was returned slightly to the corridor view. 

Figure 3.13-6 shows the images at 565 s (9 min and 25 s) after ignition. Three panes of the bedroom 

double window had failed and flames were being blown through the living room. Visibility in the 

stairwell and in the corridor was greatly reduced. Thick black smoke was still flowing out of the open 

bulkhead door. 

Figure 3.13-7 shows the images at 625 s (10 min and 25 s) after ignition. The smoke and hot gases 

continued to flow through the apartment and into the corridor reducing visibility but there were no 

flames visible from the interior views. Flames were visible through the smoke in the stairwell view. 

There was an increase in the amount of smoke flowing out of the bulkhead doorway. 

Figure 3.13-8 shows the images at 690 s (11 min and 30 s) after ignition. These were the conditions 

just prior to flowing the floor below nozzle. Flames were still visible at the bedroom window, visibility 

in the living room was zero and hot gases were flowing through the corridor into the stairwell. The 

stairwell view was lost due to increased heat on the landing below the fire floor. Smoke was leaking 

heavily from the living room windows and visibility on the roof was reduced from the smoke coming 

from the stairwell. Light smoke was visible coming from the lobby of the structure. 

Figure 3.13-9 shows the images at 705 s (11 min and 45 s) after ignition. FBN 1 with a 1 1⁄8 inch smooth 

bore nozzle had been flowing approximately 200 gpm for 10 s. The flames in the bedroom were 

reduced and the remaining views were very similar to the previous set. 
352

Figure 3.13-10 shows the images at 720 s (12 min) after ignition. By this time the ignition bedroom 

double window had completely failed and FBN 1 had been started flowing water into it for 25 s. Smoke 

was leaking around the living room window. Visibility in all of the internal views is zero. Increased 

smoke and steam were coming from the bulkhead doorway. 

Figure 3.13-11 shows the images at 840 s (14 min) after ignition. The FBN was stopped approximately 

90 s prior and the living room window began to fail 67 s prior. Flames were visible coming from the 

failed living room window. Increased smoke was coming out of the lobby doorway and decreased 

smoke was visible coming from the bulkhead doorway. 

Figure 3.13-12 shows the images at 910 s (15 min and 10 s) after ignition. Wind driven conditions were 

still present and the FBN was repositioned to the living room window. Flames were still visible in and 

from the living room window. There was no longer smoke coming from the lobby doorway. 

Figure 3.13-13 shows the images at 935 s (15 min and 35 s) after ignition. The FBN was flowed into the 

living room for 10 s and the views show a large amount of steam coming from the structure and 

decreased visibility at the roof level. There were still no interior views at this time. 

Figure 3.13-14 shows the images at 960 s (16 min) after ignition. FBN 1 was flowing water into the 

living room for the second time. A large volume of smoke and steam was pushing out of that window. 

Figure 3.13-15 shows the images at 1200 s (20 min) after ignition. The experiment was completed by 

this time. The fire had largely burned down, but visibility had not returned to the internal views. Steam 

was visible flowing from the living room windows and there was no longer smoke coming from the 

bulkhead door. A PPV fan was added at the 1st floor stair door to pressurize and remove the smoke from 

the stairwell. 
353

Figure 3.13-3. Experiment 3A, ignition. 
354

Figure 3.13-4. Experiment 3A, 240s after ignition. 
355

Figure 3.13-5. Experiment 3A, 480s after ignition. 
356

Figure 3.13-6. Experiment 3A, 565s after ignition. 
357

Figure 3.13-7. Experiment 3A, 625s after ignition. 
358

Figure 3.13-8. Experiment 3A, 690s after ignition. 
359

Figure 3.13-9. Experiment 3A, 705s after ignition. 
360

Figure 3.13-10. Experiment 3A, 720s after ignition. 
361

Figure 3.13-11. Experiment 3A, 840s after ignition. 
362

Figure 3.13-12. Experiment 3A, 910s after ignition. 
363

Figure 3.13-13. Experiment 3A, 935s after ignition. 
364

Figure 3.13-14. Experiment 3A, 960s after ignition. 
365

Figure 3.13-15. Experiment 3A, 1200s after ignition. 
366

3.13.2 Temperatures

Figure 3.13-16 through Figure 3.13-18 provide temperature data for five measurement locations on the 

fire floor at two elevations and throughout the height of the stairwell. The locations of the measurement 

points can be seen in Figure 3.13-2. The events that occurred during the experiment are listed on the top 

of the figures with lines at the time of the event. A time history for each thermocouple at each 

measurement location is located in Appendix D – Detailed Graphs. 

Figure 3.13-16 shows the temperatures versus time at 2.1 m (7 ft) above the floor at 5 measurement 

locations, the bedroom, just outside the fire apartment in the corridor, just outside Apartment 3E in the 

corridor, just outside the A stairwell doorway, and just inside the A stairwell on the landing. The 

temperature in the bedroom increased to above 300 oC (572 oF) before it became ventilation limited and 

the temperature decreased. Opening stairwell doors maintained the temperature but opening the 

bulkhead door allowed the bedroom to transition to flashover and fail the window subjected to the wind. 

Once the wind was able to enter the apartment the temperature decreased briefly as the cold air flowed 

in and then the temperature increased quickly to 800 oC (1112 oF) in the bedroom, over 500 oC (932 oF) 

in the corridor and over 300 oC (572 oF) in the stairwell. The temperatures all decreased quickly to 

approximately 200 oC (392 oF) or below after the FBN flowed for 37 s. 

Figure 3.13-17 shows the temperatures at 1.2 m (4 ft) which would be more representative to where 

firefighters would be operating or occupants would be evacuating. These temperatures were almost 

identical to the 2.1 m (7 ft) measurements because the wind was flowing into the apartment for the 

duration of the experiment. The wind was mixing all the gases and there was no layering in the corridor 

or stairwell. 

Figure 3.13-18 shows the temperatures 1.2 m (4 ft) above the landing on floors 1, 2, and at the landing 

above the 7th floor with access to the roof. The temperatures in the stairwell remained near ambient until 

the bedroom window failed. Prior to suppression the temperature above the fire floor, near the bulkhead 

door was above 400 oC (752 oF). The temperature on the 2nd floor landing, below the fire floor had 

reached 350 oC (662 oF) and the 1st floor increased to above 100 oC (212 oF). The temperatures 

recovered slightly as the fire in the living room increased but the temperatures remained below 200 oC 

(392 oF). The stairwell temperatures returned to ambient once the FBN flowed into the living room and 

the PPV fan was activated. 
367

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

Multiple ignitions

LBY: right opening

S1: opening

S3: opening/closing

S3: opening

BH: opening

BR: double failing

BR: double clear

BR: FBN flowing (double)

BR: FBN stopped (double)

LR: window failing

LR: window clear

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

S1: fan added

BH: closed

Experiment completed

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

32

392

752

1112

1472

1832

2192

Temperature (F)

TC BR3AE 2.1m

TC Corr3AE 2.1m

TC Corr3EE 2.1m

TC CorrStair3E 2.1m

TC Stair3E 2.1m

Figure 3.13-16. 3A Temperature vs. time at 2.1 m above the floor 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

Multiple ignitions

LBY: right opening

S1: opening

S3: opening/closing

S3: opening

BH: opening

BR: double failing

BR: double clear

BR: FBN flowing (double)

BR: FBN stopped (double)

LR: window failing

LR: window clear

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

S1: fan added

BH: closed

Experiment completed

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200

0

300

600

900

1200

1500

32

572

1112

1652

2192

2732

Temperature (F)

TC BR3AE 1.2m

TC Corr3AE 1.2m

TC Corr3EE 1.2m

TC CorrStair3E 1.2m

TC Stair3E 1.2m

Figure 3.13-17. 3A Temperature vs. time at 1.2 m above the floor 
368

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

Multiple ignitions

LBY: right opening

S1: opening

S3: opening/closing

S3: opening

BH: opening

BR: double failing

BR: double clear

BR: FBN flowing (double)

BR: FBN stopped (double)

LR: window failing

LR: window clear

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

S1: fan added

BH: closed

Experiment completed

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200

0

100

200

300

400

500

32

212

392

572

752

932

Temperature (F)

TC Bulkhead MidE

TC Stair 2E

TC Stair1 MidE

Figure 3.13-18. 3A stairwell temperature vs. time 

3.13.3 Pressures

Average pressure measurements in the stairwell are shown in Figure 3.13-19. The differential pressure 

measurements were made at 1.2 m (4 ft) on the stairwell landing of every floor and referenced to an 

apartment on the same floor. With all of the doors to the stairwell closed the pressures remained below 

5 Pa and only fluctuated slightly. The pressure slightly increased up to 10 Pa above the fire floor after 

the fire floor door was opened. Once the bulkhead door was opened this pressure dropped below zero as 

the stairwell became the flow path. When the wind driven fire was at its peak the pressures in the area 

of the fire floor reached as high as 20 Pa. As the fire was suppressed by the FBN the pressure also 

dropped to below 10 Pa. Adding the fan at the end of the experiment increased the stairwell pressures to 

an average of 20 Pa with the bulkhead door closed. 
369

Time (s)

Pressure (Pa)

Multiple ignitions

LBY: right opening

S1: opening

S3: opening/closing

S3: opening

BH: opening

BR: double failing

BR: double clear

BR: FBN flowing (double)

BR: FBN stopped (double)

LR: window failing

LR: window clear

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

S1: fan added

BH: closed

Experiment completed

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200

-10

0

10

20

30

40

DP Stair 7E

DP Stair 6E

DP Stair 4E

DP Stair 3E

DP Stair 2E

DP Stair 1E

Figure 3.13-19. 3A stairwell pressures vs. time 

3.13.4 Velocities

Average doorway velocities from 2 doors; the door at the base of the stair and the door at the bulkhead, 

were recorded versus time and shown in Figure 3.13-20. The three bi-direction probes in each door 

were averaged to provide the bulk flow through the doors. A time history for each probe at each 

measurement location is located in Appendix D – Detailed Graphs. 

The average flow through the 1st floor stair door was less than 2 m/s (4 mph). The bulk flow out of the 

bulkhead door peaked around 14 m/s (31 mph) and decreased after suppression to around 5 m/s 

(11 mph) and ultimately decreased to 0 m/s after the activation of the fan and the closing of the bulkhead 

door. 
370

Time (s)

Velocity (m/s)

Multiple ignitions

LBY: right opening

S1: opening

S3: opening/closing

S3: opening

BH: opening

BR: double failing

BR: double clear

BR: FBN flowing (double)

BR: FBN stopped (double)

LR: window failing

LR: window clear

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

S1: fan added

BH: closed

Experiment completed

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200

-18

-15

-12

-9

-6

-3

0

3

-40

-34

-27

-20

-13

-7

0

7

Velocity (mph)

Exp 3A Bulkhead

Exp 3A Stair1

Figure 3.13-20. 3A Velocities vs. time 

3.13.5 Discussion

Experiment 3A examined the impact of a smooth bore FBN 1 on a wind driven, multi-room apartment 

fire. The fire in the bedroom achieved post-flashover (temperatures floor to ceiling in excess of 600 oC 

(1100 oF), shortly after the windows began to self vent at 497 s. The peak temperatures were generated 

by the creation of a flow path between the bedroom and the vented stairwell. The failure (self venting) 

of half of the bedroom double window combined with the open door between the fire floor and the 

stairwell and the open bulkhead door at the top of the stair led to the creation of a flow path. 

Temperatures in the flow path between the open bedroom window and the 5th floor stair exceeded 

400 oC (752 oF) throughout the fire floor at both the 2.1 m (7 ft) and 1.2 m (4 ft) elevations above floor 

level. Heat and smoke entered the stair, resulting in poor visibility and increased temperatures both 

above and below the fire floor. In addition, the ventilation condition caused by the venting and doors 

resulted in a peak gas velocity of approximately 14 m/s (31 mph) out of the bulkhead doorway. The 

thermal conditions created during this experiment were not conducive to a direct frontal fire attack and 

firefighters remote from the fire in the stairwell would have been threatened if they were in the flow path 

due to extreme temperatures. 

The first pane of the bedroom window failed at 497 s and the window completely failed at 611 s. The 

temperature in the center of the bedroom at 1.2 m (4 ft) at the time of window failure was approximately 

400 oC (752 oF). The temperature in the center of the room at the time of complete window failure was 

in excess of 900 oC (1652 oF). The partial failure of the window and the ventilation from the open stair 

door on the fire floor provided the oxygen required to achieve flashover. The majority of the window 

did not fail until after the room transitioned to flashover. 

The FBN caused an immediate reduction of temperature on the fire floor and in the stairwell. The FBN 

extinguished the fire in the bedroom, but not the fire in the living room. However, the wind driven 

conditions were minimized by the application of water into the bedroom reducing temperatures to the 
371

point where firefighters could enter the corridor and advance on the fire. The fire in the living room was 

allowed to re-develop. The FBN was repositioned to make an attack on the living room and extinguished 

the fire. 

The addition of the PPV fan at the base of the stair in conjunction with closing the bulkhead door to 

increase the stairwell pressure kept the smoke out of the stairwell from the knocked down fire. This 

would allow crews to overhaul in a more tenable atmosphere. 
372

3.14Experiment 3G/K

The fourteenth and last experiment in the structure involved two apartments on the 3rd floor, apartments 

3G and 3K. Apartment 3G was on the up wind side of the building and was used as the ignition 

apartment. The fire was ignited in three locations simultaneously; both of the bedrooms and the living 

room as shown in Figure 3.14-1. In this experiment, the natural wind played a significant role. The 

wind was coming from the WNW and hitting the side of the building at an average wind speed in the 

range of 7 m/s to 9 m/s (15 mph to 20 mph), with gusts of up to 13 m/s (29 mph), as shown in Appendix 

C – Wind Measurements and Descriptions. Later in this experiment a simulated wind provided by the 

MVU was also utilized. The simulated wind was aimed into the bedroom window with a magnitude of 

approximately 9 m/s to 11 m/s (20 mph to 25 mph). Apartment K was located on the down wind side of 

the apartment and was loaded with fuel. The flow path on the 3rd floor was arranged to go from the most 

remote bedroom in apartment G through the open apartment door into the public corridor into the open 

door of apartment K to the open bedroom windows on the downwind side of the building. The events 

that took place during the experiment to accomplish the experimental objectives below are shown in 

Table 3.14-1. 

Experimental Objectives 

• Create wind driven fire conditions from an apartment fire 

• Examine window failure times and conditions 

• Examine building flows with different door opening configurations 

• Allow wind driven fire to vent through another apartment down wind (horizontal flow path) 

• Utilize portable PPV fans to control smoke movement 

• Allow WCD to be subjected to fire conditions for a long period of time 

• Control wind driven conditions with FBN 
373

Figure 3.14-1. 3rd floor apartment G and K floor plans with locations pertinent to Experiment 3G/K 
374

Table 3.14-1: Experiment 3G/K Timeline 

Start (s) End (s) Event Location Event Description 

0 0 All 3 rooms in G Ignition 

247 250 Front lobby Left door opened 

262 267 1st floor stair A Door opened 

303 303 Bedroom single Bottom pane failed 

352 413 Bedroom single Top pane failed 

423 427 3rd floor stair A Door opened 

452 455 Bulkhead door Opened 

516 521 Bulkhead door Closed

713 716 Bulkhead door Opened 

743 772 Front lobby 2 - 27 inch fans activated 

770 785 1st floor stair A 27 inch fan activated 

831 834 Bulkhead door Closed 

1035 1045 Living room window Vented manually 

1106 Bedroom double Top right pane failed 

1141 1142 Bedroom single WCD deployed 

1167 1167 Bedroom double Pane failed 

1168 1168 Bedroom double Pane failed 

1193 1194 Bedroom double Bottom right pane failed 

1257 1263 Living room window WCD deployed 

1467 1495 Bedroom double Air flow introduced 

1660 1661 Middle bedroom double WCD deployed 

1820 1831 Bedroom double Air flow removed 

2078 2082 Bedroom double FBN 1 started flowing (Smooth Bore) 

2220 2220 Bedroom double FBN 1 stopped 

2644 2657 Living room window WCD peeled away for stream 

2677 2683 Living room window FBN 1 started flowing (Smooth Bore) 

2765 2765 Living room window FBN 1 stopped 

3006 3006 Experiment completed 
375

Figure 3.14-2. Instrumentation and camera locations with labels. 

3.14.1Observations

The observations are presented as a series of images captured from eight video camera locations. The 

camera positions inside the building are shown in Figure 3.14-2. 

Figure 3.14-3 through Figure 3.14-28 present sets of eight images one from each camera position, at a 

given time, from the time of ignition to 48 min (2880 s) after ignition. Images were captured every 
376

4 min and at times when events had taken place that demonstrate the experimental objectives. Each 

image view is labeled. The first view (LIV RM G) at the top left of each figure shows the living room 

of apartment 3G; across the view are the windows. The top right view (CORRIDOR) shows the corridor 

leading up to the open apartment doorway. The view (STAIR) shows the stairwell with a camera from 

the floor below the fire looking up to the fire floor. Next to that is the view (TOWER) which shows an 

exterior view of apartment 3G. The view (LIV RM K) shows the living room of apartment 3K with the 

windows strait across the view. Next to that, the view (ROOF) shows the bulkhead door at the top of the 

stairwell. The bottom, left view (LOBBY) shows the area just outside the lobby doors. The bottom, 

right view (not labeled) shows the 3K apartment (downwind side) from ground level outside the 

building. 

Figure 3.14-3 shows the images at the time of ignition. At this point, the eight video views were clear 

and unobstructed. The corridor view appears dark due to the limited available light. 

Figure 3.14-4 shows the images at 240 s (4 min) after ignition. At this point the smoke layer in 

apartment 3G had descended to the floor throughout. The smoke layer in the 3K apartment had 

descended to about 1.2 m (4 ft) above the floor in the living room. No smoke is leaking into the 

stairwell. 

Figure 3.14-5 shows the images at 420 s (7 min) after ignition. Visibility was reduced to nearly zero in 

both living room views. A few seconds earlier, the bedroom single window (located on the upwind side 

of the building) finished self venting as shown in the tower view. Smoke is venting out of the open 

windows in the apartment 3K bedroom windows. 

Figure 3.14-6 shows the images at 480 s (8 min) after ignition. Smoke continued to vent from the open 

3K bedroom windows. The door from the fire floor to the stair was opened at 427 s (7.1 min). This 

allowed smoke to be pushed down the 3rd floor A stairwell and vent out of the open lobby doors. 

The bulkhead door was opened at 455 s (7.6 min) and closed again at 521 s (8.7 min). Very little smoke 

flowed up and out of the open bulkhead doorway. 

Figure 3.14-7 shows the images at 580 s (9 min and 40 s) after ignition. Flames can be seen moving 

through the living room of apartment 3G and the thick looking smoke is rolling through the corridor. 

Smoke continued to vent through both the open bedroom windows in apartment 3 K and from the open 

front lobby doors. Just a few seconds before these images were recorded, the fire in the most remote 

bedroom in apartment 3G became underventilated to the point where flames were no longer visible. 

Flames were not readily seen from the tower video. This changed was followed by large puffs of black 

smoke being pushed out of the open bedroom single window against the prevailing wind. 

Figure 3.14-8 shows the images at 600 s (10 min) after ignition. The puffs of smoke that had pushed out 

of the upwind bedroom window of apartment 3G, quickly transformed into “balls of fire” being pushed 

out of the upwind window. This phenomenon continued at a steady rate until the bulkhead door was 

opened at 716 s (11.9 min) after ignition. 

Figure 3.14-9 shows the images at 720 s (12 min) after ignition. The bulkhead door had been opened 4 s 

prior, but no smoke was pushing from it. Visibility was still obscured in all the internal views. Large 
377

volumes of smoke were flowing out of the open bedroom windows in apartment 3K and out of the open 

lobby doors. A small amount of smoke was still being pushed out of the open window in apartment 3G. 

Figure 3.14-10 shows the images at 780 s (13 min) after ignition. Approximately 10 s before these 

images were recorded, the two 27 inch PPV in front of the lobby doors were started. This reduced the 

amount of smoke coming out of the lobby doorway. Efforts were being made to start the PPV fan that 

was located in front of the doorway to stair A, at this time. 

Figure 3.14-11 shows the images at 960 s (16 min) after ignition. The bulkhead door had been closed 

126 s prior and the 27 inch fan at the 1st floor stair A door had been operating for approximately 

3 minutes. Visibility had improved slightly in the stairwell view as the smoke density decreased. No 

smoke was venting through the lobby doors at this point. The smoke venting out of the open downwind 

bedroom windows in apartment 3K appeared to have gotten lighter in color and had increased in 

volume. 

Figure 3.14-12 shows the images at 1120 s (18 min and 40 s) after ignition. A few seconds earlier the 

bedroom double window in apartment 3G failed, resulting in significant flame extension out of the 

double window as shown in the tower view. This reduced the amount of smoke that was being vented 

on the downwind side through apartment 3K. 

Figure 3.14-13 shows the images at 1200 s (20 min) after ignition. In an effort to maintain flow into the 

public corridor and apartment 3K, a WCD had been placed over the bedroom single window in the 3G 

apartment bedroom furthest from the apartment exit 57 s prior. The flames pushing from that bedroom’s 

double window intensified significantly in part because of the smoke being driven from the living room 

into the bedroom. 

Figure 3.14-14 shows the images at 1440 s (24 min) after ignition. A WCD had been placed over the 

living room window 164 s prior. This closed off both of the upwind openings in apartment 3G. The 

amount of flame extension from the bedroom double window was reduced and fire was visible in the 

apartment 3G living room. However no smoke was flowing out of the down wind apartment. 

Figure 3.14-15 shows the images at 1520 s (25 min and 20 s) after ignition. At this time the MVU had 

been moved into position and was being adjusted to blow the heat back through apartment 3G. This 

would challenge the WCDs that had been deployed and potentially generate heat behind them. 

Figure 3.14-16 shows the images at 1680 s (28 min) after ignition. A WCD had been placed over the 

second bedroom double window 19 s prior in an effort to maintain a closed vent in that room. The stair 

was kept clear. A small amount of smoke was venting from the open bedroom windows in apartment 

3K. 

Figure 3.14-17 shows the images at 1775 s (29 min and 35 s) after ignition. A significant change in the 

conditions in the living room in apartment 3G began 5 s prior. Large volume of billowing black smoke 

pushed around the WCD. Flames from the living room window followed. The smoke vented on the 

downwind side of the building through apartment 3K became darker in color and increased in volume. 
378

Figure 3.14-18 shows the images at 1820 s (30 min and 20 s) after ignition. Flames coming up from 

behind the WCD over the living room window were being driven by the wind into the 4th floor, where 

safety crews were positioned. The amount of smoke venting from apartment 3K had increased 

significantly and had gotten very dark in color. Given the concern that the conditions on 4th floor were 

decaying, the simulated wind was removed from the bedroom double window in apartment 3G. 

Figure 3.14-19 shows the images at 1920 s (32 min) after ignition. The MVU was removed 

approximately 90 s prior. The flow quickly reversed, with flames extending out of the bedroom double 

window for a brief period. Flame extension from behind the living room WCD stopped and the smoke 

that was venting from the 3K bedroom windows stopped as well. 

Figure 3.14-20 shows the images at 2070 s (34 min and 30 s) after ignition. These images were captured 

to show the conditions just before suppression was started with a FBN. 

Figure 3.14-21 shows the images at 2100 s (35 min) after ignition. Suppression with FBN 1 began at 

2082 s after ignition. The 1-1/8th inch, smooth bore nozzle tip was used, flowing approximately 200 

gpm. Water flow continued until 2200 s. Copious amounts of white vapor flowed out of the bedroom 

double window opening. A very small amount of smoke was venting from the open bedroom windows 

in apartment 3K. The stair was kept clear by the PPV fans. 

Figure 3.14-22 shows the images at 2160 s (36 min) after ignition. Suppression continued with no 

visible changes from the previous images. 

Figure 3.14-23 shows the images at 2260 s (37 min and 40 s) after ignition. Suppression stopped at 

2220 s. Flames were present in the living room in apartment 3G. The glow could be seen in both the 

living room view and through the WCD in the tower view. Smoke began to vent from apartment 3K 

again. 

Figure 3.14-24 shows the images at 2400 s (40 min) after ignition. No ventilation or suppression 

conditions were changed between 2220 s and 2400 s. The flames in the living room were no longer 

visible in the living room view. Smoke continued to vent from behind the WCD over the living room 

window opening in apartment 3G and the from the open bedroom windows in apartment 3K. 

Figure 3.14-25 shows the images at 2640 s (44 min) after ignition. A portion of the WCD over the 

living room opening was being moved to in order to use a FBN to flow water directly into the living 

room. As air was allowed into the living room, the flames could be seen again. 

Figure 3.14-26 shows the images at 2685 s (44 min and 45 s) after ignition. A few seconds before these 

images were recorded, FBN 1, with the same smooth bore nozzle used earlier in the experiment began to 

flow approximately 200 gpm of water into the living room. The flames in the living room were quickly 

extinguished. 

Figure 3.14-27 shows the images at 2715 s (45 min and 15 s) after ignition. FBN 1 was still applying 

water into the living room. Significant volumes of white vapor poured out of the bedroom double 

window. White vapor could also be seen venting out of apartment 3K. 
379

Figure 3.14-28 shows the images at 2880 s (48 min) after ignition. FBN 1 flowed in to the living room

for approximately 90 s. These images were recorded after the suppression effort was completed. Vapor 

was still coming out of the upwind bedroom. A very modest amount of smoke was still being vented 

from the open windows in the downwind apartment. The PPV fans continued to keep the stairwell free 

from smoke. 
380

Figure 3.14-3. Experiment 3G/K, ignition. 
381

Figure 3.14-4. Experiment 3G/K, 240s after ignition. 
382

Figure 3.14-5. Experiment 3G/K, 420s after ignition. 
383

Figure 3.14-6. Experiment 3G/K, 480s after ignition. 
384

Figure 3.14-7. Experiment 3G/K, 580s after ignition. 
385

Figure 3.14-8. Experiment 3G/K, 600s after ignition. 
386

Figure 3.14-9. Experiment 3G/K, 720s after ignition. 
387

Figure 3.14-10. Experiment 3G/K, 780s after ignition. 
388

Figure 3.14-11. Experiment 3G/K, 960s after ignition. 
389

Figure 3.14-12. Experiment 3G/K, 1120s after ignition. 
390

Figure 3.14-13. Experiment 3G/K, 1200s after ignition. 
391

Figure 3.14-14. Experiment 3G/K, 1440s after ignition. 
392

Figure 3.14-15. Experiment 3G/K, 1520s after ignition. 
393

Figure 3.14-16. Experiment 3G/K, 1680s after ignition. 
394

Figure 3.14-17. Experiment 3G/K, 1775s after ignition. 
395

Figure 3.14-18. Experiment 3G/K, 1820s after ignition. 
396

Figure 3.14-19. Experiment 3G/K, 1920s after ignition. 
397

Figure 3.14-20. Experiment 3G/K, 2070s after ignition. 
398

Figure 3.14-21. Experiment 3G/K, 2100s after ignition. 
399

Figure 3.14-22. Experiment 3G/K, 2160s after ignition. 
400

Figure 3.14-23. Experiment 3G/K, 2260s after ignition. 
401

Figure 3.14-24. Experiment 3G/K, 2400s after ignition. 
402

Figure 3.14-25. Experiment 3G/K, 2640s after ignition. 
403

Figure 3.14-26. Experiment 3G/K, 2685s after ignition. 
404

Figure 3.14-27. Experiment 3G/K, 2715s after ignition. 
405

Figure 3.14-28. Experiment 3G/K, 2880s after ignition. 
406

3.14.2 Temperatures

Figure 3.14-29 through Figure 3.14-31 provide temperature data for several measurement locations on 

the fire floor at two elevations and throughout the height of the stairwell. The specific locations are 

identified with the description of each graph. The locations of the measurement positions can be seen in 

Figure 3.14-2. The events that occurred during the experiment are listed on the top of the figures with 

lines at the time of the event. A time history for each thermocouple at each measurement location is 

located in Appendix D – Detailed Graphs. 

Figure 3.14-29 shows the temperatures versus time at 3 measurement locations; the bedroom, just 

outside the fire apartment in the corridor, just outside the A stairwell doorway. In this graph the 

bedroom data was measured at 1.8 m (6 ft) above the floor and the corridor positions were measured at 

2.1 m (7 ft) above the floor. The bedroom temperature time history was very similar to the previous 

experiments in that the temperature increased to a peak range of 400 oC (752 oF) to 500 oC (932 oF) and 

then became ventilation limited. As portions of the upwind bedroom single window failed the 

temperature decreased, again similar to previous experiments. A difference here was that once the 

bedroom single window failed, a horizontal flow path existed from the bedroom in apartment 3G to 

apartment 3K; however this did not provide enough ventilation to enable the bedroom to transition to 

flashover. In previous cases, opening the bulkhead door led to flashover. In this case the natural wind 

impacted the entire building. The predominant flow was down and out the front lobby. Closing the 

bulkhead coincided with the transition to flashover. Post flashover, the temperatures in the bedroom 

began to follow previous experiment trends again, with the temperatures remaining high until 

suppression. 

The temperatures in the corridor reached peak temperatures in the range of 300 oC (572 oF) to 400 oC 

(752 oF) following flashover in the bedroom. These temperatures remained fairly stable until the living 

room window was vented. This event was followed by the failure of the bedroom double window. The 

resulting wind flow reduced the temperatures in the corridor to less than 100 oC (212 oF). The 

temperatures in the corridor increased to approximately 200 oC (392 oF) once WCDs were deployed to 

block the natural wind and the simulated wind from the MVU turned the flow around and pushed the hot 

gases back through the apartment. Once the living room transitioned to flashover, the temperatures in 

the corridor exceeded 600 oC (1112 oF). After removing the simulated wind, the corridor temperatures 

decreased to approximately 200 oC (392 oF). Use of the FBN in the bedroom resulted in a temperature 

increase in the corridor. suppression in the living room with the FBN results in all temperatures on the 

fire floor decreasing to approximately 100 oC (212 oF). 

Figure 3.14-30 shows the temperatures versus time at 3 measurement locations; the bedroom, just 

outside the fire apartment in the corridor, and just outside the A stairwell doorway at 1.2 m (4 ft) which 

would be more representative of where firefighters would be operating or occupants would be 

evacuating. The bedroom and corridor positions track well with the temperatures closer to the ceiling. 

Figure 3.14-31 shows the temperatures 1.2 m (4 ft) above the landing on floors 1, 2, 6 and at the 

bulkhead landing above the 7th floor with access to the roof. The highest temperatures occurred when 

the bulkhead door was closed and they occurred at the two floor levels below the fire floor since prior to 

the failure of multiple windows in the fire apartment, the predominant flow path was down the stair way 

and out the front doors. After the bulkhead door was opened, and the PPV fans were turned on, all of 
407

the temperatures decreased to less than 25 oC (77 oF) for the remainder of the experiment. This 

experiment was different from the other experiments with regard to the bulkhead and ventilation in that 

the wind was pushing fresh air into the bulkhead door. As a result it did not function as a hot gas 

exhaust vent but as a cool air intake port. 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

Multiple IgnitionsLBY: left openingS1: openingBR: single failingBR: single clearS3: openingBH: openingBH: closedBH: openingLBY: fans onS1: fan onBH: closedLR: window failingBR: double failingBR: placing WCD (single)BR: double clearLR: placing WCDIntroducing air flowBR2: placing WCDAir flow removedBR: FBN flowing (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)LR: moving WCDLR: FBN flowingLR: FBN stopped

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

32

392

752

1112

1472

1832

2192

Temperature (F)

TC BR3GW 1.8m

TC Corr3GW 2.1m

TC CorrStair3W 2.1m

TC BR3KW 1.8m

Figure 3.14-29. 3G/K Temperature vs. time at 2.1 m above the floor 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

Multiple IgnitionsLBY: left openingS1: openingBR: single failingBR: single clearS3: openingBH: openingBH: closedBH: openingLBY: fans onS1: fan onBH: closedLR: window failingBR: double failingBR: placing WCD (single)BR: double clearLR: placing WCDIntroducing air flowBR2: placing WCDAir flow removedBR: FBN flowing (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)LR: moving WCDLR: FBN flowingLR: FBN stopped

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

32

392

752

1112

1472

1832

2192

Temperature (F)

TC BR3GW 1.2m

TC Corr3GW 1.2m

TC CorrStair3W 1.2m

TC BR3KW 1.2m

Figure 3.14-30. 3G/K Temperature vs. time at 1.2 m above the floor 
408

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

Multiple IgnitionsLBY: left openingS1: openingBR: single failingBR: single clearS3: openingBH: openingBH: closedBH: openingLBY: fans onS1: fan onBH: closedLR: window failingBR: double failingBR: placing WCD (single)BR: double clearLR: placing WCDIntroducing air flowBR2: placing WCDAir flow removedBR: FBN flowing (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)LR: moving WCDLR: FBN flowingLR: FBN stopped

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000

0

50

100

150

200

250

32

122

212

302

392

482

Temperature (F)

TC Bulkhead MidW

TC Stair 6W

TC Stair 2W

TC Stair1 MidW

Figure 3.14-31. 3G/K stairwell temperature vs. time 

3.14.3 Pressures

Average pressure measurements in the stairwell are shown in Figure 3.14-32. The differential pressure 

measurements were made at 1.2 m (4 ft) on the stairwell landing of every floor and referenced to an 

apartment on the same floor. With all of the doors to the stairwell closed the pressures remained within 

± 10 Pa. Opening the lobby and stair door on the 1st floor (on the downwind side of the building) 

reduced the pressures in the stairway. Opening the stair door to the fire floor resulted in increased 

pressures above the fire floor, while the pressures stayed low below the fire floor. Once the PPV fans 

were used, the pressures increased in the stairwell and for each of the positions remained relatively 

steady through the remainder of the experiment. The exception was the pressure measurement on the 

fire floor which had swings between -30 Pa and 25 Pa, due in part to the multiple openings on the fire 

floor, and the methods attempted to control the wind flows. 
409

Time (s)

Pressure (Pa)

Multiple IgnitionsLBY: left openingS1: openingBR: single failingBR: single clearS3: openingBH: openingBH: closedBH: openingLBY: fans onS1: fan onBH: closedLR: window failingBR: double failingBR: placing WCD (single)BR: double clearLR: placing WCDIntroducing air flowBR2: placing WCDAir flow removedBR: FBN flowing (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)LR: moving WCDLR: FBN flowingLR: FBN stopped

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000

-40

-20

0

20

40

DP Stair 7W

DP Stair 6W

DP Stair 5W

DP Stair 4W

DP Stair 3W

DP Stair 2W

DP Stair 1W

Figure 3.14-32. 3G/K stairwell pressures vs. time 

3.14.4 Discussion

This experiment was unique in this series of experiments, in that it had a natural wind condition that had 

an effect on the entire structure. Yet in many respects the results of this experiment were similar to the 

results of the experiments with a simulated wind that was only imposed on one window. 

The fire developed and became fuel rich or ventilation limited. After the window self vented and the 

bedroom transition to post flashover conditions, the resulting thermal conditions were not conducive to a 

direct frontal fire attack and firefighters remote from the fire in the corridor would have been threatened 

if they were in the flow path due to extreme temperatures. 

The wind completely changed the flow path in the stairwell for this experiment. No hot gas or smoke 

was vented out of the bulkhead doorway on the roof in this experiment. This was counter to the 

experience in the other experiments, where opening the bulkhead door resulted in flashover. In this 

experiment, the wind pushed the flow down the stairs and out the front lobby doors, which were on the 

downwind side of the building. 

The self venting of the bedroom double window demonstrated how building arrangement and wind 

conditions may exist such that, by venting other windows in the fire aparment, the wind driven fire can 

be vented out of the building, reducing the hazardous conditions in the public corridor and the stair. The 

concern here would be the lack of control if the wind were to change abruptly. 

PPV fans were used successfully to stop the downward flow and clear the stairwell. In this experiment, 

as is generally true, door control and co-ordination were the keys to the successful use of PPV. 
410

In this experiment, the WCDs were used more as tools to “replace the vented windows” for the 

experiment rather than for a fire fighting tactic. This experiment did create a significant thermal 

exposure for the WCD over the bedroom and living room windows, including exposure to direct flame 

impingement. In both cases, the WCDs continued to maintain their functionality throughout the 

experiment and blocked the wind. 

The FBN 1 was discharged into both the bedroom and the living room and suppressed the fires in a short 

period of time, resulting in conditions in the corridor which would have allowed firefighters in full PPE 

to have safe access to the fire floor. 

The fire did not spread to Apartment 3K. The peak temperature measurements in the most remote 

bedroom, furthest distance from ignition on the flow path at 1.2 m (4 ft) above the floor, were 

approximately 150 oC (302 oF) during the natural wind portion of the experiment and were 

approximately 200 oC (392 oF) during the simulated wind portion of the experiment. Clearly untenable 

conditions for unprotected building occupants and potentially hazardous conditions for protected fire 

fighters. Removing the air reduced the temperatures in this remote room to less than 50 oC (122 oF) 

within seconds. During the suppression of the living room fire, the temperatures in the bedroom 

increased to nearly 100 oC (212 oF), indicative of steam flowing toward the open windows in the 

bedroom. 
411

4 Discussion

The overall objective of this study was to improve the safety of firefighters and building occupants. If 

fire conditions in the building are such that fire fighters can not safely do their job, clearly the options 

available to the occupants will be limited and they will be at great risk. A means to evaluate the 

effectiveness of PPV, WCD and/or externally applied water is to examine the tactic’s capability to 

mitigrate the hazard and provide survivable conditions in the stairwell and corridor for firefighters in full 

PPE. To assess these conditions and the effectiveness of the tactics, a brief discussion of firefighter 

tenability is required. 

The fire environment provides many challenges; reduced visibility, toxic combustion products, thermal 

energy and potential for structural collapse. Since a fire resistive building was used in this study, the 

challenges are limited to the first three items listed above. Firefighters may be equipped to deal with 

these challenges with thermal imagers to improve visibility, self contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) 

to protect against the combustion products for a limited time, and PPE to absorb thermal energy for a 

limited time. How long the PPE can protect the firefighter from a thermal injury is based on many 

factors; thermal storage capacity of the gear, condition of the PPE, moisture content of the PPE, fit of 

the PPE, insulation under the PPE (station uniform), and the rate of energy (heat) transfer to the PPE. 

The rate of heat transfer is of predominate interest in examining the results of these experiments. 

Unfortunately there is no single measure, as the heat is transferred in different ways. The two principle 

means of heat transfer of concern here are convection which is a function of the gas temperature and gas 

velocity and radiation which is a function of the gas temperature and the composition of the fire gases. 

In the wind driven tests post-window failure, the majority of the heat transfer, even in positions near the 

floor is a combination of convection and radiation. In other words, hot fire gases flowing over a 

firefighter and hot gases and/or hot surfaces in the compartment radiating energy to the firefighter. One 

of the more extreme examples of this combination of convective and radiative heat transfer is direct 

flame impingement. 

In the ideal situation PPE is designed to protect a firefighter from temperatures up to 260 oC (500 oF) for 

5 minutes [47]. However, that does not account for the heat flux that the PPE is exposed to along with 

the elevated temperature, nor the increased rate of heat transfer due to the relatively high velocity 

convective flows. Just prior to flashover, the heat flux from the upper hot gas layer to the floor 

approaches 20 kW/m2

. Post-flashover heat flux conditions range from 60 kW/m2 to more than 

160 kW/m2

. Based on previous research at NIST, a firefighter in full PPE, exposed to temperatures in 

excess of 260 oC (500 oF) combined with heat fluxes in excess of 20 kW/m2 suggest that survival time 

would be limited to less than 30 s [48, 49, 50]. In these experiments, during a wind driven condition, 

temperatures on the order of at least 400 oC (752 oF) occurred in the corridor and portions, prior to using 

one of the mitigating tactics, indicating that conditions in the corridor and portions of the stair may not 

be not survivable for a firefighter in full PPE. 

The first two experiments (7G and 7G2) were conducted without an imposed wind condition to examine 

the development of the fire and the impact of PPV. The next eleven experiments were conducted with 

simulated wind of 9 m/s to 11 m/s (20 mph to 25 mph), typically imposed on a window in the room of 

fire origin. These experiments were used to develop wind driven fire conditions in the structure and 

then examine different means of controlling the flow path through the structure, i.e. doors, fans and 
412

WCDs, to mitigate the hazard. Suppression tactics using appliances from the floor below were also 

examined in these experiments. 

The last experiment (3GK) was focused mainly on horizontal flow path from the upwind side of the 

building to the downwind side. For this experiment, natural wind was available and was used. The 

MVU driven flow was also used in the latter part of in this experiment. 

Each of the experiments had a list of objectives that were to be examined. In this section, those 

objectives will be examined across the experimental series and examples will be given focusing on the 

specific tactic or tactics used. The effectiveness will be examined mainly in terms of temperature, but 

velocity and pressure will also be considered as the conditions are related and references will be made 

back to the specific figures in the experiment. 

Wind driven fire conditions – The wind driven condition can be described as hot gases or flames 

flowing horizontally out of the room of fire origin. The wind driven fire condition has been described as 

a “blow torch”. For our purposes, a wind driven fire condition was when the fire gases were well mixed 

and of equally high temperature from the floor to the ceiling, on the order of at least 400 oC (752 oF). 

This condition was generated in eleven of the fourteen experiments. The three exceptions were 

experiments 7G, 7G2 and 5E. Experiments 7G and 7G2 were conducted with no imposed external 

wind, hence no wind driven fire condition. Experiment 5E had an imposed wind on the upwind window 

of the fire room, however a WCD was deployed prior to window failure, as a result there was no wind 

driven fire condition in Apartment 5E. 

An example of the uniform floor to ceiling temperatures is given below in Figure 4-1. These 

temperature measurements show the first 400 s after ignition at the corridor location outside of 

apartment 7K. The fire was started in the bedroom, approximately 15 m (50 ft) away from the 

measurement location. The temperatures increased gradually and they were stratified with the hotter 

gases near the ceiling. Once the flow path was completed by opening of the bulkhead door on the roof, 

temperatures from floor to ceiling increased to approximately 600 oC (1112 oF) within seconds. These 

hot gases which were typically flowing with velocities of 5 m/s (11 mph) or more are lethal to 

firefighters in full PPE. There is no safe position to “get low and let it blow” since the hot gases are well 

mixed and nearly uniform in temperature from floor to ceiling. Hence, it is critical that firefighters do 

not get caught in the flow path, downwind of a wind driven fire. 
413

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: Ignition

S7: closed

BR: double failing

S7: opening 0.08m

S7: closed

S7: opening

BH: opening

BH: closed

LBY: opening

S7: closed

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

0

200

400

600

800

1000

32

392

752

1112

1472

1832

Temperature (F)

TC Corr7KW C

TC Corr7KW 2.1m

TC Corr7KW 1.8m

TC Corr7KW 1.5m

TC Corr7KW 1.2m

TC Corr7KW 0.9m

TC Corr7KW 0.6m

Figure 4-1. Temperature vs time from the vertical thermocouple array at the corridor position outside of apartment 7K. 

If the flow path is favorable to an interior attack, the heat will be forced out of the structure by the wind 

and the cool air will be at the firefighters back as they approach the fire. Conditions adverse to an 

interior attack will be developed when the flow of air is into the structure through the fire room, such 

that heat is forced into the structure by the wind or the building ventilation path. In these cases, the 

flames or hot gases will meet the firefighters head on. In order for this condition to exist a number of 

conditions have to be met; a ventilation limited fire, which generated significant quantities of excess fuel 

in the form of combustion products, additional fuel down wind of the room of origin and most 

importantly a flow path. Without a flow path, the wind driven fire condition can not occur. 

4.1 Door Control

Door control is the most basic means to control the flow path in the building. Figure 4.1-1 and Figure 

4.1-2 show the impact of the opening and closing doors in the flow path. Figure 4.1-1 shows a portion of 

the temperature time history from Experiment 5E2. Time “zero” equals the beginning of window 

failure. At this point in time a flow path exists through the apartment into the stairwell and up to the 

open bulkhead door. At approximately the 70 s mark, the majority of the living room window had self 

vented and the living room has transitioned to a post-flashover condition with flames floor to ceiling. 

Post-flashover, all of the temperature measurements at 1.2 m (4 ft) above the floor along the flow path 

on the fire floor were in excess of 400 oC (752 oF). Once the bulkhead door was closed, the wind driven 

condition stopped. This experiment was challenging because the living room was still able to get air 

from other open windows in the apartment, therefore the living room continued to burn but the flow of 

hot gases into the corridor and stairwell slowed down. Just prior to the bulkhead door being closed, the 

velocity of the hot gas flowing out of the bulkhead was approximately 10 m/s (22 mph) and the 

temperature at the bulkhead was over 1000 oC (1832 oF), Figure 3.7-15 and Figure 3.7-17. Within 

seconds of closing the bulkhead door, the velocity at the bulkhead was reduced to 0 m/s and within 90 s 

the temperature at the bulkhead had decreased to approximately 200 oC (392 oF). 
414

However, the thermal conditions on the fire floor were decreased slowly due to the continued burning in 

the living room. PPV fans were turned on at the lobby doors, however, with the bulkhead door closed 

and the imposed wind still blowing into the apartment, the pressures in the stairwell at the fire floor were 

in the 50 Pa to 60 Pa range, more than the fan at the position could overcome, Figure 3.7-16. 

A FBN 1, flowing approximately 160 gpm with a narrow fog pattern, was discharged into the living 

room window opening. After a few seconds of adjustment, water flowed into the living room and 

temperatures on the fire floor were reduced to approximately 100 oC (212 oF) within 70 s. 

 

These results demonstrated that closing a door to interrupt the flow path, even a door remote from the 

fire floor, in this case the bulkhead door, can stop the wind driven flow condition. However, the further 

the door is away from the fire apartment the larger the area that may still be filled with hot gases (stored 

fuel and energy). In this experiment, applying water from the floor below was needed to control the fire 

in the living room and dissipate the heat on the fire floor, thus rendering the area safe for further 

firefighter operations. 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

LR: window failing

BH: closedLR: window clearLBY: fan onLBY: left closedLBY: fan movedLBY: fan movedLR: FBN flowingLBY: fan movedLR: FBN stoppedLBY: left opening

-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

32

392

752

1112

1472

1832

2192

Temperature (F)

TC Corr5EE 1.2m

TC Corr5AE 1.2m

TC CorrStair5E 1.2m

TC Stair5E 1.2m

Figure 4.1-1. Temperature vs time, several locations on the fire floor at 1.2 m (4 ft) above the floor, experiment 5E2. T=0 is the 

time of the beginning of window failure. 

Experiment 5G2 demonstrated the impact that opening doors to create a flow path can have on the 

development of wind driven conditions. Figure 4.1-2 shows a portion of the temperature time history 

from experiment 5G2, where time zero is defined at the time that the door to the stairwell on the fire 

floor was opened. By opening that door, a flow path was developed that went from the open living room 

window through the stairwell and down through the open 1st floor stair door to the outside. As a result 

this action increased the temperature in the stair on the fire floor and at adjacent floors above and below 

the fire floor by approximately 100 oC (212 oF), Figure 3.11-15. The hot gas velocity flowing out of the 

apartment and into the stair were approximately 2 m/s (4 mph) as a result of the stair door opening on 

the fire floor and flow out of the stairwell at the 1st floor was about 1 m/s (2 mph). 
415

Approximately 20 seconds later the bulkhead door was opened. This gave the buoyant hot gases a flow 

path that was up and out. Within 30 s of the opening of the bulkhead door, temperatures in the flow 

path on the fire floor had exceeded 600 oC (1112 oF). Temperatures in the stairwell above the fire floor 

increased to almost 600 oC (1112 oF) at the 6th floor landing and 400 oC (752 oF), Figure 3.11-15. 

The velocity of the hot gases flowing out of the apartment and into the stairwell increased to 

approximately 6 m/s (13 mph), Figure 3.11-17. 

 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

S5: opening

BH: opening

-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

0

200

400

600

800

1000

32

392

752

1112

1472

1832

Temperature (F)

TC Corr5GW 1.2m

TC Corr5KW 1.2m

TC CorrStair5W 1.2m

TC Stair5W 1.2m

Figure 4.1-2. 5G2 Temperature vs time, several locations on the fire floor at 1.2 m (4 ft) above the floor. T=0 is the time of opening 

the 5th floor stairwell door. 

4.2 PPV fans to control smoke movement

As documented in several previous studies [39,40], PPV fans can be used effectively in high rise 

buildings to pressurize stairwells to protect them from the inflow of combustion products based on the 

natural pressures that are generated from fire. Figure 4.2-1 and Figure 4.2-2 provide examples of the 

impact that a single 27 inch PPV fan can have on the temperatures in the stairwell from a non-wind 

driven fire on the 7th floor, during experiments 7G and 7G2 respectively. In each case, time zero equals 

the time that the fan team had the fan in place, started and operating at maximum rpm. With cool air 

from outside the structure being forced into the stairwell, the temperatures decreased to near ambient 

temperatures on the fire floor level within 60 s of activation. 

It has also been noted in many of the wind driven experiments that one or two 27 inch PPV fans could 

not exceed the pressures generated by a wind driven fire condition. In experiment G2, with one fan 

operating on the 1st floor and one fan operating on the 5th floor with the bulkhead door closed and the 

fire floor door open stairwell pressures were in the range of 15 Pa to 30 Pa. 

In comparison, experiments 5A and 5G had imposed wind conditions. With the 1st floor and 5th floor 

(fire floor) doors open to the stairwell and the bulkhead door closed, the differential pressures at the fire 

floor and up exceeded 40 Pa. 
416

The key to successful use of PPV fans is to mitigate the wind driven fire condition via door control or 

other tactics. Then the PPVs can be used to clear the stair and then pressurize the stairwell to provide a 

safe working environment. Even if the PPV fans, when used alone, could not reverse the flow of a wind 

driven fire, they always improved conditions in the stairwell. 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

S1: fan on

BH: closed

S7: closed

-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

0

50

100

150

200

32

122

212

302

392

Temperature (F)

TC Bulkhead MidW

TC Stair7 MidW

TC Stair 6W

TC Stair 4W

TC Stair 2W

TC Stair1 MidW

Figure 4.2-1. 7G Stairwell temperature vs time. T=0 is the time that the fan was operating at the 1st floor doorway to the stairwell. 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

S1: fan on

BH opening

-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

0

50

100

150

200

250

32

122

212

302

392

482

Temperature (F)

TC Bulkhead MidW

TC Stair7 MidW

TC Stair 6W

TC Stair 4W

TC Stair 2W

TC Stair1 MidW

Figure 4.2-2. 7G2 Stairwell temperature vs time. T=0 is the time that the fan was operating at the 1st floor doorway to the 

stairwell. 
417

4.3 WCD to control wind driven conditions

As discussed earlier, if the flow path can be interrupted, wind driven fire conditions cannot exist. All of 

the WCDs used in this study and in previous studies [1, 40] demonstrated that they were effective 

interrupting the flow path and were able to withstand the fire conditions to which they were exposed 

without failing. Once the WCD was deployed and covered the window completely, the flow path was 

interrupted, the velocities in the flow path decreased, and the wind driven condition stopped. As shown 

below in Figure 4.3-1, the firefighters would then be faced with the residual fire and stored energy (hot 

gases and hot walls, ceiling and floor) and fuels (smoke and remaining furnishings or interior finish) in 

the structure. 

Figure 4.3-1 and Figure 4.3-2 demonstrate the impact that WCDs can have on a post flashover wind 

driven fire environment. Time zero is the point in time that the WCD was in place for each experiment. 

In both figures is can be seen that the temperatures began to decrease at locations remote from the room 

of origin almost immediately. Within 120 s of deployment, the temperatures had decreased by at least 

50% from the temperatures at the time of WCD deployment. 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: WCD in place (double)

S7: opening 0.08m

S7: openS7: closed

-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

32

392

752

1112

1472

1832

2192

Temperature (F)

TC BR7AE 1.2m

TC Corr7AE 1.2m

TC Corr7EE 1.2m

TC CorrStair7E 1.2m

TC Stair7E 1.2m

Figure 4.3-1. 7A Temperature vs time at 1.2 m above the floor. T=0, is the time that the WCD was deployed. 
418

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: placing WCD (double)

S7: opening 0.08m

S7: open

S7: closed

S1: fan on

-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

32

392

752

1112

1472

1832

2192

Temperature (F)

TC BR7KW 1.2m

TC Corr7KW 1.2m

TC Corr7GW 1.2m

TC CorrStair7W 1.2m

TC Stair7W 1.2m

Figure 4.3-2. 7K Temperature vs time at 1.2 m (4 ft) above the floor. T=0, is the time that the WCD was deployed. 

4.4 FBN to control wind driven conditons

The results of the experiments with the FBN demonstrated that a relatively small amount of water flow, 

125 gpm to 200 gpm had a significant effect on suppressing the fire in the room of origin and reducing 

the temperatures downwind of the fire apartment. In the case of the FBNs or externally applied water, 

the temperature reductions were the most significant in the room of fire origin, reducing the 

temperatures to approximately 100 oC (212 oF) within 60 s of the start of suppression. Figure 4.4-1 and 

Figure 4.4-2, from experiments 3A and 5K respectively, show the temperatures at 1.2 m (4 ft) above the 

floor in the bedroom (room of fire origin) and outside of the fire apartment at locations in the corridor 

and in the stairwell on the fire floor. In Experiment 3A, Figure 4.4-1, the post flashover wind driven fire 

was suppressed with FBN1, which was fitted with a 1-1/8th inch smooth bore tip, and flowing 

approximately 160 gpm of water. Notice that after the initial bedroom fire was suppressed, the water 

flow was stopped and the FBN was moved to suppress the fire that the wind had spread to the living 

room. This provided additional reductions in temperatures on the fire floor. 

Figure 4.4-2 shows a similar scenario from Experiment 5K. In this experiment FBN1 was fitted with an 

adjustable fog tip. The nozzle was adjusted to a narrow setting of approximately 30o and had a flow rate 

of 160 gpm. Again, the nozzle provided rapid suppression of the bedroom. The fog stream did not 

have as much impact downstream as did the solid stream when bounced off the ceiling. Just as in 3A, 

the FBN was moved to suppress the fire that the wind had spread to the living room. This further 

reduced the temperatures on the fire floor. In both cases, the FBN was able to reduce the hazards and 

provide a tenable environment for firefighters in full PPE. 
419

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: FBN flowing (double)

BR: FBN stopped (double)

LR: window failing

LR: window clearLR: FBN flowingLR: FBN stoppedLR: FBN flowingLR: FBN stopped

-30 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

32

392

752

1112

1472

1832

2192

Temperature (F)

TC BR3AE 1.2m

TC Corr3AE 1.2m

TC Corr3EE 1.2m

TC CorrStair3E 1.2m

TC Stair3E 1.2m

Figure 4.4-1. 3A Temperature vs time at 1.2 m (4 ft) above the floor. T=0 is the time that suppression was started. 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: FBN flowing (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)BH: closedLR: FBN flowingLR: FBN stopped

-30 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300

0

300

600

900

1200

1500

32

572

1112

1652

2192

2732

Temperature (F)

TC BR5KW 1.2m

TC Corr5KW 1.2m

TC Corr5GW 1.2m

TC CorrStair5W 1.2m

TC Stair5W 1.2m

Figure 4.4-2. 5K Temperature vs time at 1.2 m (4 ft) above the floor. T=0 is the time that suppression was started. 

4.5 Window Failure Time

The windows in the apartments were double pane, aluminum framed windows. Whereas the focus of the 

study was not on window construction or window failure modes, the data collected on window failure 

provides some insight. Only the failure times from the bedroom double windows is examined because 

those were the experiments in which the point of ignition was in the same location relative to the 

window and where the windows had not been previous exposed to fire conditions. These results are 

summarized in Table 4.5-1. 
420

Based on what appeared to be a long time for window failure in Experiment 7G and since flashover and 

the wind driven conditions could not occur until the window failed, the inner pane of glass was removed 

for Experiment 7E. This resulted in a failure time of 163 s and appeared to delay the onset of flashover 

because of the early failure time. In both of these cases the gas temperature in the bedroom at 2.1 m 

above the floor, was approximately 500 oC (932 oF). 

In the remaining experiments, the inner window pane was left in place, but the glass was scored with a 

glass cutter to increase points of stress to incur earlier failure of the inner pane. In these cases the failure 

times ranged from a low of 233 s to a high of 496 s and averaged 342 s. Gas temperatures in the room, 

near the ceiling, at the time of failure, ranged from 300 o C (572 oF) to 700 o C (1292). 

In each of the experiments, it appeared that flames made contact with the windows prior to failure of the 

glass. The failure of the glass was one of the enabling events for the wind driven fire condition inside 

the structure, as it served as the fresh air inlet to any potential flow path that might evolve based on 

opening of doors or other windows. 
421

Table 4.5-1. Failure Time of Bedroom Double Window and Approximate Upper Layer Gas Temperature 

Experiment Time to Initial 

Failure (s) 

Approximate Gas 

Temperature (o C) 

Comments 

7G 344 550 no wind 

7E 163 550 inner pane of glass removed 

7A 316 400 Inner pane scored 

7K 240 700 1.8m in BR, Inner pane scored 

5E 233 550 WCD pre-deployed, Inner pane scored 

5K 303 550 Inner pane scored 

5A 234 500 Inner pane scored 

5G 425 300 Inner pane scored 

3E 493 550 Inner pane scored 

3A 496 550 Inner pane scored 

5 Tactical Considerations

Fire departments that wish to implement the tactics used in this study will need to develop training and 

determine appropriate methods for deploying these tactics. Variations in the methods of deployment 

may be required due to differences in staffing, equipment, building stock, typical weather conditions, 

etc. There is uniformity however, in the physics behind the wind driven fire condition and the principles 

of the tactics examined. These are discussed below. 

Wind is a factor. As shown in these experiments, wind can significantly increase the thermal 

hazards of a fire in a structure. Wind conditions will vary at different elevations above the ground floor, 

on different sides of a building, due to the effects of surrounding structures or topography, or just 

changes in the wind itself. Therefore wind needs to be considered as part of the intial “size-up” of the 

fire conditions and continue to be monitored and reported on throughout the fire incident. 

 Smoke is Fuel. A ventilation limited (fuel rich) condition developed prior to the failure of the 

windows. Oxygen depleted combustion products, containing carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and 

unburned hydrocarbons, filled the rooms of the structure. Once the window failed, the fresh air 

provided the oxygen needed to sustain the transition through flashover, which caused a significant 

increase in temperature. 

 Venting does not always equal cooling. In these experiments, the cool air forced into the 

broken upwind window resulted in an initial period of cooling in the room of origin, typically followed 

by a transition to flashover, if a flow path was available. 

 Fire induced flows. Velocities within the structure exceeded 5 m/s (11 mph), just due to the fire 

growth and the flow path that was set-up between the window opening and the open bulkhead door on 

the roof. 
422

Avoid the flow path. The directional nature of the fire gas flow was demonstrated with thermal 

conditions which were significantly higher in the “flow” portion of the corridor as opposed to the 

position remote from the flowpath. Thermal conditions in the flow path were often higher than 

 400 oC (752 oF) and were not consistent with firefighter survival. 

Control the flow path. Wind driven conditions with untenable thermal conditions can not occur 

if there is no flow path through the structure. If the door to the stair on the fire floor is closed, the spread 

of fire and heat will be limited and wind driven “blow torch” conditions will not occur. In these 

experiments, after the fire room window had failed, opening the fire floor stair door and the bulkhead 

door, typically provided the flow path that led to wind driven “blow torch” conditions on the fire floor. 

Therefore it is importment to control and coordinate the opening and closing of doors in a structure. 

This study has also shown that WCDs, when deployed in a way to completely cover the window 

opening, were effective in mitigating the effects of the wind and controlling inlet of the flow path. The 

experiments demonstrated the importance of coordinating and controlling the opening and closing of 

doors, which could provide a flow path, to avoid placing fire fighters in the flow path. Fire fighter 

training would be beneficial to identify and prepare areas which could be used as safe areas of refuge, 

which are out of the flow path. 

Use of PPV. Two 27 in PPV fans could not overcome the effects of a wind driven condition. 

However when used in conjunction with door control, WCDs, and FBNs (tactics that stop the wind 

driven condition) the PPV fans were able to maintain tenable and clear conditions in the stairwell. In 

these experiments, PPV use always improved conditions in the stairwell. 

 Impact of WCDs. In these experiments, the WCDs reduced the temperatures in the corridor and 

the stairwell by more than 50 % within 120 s of deployment. The WCDs also completely mitigated any 

velocity due to the external wind. The WCDs were exposed to a variety of extended thermal conditions 

without failure. The WCD must cover the window opening completely to be effective. Pre-deployment 

of a WCD over the fire room upwind window, prevented the development of wind driven fire 

conditions. The benefit of using a WCD, compared to using the apartment door or the stairwell door, is 

that the flow path is interrupted at the entry point. This improves all of the conditions along the entire 

potential flow path. 

 Impact of externally applied water. In these experiments, the externally applied water streams 

were implemented in different ways; a fog stream inserted into the fire room window, a fog stream 

flowed from the floor below into the fire room window opening, and a solid water stream flowed from 

the floor below into the fire room window opening. In all cases, the water flows suppressed the fires, 

thereby causing reductions of at least 50 % in temperature in the corridor and the stairwell. The water 

flow rates used in these experiments were between 125 gpm and 200 gpm, demonstrating that a 

relatively small amount of water directly applied to burning fuels can have a significant impact. 

Wind driven fire conditions can generate and transfer energy throughout the flow path. When doors or 

WCDs are used to stop the wind driven fire conditions, energy and fuel may be trapped on the fire floor. 

These experimental results indicate that the thermal conditions due to the residual heat on the fire floor, 

were still of a level which could pose a hazard to firefighters in full PPE. However when used in 

combination with PPV fans to force cool air into the stairwell and out through the fire floor, and or with 
423

the cooling effect from water streams, the fire floor temperatures were reduced to tenable conditions for 

fire fighters in full PPE in minutes. 

6 Future Research

The results from this series of full scale experiments in a 7-story, fire resistive building demonstrated 

that WCDs, and externally applied water streams, have the potential to reduce the hazard from a wind 

driven apartment fire. The resulting conditions in the corridor offered a fire environment with an 

improved level of safety for firefighters, although not an environment free from hazard. When PPV was 

used, the stair was cleared of smoke and hot gases. 

The constraints of the fire resistive construction, used in these experiments, preclude insight on the 

response of ordinary or wood frame construction buildings to wind. For example, in the case of a wood 

framed structures, this study did not fully address all of the hazards that could be generated by a wind 

driven structure fire such as a shorter time until structural collapse. Therefore it is important to take the 

lessons from these experiments and the laboratory based experiments [1] to further advance the 

understanding of these tactics in the field. Experiments in real wood framed buildings with realistic fuel 

loads are required to further the understanding of the capabilities and limitations of implementing fire 

fighting tactics with PPV, WCDs and external hose streams in non fire resistive buildings. 

6.1 Pilot Programs

FDNY has developed a training program on wind driven fires to educate their members about the 

importance of considering wind conditions when sizing up a fire, and to develop an understanding of 

flows within the building and how to control those flows with doors and PPV fans. Based on the 

outcome of the Governors Island experiments, FDNY has implemented a pilot program that includes 

training on tactics to mitigate wind driven fire hazards and deployment of PPV fans, WCDs and 

external hose streams which could be used in high rises. The Chicago Fire Department is planning to 

implement a pilot study on the use of PPV fans, WCDs, and external hose streams in the near future 

[51] 

6.2 Standard Test Methods for Equipment

As the research and field trials continue, there are many commercially available products that are being 

examined and there are many prototype firefighting tools that are being offered for use in the 

experiments. If the technologies demonstrated continue to prove effective in the field trials and pilot 

programs, the next step may be to examine the need for standards and standardized test methods to 

define a minimum level of acceptable performance of these devices. 

7 Summary

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the Fire Department of New York City 
424

(FDNY), and the Polytechnic Institute of New York University with the support of the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS)/Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Assistance to Firefighters 

Research and Development Grant Program and the United States Fire Administration (USFA), have 

conducted a series of wind driven fire experiments in a 7-story, building on Governors Island, New 

York. 

The objective of this study was to improve the safety of firefighters and building occupants by enabling 

a better understanding of wind driven fires and wind driven firefighting tactics, including structural 

ventilation and suppression. A series of 14 experiments were conducted to evaluate the ability of 

positive pressure ventilation fans (PPV), wind control devices (WCD) and floor below nozzles (FBN) to 

mitigate the hazards of a wind driven fire in a structure. 

Each of the 14 experiments started with a fire in a furnished room. The air flow for 12 of the 14 

experiments was intensified by a natural or mechanical wind. Each of the tools was evaluated 

individually as well and in conjunction with each other to assess the benefit to fire fighters, as well as 

potential occupants in the structure. The measurements used to examine the impact of the WCDs and 

the external water application tactics were temperature, differential pressure, and gas velocity inside the 

structure. Each of the experiments was recorded with video and thermal imaging cameras. These 

experiments also provided visual documentation of fire phenomena that are not typically observable on 

the fire ground. 

The experiments were designed to expose a public corridor and stairwell area to a wind driven, postflashover apartment fire. The door from the apartment to the corridor was open for each of the 

experiments. The conditions in the corridor and the stairwell were of critical importance because that is 

the portion of the building that firefighters would use to approach the fire apartment or that occupants 

from an adjoining apartments or adjacent floors would use to exit the building. 

All of the fires were ignited in furnished rooms of an apartment. Due to excess fuel generation (or lack 

of ventilation) the room of fire origin could not transition to flashover until windows self-vented and 

introduced additional fresh air with oxygen to burn. Without a wind imposed on the vented window, the 

fire did not spread from the room of origin and never left the apartment of origin. Even with no 

externally applied wind, creating a flow path from the outside, through the fire apartment into the 

corridor and up the stairs to the bulkhead on the roof increased the temperatures and velocities in the 

corridors and in the stairwell to create hazardous conditions for fire fighters and untenable conditions for 

occupants on the fire floor and above in the stairwell. 

With an imposed wind of 9 m/s to 11 m/s (20 mph to 25 mph) and flow path through the fire floor and 

exiting out of the bulkhead, temperatures in excess of 400 oC (752 oF) and velocities on the order of 

10 m/s (22 mph) were measured in the corridor and stairwell above the fire floor. These extreme 

thermal conditions are not teneable, even for a firefighter in full protective gear. 

These experiments demonstrated the “extreme” thermal conditions that can be generated by a “simple 

room and contents” fire and how these conditions can be extended along a flow path within a real 

structure when wind and an open vent are present. Potential tactics which could be implemented to 

interrupt and control the flow path are door control from inside the structure and or a WCD from the 
425

floor above the fire. From the floor below the fire, external water application was demonstrated to be 

effective in reducing the thermal hazard in the corridor and stairwell. 

Impact of PPV. PPV fans alone could not overcome the effects of a wind driven condition. However 

when used in conjunction with door control, WCDs, and FBNs the PPV fans were able to maintain 

tenable and clear conditions in the stairwell. 

Impact of WCDs. In these experiments, the WCDs reduced the temperatures in the corridor and the 

stairwell by more than 50 % within 120 s of deployment. The WCDs also completely mitigated any 

velocity due to the external wind. The WCDs were exposed to a variety of extended thermal conditions 

without failure. 

Impact of externally applied water. In these experiments, the externally applied water streams were 

implemented in different ways; a fog stream inserted into the fire room window, a fog stream flowed 

from the floor below into the fire room window opening, and a solid water stream flowed from the floor 

below into the fire room window opening. In all cases, the water flows suppressed the fires, thereby 

causing reductions in temperature in the corridor and the stairwell of at least 50 %. The water flow rates 

used in these experiments were between 160 gpm and 200 gpm, demonstrating that a relatively small 

amount of water applied directly to the burn fuels can have a significant impact. 

These experimental results also indicate that the post deployment thermal conditions for flow path 

control using a WCD, after the development of wind driven conditions, were still of a level which could 

pose a hazard to firefighters in full PPE. However, when used in combination with PPV fans to force 

cool air into the stairwell and out through the fire floor, and or with the cooling effect from an externally 

applied water stream, the fire floor temperatures can be reduced to near ambient conditions in minutes. 

The experiments also provided potential guidance for firefighters as a part of a fire size up and approach 

to the room of fire origin: note wind conditions in the area of the fire, look for “pulsing flames”, or 

flames not exiting a window opening, examine smoke conditions around closed doors in the potential 

flow path, and maintain control of doors in the flow path. Even if flames are being forced out of 

adjacent windows with a high amount of energy, there could still be sufficient energy flows on the fire 

floor to create a hazard for firefighters. 

The data from this research will also help to identify methods and promulgation of improved standard 

operating guidelines (SOG) for the fire service to enhance firefighter safety, fire ground operations, and 

use of equipment. If the demonstrated technologies continue to prove effective in the field trials and 

pilot programs, the next step may be to examine the need for standards and standardized test methods to 

define a minimum level of acceptable performance of these devices. 
426

8 References

1. Madrzykowski, D., and Kerber, S., Fire Fighting Tactics Under Wind Driven Conditions: 

Laboratory Experiments. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, 

NIST TN 1618, January 2009. 

2. Hall, John, R., High-rise Building Fires. National Fire Protection Association, Fire Analysis and 

Research Division, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA., August 2005. 

3. Madrzykowski, D., and Walton, W.D., Cook County Administration Building Fire, 69 West 

Washington, Chicago, Illinois, October 17, 2003: Heat Release Rate Experiments and FDS 

simulations. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, NIST SP 1021, 

July 2004. 

4. NIOSH F99-01, Three firefighters die in a 10-Story High-Rise Apartment Building – New York, 

NIOSH Fire Fighter Fatality Investigation and Prevention Program, Morgantown, WV., August 

1999. 

5. NIOSH F2001-33, High-Rise Apartment Fire Claims the Life of One Career Fire Fighter (Captain) 

and Injures Another Career Fire Fighter (Captain) – Texas, NIOSH Fire Fighter Fatality 

Investigation and Prevention Program, Morgantown, WV., October 2002. 

6. http://www.nfpa.org/itemDetail.asp?categoryID=14398&itemID=34426&URL=Learning/Public%2

0education/Fire%20Prevention%20Week/About%20Fire%20Prevention%20Week. National 

Fire Protection Association, About Fire Prevention Week. Downloaded 9/11/08. 

7. http://www.crh.noaa.gov/grr/history/?m=10&d=8 NOAA National Weather Service Weather 

Forecast Office, Weather History of October 8th. Downloaded 9/11/08. 

8. NFPA 1051, Standard for Wildland Fire Fighter Professional Qualifications, National Fire 

Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA. 2007 ed. 

9. NFPA 1001, Standard for Fire Fighter Professional Qualifications, National Fire Protection 

Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA. 2008 ed. 

10. NFPA 1021, Standard for Fire Officer Professional Qualifications, National Fire Protection 

Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA. 2003 ed. 

11. Andrews, P.L.; Bevins, C.D., Seli, R.C., BehavePlus fire modeling system, version 4.0: User’s 

Guide. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, General Technical Report 

RMRS-GTR-106WWW, July 2008. 

12. Fundamentals of Wildland Fire Fighting, International Fire Service Training Association, 

Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 3rd ed. 1998. 

13. Essentials of Fire Fighting, International Fire Service Training Association, Oklahoma State 

University, Stillwater, OK 5th ed., 2008. 

14. Firefighter’s Handbook, Essentials of Firefighting and Emergency Response, 2nd ed. Thomson 

Delmar Learning, Clifton Park, NY, 2004. 

15. Fundamentals of Fire Fighter Skills, Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Sudbury, MA., 2004. 

16. Norman, John, “Extreme Wind Driven Fireproof Multiple Dwelling Fires”, With New York 

Firefighters (WNYF), New York, NY, 1st/2007. 

17. Tracy, Gerald, “1 Lincoln Plaza, Operations of the First-Arriving Units at a High-Rise Multiple 

Dwelling Fire”, With New York Firefighters (WNYF), New York, NY., 2nd/1997. 

18. Daly, James, D., and Healy, George, “Wind-Driven Queens Fire Provokes Several Maydays”, With 

New York Firefighters (WNYF), New York, NY., 3rd/2006. 

19. Tracy, Gerald, Personal Communication. 
427

20. Fighting Wind Driven Fires in High Rise Multiple Dwellings, FDNY, 9 Metrotech Center, 

Brooklyn, NY., 2007. 

21. NIOSH F2005-03, Career lieutenant and career fire fighter die and four career fire fighters are 

seriously injured during a three alarm apartment fire - New York. NIOSH Fire Fighter Fatality 

Investigation and Prevention Program, Morgantown, WV. Issued January 2006, Revised January 

2007. 

22. Liu, Henry, “Wind Engineering: A Handbook for Structural Engineers”. Prentice Hall, Englewood 

Cliffs, NJ 1991. pp62-64. 

23. Simiu, Emil and Scanlan, Robert H., “Wind Effects on Structures, Fundamentals and Applications 

to Design”, 3rd ed.. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 1996, p 520. 

24. Investigation Number 02-50-10, Captain Jay Jahnke, Houston Fire Department, October 13, 2001 , 

State Fire Marshal’s Office Line of Duty Death Investigation, Texas Department of Insurance, 

Austin, Texas. 

25. NIOSH F98-26, Eight-Alarm Fire in a 27-story High-Rise Apartment Building for the Elderly 

Nearly Claims the Life of One Fire Fighter – Missouri. NIOSH Fire Fighter Fatality 

Investigation and Prevention Program, Morgantown, WV. February 23, 1999. 

26. NIOSH F2007-12, Career Fire Fighter Dies in Wind Driven Residential Structure Fire – Virginia. 

NIOSH Fire Fighter Fatality Investigation and Prevention Program, Morgantown, WV. Issued 

May 2008, Revised June 2008. 

27. Goldfeder, W., Front Door Left Open by Occupants Advances Fire Onto Firefighters, Firehouse, 

Vol. 33, No. 3, Melville, NY., March 2008. 

28. “Report # 05-0000531.” National Firefighter Near-Miss Reporting System. 18 September 2005. 

11 September 2008 <http://www.firefighternearmiss.com/gogglemini/h05-0000531.html>. 

29. “Report # 06-0000164.” “National Firefighter Near-Miss Reporting System. 15 March 2006. 

11 September 2008 <http://www.firefighternearmiss.com/googlemini/h06-0000164.html>. 

30. “Report # 06-0000186.” National Firefighter Near-Miss Reporting System. 24 March 2006. 

11 September 2008 <http://www.firefighternearmiss.com/googlemini/h06-0000186.html>. 

31. “Report # 06-0000501.” National Firefighter Near-Miss Reporting System. 4 October 2006. 

11 September 2008 < http://www.firefighternearmiss.com/googlemini/h06-0000501.html>. 

32. “Report # 07-0000805.” National Firefighter Near-Miss Reporting System. 19 March 2007. 

11 September 2008 <http://www.firefighternearmiss.com/googlemini/h07-0000805.html>. 

33. “Report # 07-0000960.” National Firefighter Near-Miss Reporting System. 14 June 2007. 

11 September 2008 <http://www.firefighternearmiss.com/googlemini/h07-00960.html>. 

34. “Report # 08-0000154.” National Firefighter Near-Miss Reporting System. 25 March 2008. 

11 September 2008 <http://www.firefighternearmiss.com/googlemini/h08-0000154.html>. 

35. Kerber, S. and Walton, W. D. “Characterizing Positive Pressure Ventilation Using Computational 

Fluid Dynamics”. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD., NISTIR 

7065, 2003. 

36. Kerber, S. and Walton, W. D. “Effect of Positive Pressure Ventilation on a Room Fire.” National 

Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD., NISTIR 7213, 2005. 

37. Kerber, S. and Walton, W. D. “Full Scale Evaluation of Positive Pressure Ventilation in a Fire 

Fighter Training Building.” National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD., 

NISTIR 7342, 2006. 

38. Kerber, S. “Evaluation of the Ability of Fire Dynamic Simulator to Simulate Positive Pressure 

Ventilation in the Laboratory and Practical Scenarios.” National Institute of Standards and 

Technology, Gaithersburg, MD., NISTIR 7315, 2006. 
428

39. Kerber, S., Madrzykowski, D., Stroup, D. “Evaluating Positive Pressure Ventilation In Large 

Structures: High-Rise Pressure Experiments.” National Institute of Standards and Technology, 

Gaithersburg, MD., NISTIR 7412, 2007. 

40. Kerber, S., Madrzykowski, D., “Evaluating Positive Pressure Ventilation In Large Structures: HighRise Fire Experiments.” National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD., 

NISTIR 7468, 2007. 

41. Taylor, B.N., and Kuyatt, C.E., “Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST 

Measurement Results”, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg. MD., 

NIST TN 1297, January 1993. 

42. Setra Model 264, Very Low Pressure Transducer Data Sheet Rev E., Setra Systems, Boxborough, 

MA., December 2002. 

43. Omega Engineering Inc., The Temperature Handbook, Vol. MM, pages Z-39-40, Stamford, CT., 

2004. 

44. Blevins, L.G., "Behavior of Bare and Aspirated Thermocouples in Compartment Fires", National 

Heat Transfer Conference, 33rd Proceedings. HTD99-280. August 15-17, 1999, Albuquerque, 

NM, 1999. 

45. Pitts, W.M., E. Braun, R.D. Peacock, H.E. Mitler, E. L. Johnsson, P.A. Reneke, and L.G.Blevins, 

"Temperature Uncertainties for Bare-Bead and Aspirated Thermocouple Measurements in Fire 

Environments," Thermal Measurements: The Foundation of Fire Standards. American Society 

for Testing and Materials (ASTM). Proceedings. ASTM STP 1427. December 3, 2001, Dallas, 

TX. 

46. Fit 5 Product Information Sheet, ARA Safety Inc., Vancouver BC 2008 

47. Abeles, F.J.; Del Vecchio, R.J.; and Himel, V.H., A Firefighter’s Integrated Life Protection System: 

Phase I, Design and Performance Requirements. Grumman Aerospace Corporation, Bethpage, 

New York, September 1974. 

48. Peacock, Richard, D., Krasny, John, F., Rockett, John, A., and Huang, Dingyi, Protecting 

Firefighters Exposed in Room Fires, Part 2: Performance of Turnout Coat Materials Under 

Actual Fire Conditions. Fire Technology, Vol. 26, No. 3, August 1990, pp 202-222. 

49. Donnelly, M.K., Davis, W.D., Lawson, J.R., amd Selepak, M.J., Thermal Environment for 

Electronic Equipment Used by First Responders. National Institute of Standards and 

Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, NIST TN 1474, January 2006. 

50. Madrzykowski, D., Fatal Training Fires: Fire Analysis for the Fire Service. Interflam 2007. 

International Interflam Conference, 11th Proceedings London, England, September 3-5, 2007. 

Interscience Communications, London, England. pp 1169-1180. 

51. Personal communication with Richard Edgeworth, Director of Training, Chicago Fire Department, 

March 18, 2009. 
429

9 Appendices

9.1 Appendix A – Detailed Drawings  

Polytechnic University and the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF) 

measured the structure and their detailed drawings are included in this appendix. 
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447

9.2 Appendix B – Fuel Distribution

Table 9.2-1. Fuel Distribution for the A Apartments 

Apartment 3A Apartment 5A Apartment 7A 

Item Bedroom 

Living 

Room Bedroom 

Living 

Room Bedroom 

Living 

Room 

Mattress 1 1 1 

Box Spring 1 1 1 

Head Board 1 1 1 

Bedding/Pillows 1 1 1 

Upholstered Chair (Brown) 1 1 1 

Upholstered Chair (Red) 1 1 1 

Chair (Red w/ wood arms) 1 1 1 

Desk Chair (Green) 2 1 1 

Desk Chair (Brown) 1 1 1 

Coffee Table 1 1 1 

Desk (Dark Brown w/ blue top) 1 1 1 

Desk (Light Brown) 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Dresser (Dark Brown) 1 1 1 

Dresser (Light Brown) 1 1 1 

Table Lamp 2 2 2 2 2 2 

Nightstand (Light Brown) 1 1 2 2 

Nightstand (Dark Brown) 1 1 1 

Round Table 1 1 1 

Sofa 1 1 1 

Floor Lamp 1 1 1 

TV (Small) 1 

TV (Large) 1 1 1 1 
448

Table 9.2-2. Fuel Distribution for the E Apartments 

Apartment 3E Apartment 5E Apartment 7E 

Item Bedroom 

Living 

Room Bedroom 

Living 

Room Bedroom 

Living 

Room 

Mattress 1 1 1 

Box Spring 1 1 1 

Head Board 1 1 1 

Bedding/Pillows 1 1 1 

Upholstered Chair (Brown) 1 

Upholstered Chair (Red) 1 1 1 

Chair (Red w/ wood arms) 1 1 1 

Desk Chair (Green) 2 1 1 

Desk Chair (Brown) 1 1 1 

Coffee Table 1 1 1 

Desk (Dark Brown w/ blue top) 1 1 1 

Desk (Light Brown) 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Dresser (Dark Brown) 1 1 1 

Dresser (Light Brown) 1 1 1 

Table Lamp 2 2 2 2 2 2 

Nightstand (Light Brown) 2 2 2 

Nightstand (Dark Brown) 1 1 1 

Round Table 1 1 1 

Sofa 2 2 2 

Floor Lamp 1 1 1 

TV (Small) 1 

TV (Large) 1 1 1 1 1 
449

Table 9.2-3. Fuel distribution for the G Apartments 

Apartment 3G Apartment 5G Apartment 7G 

Item Bedrooms 

Living 

Room Bedrooms 

Living 

Room Bedrooms 

Living 

Room 

Mattress 2 2 2 

Box Spring 2 2 2 

Head Board 2 2 2 

Bedding/Pillows 2 2 2 

Upholstered Chair (Brown) 1 1 

Upholstered Chair (Red) 2 2 2 

Chair (Red w/ wood arms) 1 1 1 

Desk Chair (Green) 2 2 2 

Desk Chair (Brown) 1 1 2 

Coffee Table 1 1 1 

Desk (Dark Brown w/ blue top) 2 2 2 

Desk (Light Brown) 2 2 2 

Dresser (Dark Brown) 2 2 2 

Dresser (Light Brown) 1 1 1 

Table Lamp 2 2 3 2 3 2 

Nightstand (Light Brown) 2 2 2 

Nightstand (Dark Brown) 2 2 2 

Round Table 2 2 2 

Sofa 1 1 1 

Floor Lamp 1 1 1 

TV (Small) 1 1 

TV (Large) 1 1 1 1 
450

Table 9.2-4. Fuel distribution for the K Apartments 

Apartment 3K Apartment 5K Apartment 7K 

Item Bedrooms 

Living 

Room Bedrooms 

Living 

Room Bedrooms 

Living 

Room 

Mattress 2 2 2 

Box Spring 2 2 2 

Head Board 2 2 2 

Bedding/Pillows 2 2 2 

Upholstered Chair (Brown) 1 1 

Upholstered Chair (Red) 2 2 2 

Chair (Red w/ wood arms) 1 1 1 

Desk Chair (Green) 1 2 2 

Desk Chair (Brown) 1 1 

Coffee Table 1 1 1 

Desk (Dark Brown w/ blue top) 2 2 2 

Desk (Light Brown) 2 2 2 

Dresser (Dark Brown) 2 2 2 

Dresser (Light Brown) 1 1 1 

Table Lamp 3 2 1 2 3 3 

Nightstand (Light Brown) 2 2 2 

Nightstand (Dark Brown) 2 2 2 

Round Table 2 2 2 

Sofa 2 2 2 

Floor Lamp 1 1 1 

TV (Small) 1 1 

TV (Large) 1 1 2 1 
451

9.3 Appendix C – Wind Measurements and Descriptions

Polytechnic University positioned weather stations around the structure to measure wind speed 

and direction. This appendix includes their data and supporting documentation. 
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497

9.4 Appendix D – Detailed Graphs

9.4.1 Experiment 7G

9.4.1.1 Temperatures 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: Ignition

BR: double failing

LBY: opening

S1: stair opening

BR: double clear

BR: single failing

BR: single clear

S7: opening 0.08m

BH: opening

S7: opening

S1: fan on

BH: closed

S7: closed

S7: opening

BH: opening/closing

S5: open/fan on

MVU starting

S5: closed/fan off

MVU stopped

Experiment completed

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

32

392

752

1112

1472

1832

2192

Temperature (F)

TC BR7GW 2.1m

TC BR7GW 1.8m

TC BR7GW 1.5m

TC BR7GW 1.2m

TC BR7GW 0.6m

Figure 9.4-1. Temperature versus time for the 7G bedroom thermocouple tree, Experiment 7G 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: Ignition

BR: double failing

LBY: opening

S1: stair opening

BR: double clear

BR: single failing

BR: single clear

S7: opening 0.08m

BH: opening

S7: opening

S1: fan on

BH: closed

S7: closed

S7: opening

BH: opening/closing

S5: open/fan on

MVU starting

S5: closed/fan off

MVU stopped

Experiment completed

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700

0

100

200

300

400

32

212

392

572

752

Temperature (F)

TC Corr7GW C

TC Corr7GW 2.1m

TC Corr7GW 1.8m

TC Corr7GW 1.5m

TC Corr7GW 1.2m

TC Corr7GW 0.9m

TC Corr7GW 0.6m

Figure 9.4-2. Temperature versus time for the 7G hall thermocouple tree, Experiment 7G 
498

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: Ignition

BR: double failing

LBY: opening

S1: stair opening

BR: double clear

BR: single failing

BR: single clear

S7: opening 0.08m

BH: opening

S7: opening

S1: fan on

BH: closed

S7: closed

S7: opening

BH: opening/closing

S5: open/fan on

MVU starting

S5: closed/fan off

MVU stopped

Experiment completed

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700

0

50

100

150

200

250

32

122

212

302

392

482

Temperature (F)

TC Corr7KW C

TC Corr7KW 2.1m

TC Corr7KW 1.8m

TC Corr7KW 1.5m

TC Corr7KW 1.2m

TC Corr7KW 0.9m

TC Corr7KW 0.6m

Figure 9.4-3. Temperature versus time for the 7K hall thermocouple tree, Experiment 7G 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: Ignition

BR: double failing

LBY: opening

S1: stair opening

BR: double clear

BR: single failing

BR: single clear

S7: opening 0.08m

BH: opening

S7: opening

S1: fan on

BH: closed

S7: closed

S7: opening

BH: opening/closing

S5: open/fan on

MVU starting

S5: closed/fan off

MVU stopped

Experiment completed

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700

0

100

200

300

400

32

212

392

572

752

Temperature (F)

TC CorrStair7W C

TC CorrStair7W 2.1m

TC CorrStair7W 1.8m

TC CorrStair7W 1.5m

TC CorrStair7W 1.2m

TC CorrStair7W 0.9m

TC CorrStair7W 0.6m

Figure 9.4-4. Temperature versus time for the 7th floor stair hall thermocouple tree, Experiment 7G 
499

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: Ignition

BR: double failing

LBY: opening

S1: stair opening

BR: double clear

BR: single failing

BR: single clear

S7: opening 0.08m

BH: opening

S7: opening

S1: fan on

BH: closed

S7: closed

S7: opening

BH: opening/closing

S5: open/fan on

MVU starting

S5: closed/fan off

MVU stopped

Experiment completed

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700

0

50

100

150

200

250

32

122

212

302

392

482

Temperature (F)

TC Stair7W 2.1m

TC Stair7W 1.8m

TC Stair7W 1.5m

TC Stair7W 1.2m

TC Stair7W 0.9m

TC Stair7W 0.6m

Figure 9.4-5. Temperature versus time for the 7th floor stairwell thermocouple tree, Experiment 7G 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: Ignition

BR: double failing

LBY: opening

S1: stair opening

BR: double clear

BR: single failing

BR: single clear

S7: opening 0.08m

BH: opening

S7: opening

S1: fan on

BH: closed

S7: closed

S7: opening

BH: opening/closing

S5: open/fan on

MVU starting

S5: closed/fan off

MVU stopped

Experiment completed

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

32

68

104

140

176

212

248

Temperature (F)

TC Bulkhead MidW

TC Stair 6W

TC Stair 4W

TC Stair 2W

TC Stair1 MidW

Figure 9.4-6. Temperature versus time for the stair thermocouples, Experiment 7G 
500

9.4.1.2 Pressures 

Time (s)

Pressure (Pa)

BR: Ignition

BR: double failing

LBY: opening

S1: stair opening

BR: double clear

BR: single failing

BR: single clear

S7: opening 0.08m

BH: opening

S7: opening

S1: fan on

BH: closed

S7: closed

S7: opening

BH: opening/closing

S5: open/fan on

MVU starting

S5: closed/fan off

MVU stopped

Experiment completed

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700

-50

0

50

100

150

200

DP Stair 7W

DP Stair 6W

DP Stair 5W

DP Stair 4W

DP Stair 3W

DP Stair 2W

DP Stair 1W

Figure 9.4-7. Differential pressure versus time for the stairwell bi-directional probes, Experiment 7G 

9.4.1.3 Velocities 

Time (s)

Velocity (m/s)

BR: Ignition

BR: double failing

LBY: opening

S1: stair opening

BR: double clear

BR: single failing

BR: single clear

S7: opening 0.08m

BH: opening

S7: opening

S1: fan on

BH: closed

S7: closed

S7: opening

BH: opening/closing

S5: open/fan on

MVU starting

S5: closed/fan off

MVU stopped

Experiment completed

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700

-12

-9

-6

-3

0

3

6

-27

-20

-13

-7

0

7

13

Velocity (mph)

VEL Stair7 TopW

VEL Stair7 MidW

VEL Stair7 BotW

Figure 9.4-8. Velocity versus time for the 7th floor stairwell bi-directional probes, Experiment 7G 
501

Time (s)

Velocity (m/s)

BR: Ignition

BR: double failing

LBY: opening

S1: stair opening

BR: double clear

BR: single failing

BR: single clear

S7: opening 0.08m

BH: opening

S7: opening

S1: fan on

BH: closed

S7: closed

S7: opening

BH: opening/closing

S5: open/fan on

MVU starting

S5: closed/fan off

MVU stopped

Experiment completed

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

-9

-4

0

4

9

13

18

22

Velocity (mph)

VEL Stair1 TopW

VEL Stair1 MidW

VEL Stair1 BotW

Figure 9.4-9. Velocity versus time for the 1st floor stairwell bi-directional probes, Experiment 7G 

Time (s)

Velocity (m/s)

BR: Ignition

BR: double failing

LBY: opening

S1: stair opening

BR: double clear

BR: single failing

BR: single clear

S7: opening 0.08m

BH: opening

S7: opening

S1: fan on

BH: closed

S7: closed

S7: opening

BH: opening/closing

S5: open/fan on

MVU starting

S5: closed/fan off

MVU stopped

Experiment completed

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

-11

-9

-7

-4

-2

0

2

Velocity (mph)

VEL Bulkhead TopW

VEL Bulkhead MidW

VEL Bulkhead BotW

Figure 9.4-10. Velocity versus time for the bulkhead bi-directional probes, Experiment 7G 
502

Time (s)

Velocity (m/s)

BR: Ignition

BR: double failing

LBY: opening

S1: stair opening

BR: double clear

BR: single failing

BR: single clear

S7: opening 0.08m

BH: opening

S7: opening

S1: fan on

BH: closed

S7: closed

S7: opening

BH: opening/closing

S5: open/fan on

MVU starting

S5: closed/fan off

MVU stopped

Experiment completed

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700

-12

-9

-6

-3

0

3

6

-27

-20

-13

-7

0

7

13

Velocity (mph)

VEL Apt7G TopW

VEL Apt7G MidW

VEL Apt7G BotW

Figure 9.4-11. Velocity versus time for the apartment 7G doorway bi-directional probes, Experiment 7G 

9.4.2 Experiment 7G2

9.4.2.1 Temperatures 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

Multiple ignitions

LBY: opening

S1: openingS7: opening

BR: double failing

S1: stair closed

S1: opening

BH opening

S1: fan onBH closedS1: fan off

BH opening

S1: fan onBH closed

LR: window failing

LR: window clear

S5: stair open/fan on

S7: closed

S7: opening

S7: open 0.08m

S7: opening

S5: closed/fan off

S1: fan offS1: fan on

BH opening

BH closed

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000

0

50

100

150

200

32

122

212

302

392

Temperature (F)

TC BR7GW 2.1m

TC BR7GW 1.8m

TC BR7GW 1.5m

TC BR7GW 1.2m

TC BR7GW 0.6m

Figure 9.4-12. Temperature versus time for the 7G2 bedroom thermocouple tree, Experiment 7G2 
503

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

Multiple ignitions

LBY: opening

S1: openingS7: opening

BR: double failing

S1: stair closed

S1: opening

BH opening

S1: fan onBH closedS1: fan off

BH opening

S1: fan onBH closed

LR: window failing

LR: window clear

S5: stair open/fan on

S7: closed

S7: opening

S7: open 0.08m

S7: opening

S5: closed/fan off

S1: fan offS1: fan on

BH opening

BH closed

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000

0

200

400

600

800

32

392

752

1112

1472

Temperature (F)

TC Corr7GW C

TC Corr7GW 2.1m

TC Corr7GW 1.8m

TC Corr7GW 1.5m

TC Corr7GW 1.2m

TC Corr7GW 0.9m

TC Corr7GW 0.6m

Figure 9.4-13. Temperature versus time for the 7G2 hall thermocouple tree, Experiment 7G2 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

Multiple ignitions

LBY: opening

S1: openingS7: opening

BR: double failing

S1: stair closed

S1: opening

BH opening

S1: fan onBH closedS1: fan off

BH opening

S1: fan onBH closed

LR: window failing

LR: window clear

S5: stair open/fan on

S7: closed

S7: opening

S7: open 0.08m

S7: opening

S5: closed/fan off

S1: fan offS1: fan on

BH opening

BH closed

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000

0

100

200

300

400

32

212

392

572

752

Temperature (F)

TC Corr7KW C

TC Corr7KW 2.1m

TC Corr7KW 1.8m

TC Corr7KW 1.5m

TC Corr7KW 1.2m

TC Corr7KW 0.9m

TC Corr7KW 0.6m

Figure 9.4-14. Temperature versus time for the 7K hall thermocouple tree, Experiment 7G2 
504

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

Multiple ignitions

LBY: opening

S1: openingS7: opening

BR: double failing

S1: stair closed

S1: opening

BH opening

S1: fan onBH closedS1: fan off

BH opening

S1: fan onBH closed

LR: window failing

LR: window clear

S5: stair open/fan on

S7: closed

S7: opening

S7: open 0.08m

S7: opening

S5: closed/fan off

S1: fan offS1: fan on

BH opening

BH closed

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000

0

100

200

300

400

500

32

212

392

572

752

932

Temperature (F)

TC CorrStair7W C

TC CorrStair7W 2.1m

TC CorrStair7W 1.8m

TC CorrStair7W 1.5m

TC CorrStair7W 1.2m

TC CorrStair7W 0.9m

TC CorrStair7W 0.6m

Figure 9.4-15. Temperature versus time for the 7th floor stair hall thermocouple tree, Experiment 7G2 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

Multiple ignitions

LBY: opening

S1: openingS7: opening

BR: double failing

S1: stair closed

S1: opening

BH opening

S1: fan onBH closedS1: fan off

BH opening

S1: fan onBH closed

LR: window failing

LR: window clear

S5: stair open/fan on

S7: closed

S7: opening

S7: open 0.08m

S7: opening

S5: closed/fan off

S1: fan offS1: fan on

BH opening

BH closed

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000

0

100

200

300

400

32

212

392

572

752

Temperature (F)

TC Stair7W 2.1m

TC Stair7W 1.8m

TC Stair7W 1.5m

TC Stair7W 1.2m

TC Stair7W 0.9m

TC Stair7W 0.6m

Figure 9.4-16. Temperature versus time for the 7th floor stairwell thermocouple tree, Experiment 7G2 
505

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

Multiple ignitions

LBY: opening

S1: openingS7: opening

BR: double failing

S1: stair closed

S1: opening

BH opening

S1: fan onBH closedS1: fan off

BH opening

S1: fan onBH closed

LR: window failing

LR: window clear

S5: stair open/fan on

S7: closed

S7: opening

S7: open 0.08m

S7: opening

S5: closed/fan off

S1: fan offS1: fan on

BH opening

BH closed

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000

0

50

100

150

200

32

122

212

302

392

Temperature (F)

TC Bulkhead MidW

TC Stair 6W

TC Stair 4W

TC Stair 2W

TC Stair1 MidW

Figure 9.4-17. Temperature versus time for the stair thermocouples, Experiment 7G2 

9.4.2.2 Pressures 

Time (s)

Pressure (Pa)

Multiple ignitions

LBY: opening

S1: openingS7: opening

BR: double failing

S1: stair closed

S1: opening

BH opening

S1: fan onBH closedS1: fan off

BH opening

S1: fan onBH closed

LR: window failing

LR: window clear

S5: stair open/fan on

S7: closed

S7: opening

S7: open 0.08m

S7: opening

S5: closed/fan off

S1: fan offS1: fan on

BH opening

BH closed

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000

-10

0

10

20

30

40

DP Stair 7W

DP Stair 6W

DP Stair 5W

DP Stair 4W

DP Stair 3W

DP Stair 2W

DP Stair 1W

Figure 9.4-18. Differential pressure versus time for the stairwell bi-directional probes, Experiment 7G2 
506

9.4.2.3 Velocities 

Time (s)

Velocity (m/s)

Multiple ignitions

LBY: opening

S1: openingS7: opening

BR: double failing

S1: stair closed

S1: opening

BH opening

S1: fan onBH closedS1: fan off

BH opening

S1: fan onBH closed

LR: window failing

LR: window clear

S5: stair open/fan on

S7: closed

S7: opening

S7: open 0.08m

S7: opening

S5: closed/fan off

S1: fan offS1: fan on

BH opening

BH closed

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000

-4

-2

0

2

4

-9

-4

0

4

9

Velocity (mph)

VEL Stair7 TopW

VEL Stair7 MidW

VEL Stair7 BotW

Figure 9.4-19. Velocity versus time for the 7th floor stairwell bi-directional probes, Experiment 7G2 

Time (s)

Velocity (m/s)

Multiple ignitions

LBY: opening

S1: openingS7: opening

BR: double failing

S1: stair closed

S1: opening

BH opening

S1: fan onBH closedS1: fan off

BH opening

S1: fan onBH closed

LR: window failing

LR: window clear

S5: stair open/fan on

S7: closed

S7: opening

S7: open 0.08m

S7: opening

S5: closed/fan off

S1: fan offS1: fan on

BH opening

BH closed

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000

-4

-2

0

2

4

-9

-4

0

4

9

Velocity (mph)

VEL Stair1 TopW

VEL Stair1 MidW

VEL Stair1 BotW

Figure 9.4-20. Velocity versus time for the 1st floor stairwell bi-directional probes, Experiment 7G2 
507

Time (s)

Velocity (m/s)

Multiple ignitions

LBY: opening

S1: openingS7: opening

BR: double failing

S1: stair closed

S1: opening

BH opening

S1: fan onBH closedS1: fan off

BH opening

S1: fan onBH closed

LR: window failing

LR: window clear

S5: stair open/fan on

S7: closed

S7: opening

S7: open 0.08m

S7: opening

S5: closed/fan off

S1: fan offS1: fan on

BH opening

BH closed

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

-22

-18

-13

-9

-4

0

4

Velocity (mph)

VEL Bulkhead TopW

VEL Bulkhead MidW

VEL Bulkhead BotW

Figure 9.4-21. Velocity versus time for the bulkhead bi-directional probes, Experiment 7G2 

Time (s)

Velocity (m/s)

Multiple ignitions

LBY: opening

S1: openingS7: opening

BR: double failing

S1: stair closed

S1: opening

BH opening

S1: fan onBH closedS1: fan off

BH opening

S1: fan onBH closed

LR: window failing

LR: window clear

S5: stair open/fan on

S7: closed

S7: opening

S7: open 0.08m

S7: opening

S5: closed/fan off

S1: fan offS1: fan on

BH opening

BH closed

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000

-6

-3

0

3

6

9

-13

-7

0

7

13

20

Velocity (mph)

VEL Apt7G TopW

VEL Apt7G MidW

VEL Apt7G BotW

Figure 9.4-22. Velocity versus time for the apartment 7G doorway bi-directional probes, Experiment 7G2 
508

9.4.3 Experiment 7E

9.4.3.1 Temperatures 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: IgnitionBR: double failingS7: opening 0.08mLBY: openingS1: openingLBY: fan onS7: closedBH: openingBR: double clearS1: fan movingS5: open/fan onBH: closedAir flow adjustedS7: opening 0.08mS5: closed/fan offS7: opened halfBH: openingLR: window failingBH: closedExperiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

32

932

1832

2732

3632

4532

Temperature (F)

TC BR7EE 2.1m

TC BR7EE 1.8m

TC BR7EE 1.5m

TC BR7EE 1.2m

TC BR7EE 0.9m

TC BR7EE 0.6m

Figure 9.4-23. Temperature versus time for the 7E bedroom thermocouple tree, Experiment 7E 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: IgnitionBR: double failingS7: opening 0.08mLBY: openingS1: openingLBY: fan onS7: closedBH: openingBR: double clearS1: fan movingS5: open/fan onBH: closedAir flow adjustedS7: opening 0.08mS5: closed/fan offS7: opened halfBH: openingLR: window failingBH: closedExperiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

32

392

752

1112

1472

1832

2192

Temperature (F)

TC Corr7EE C

TC Corr7EE 2.1m

TC Corr7EE 1.8m

TC Corr7EE 1.5m

TC Corr7EE 1.2m

TC Corr7EE 0.9m

TC Corr7EE 0.6m

Figure 9.4-24. Temperature versus time for the 7E hall thermocouple tree, Experiment 7E 
509

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: IgnitionBR: double failingS7: opening 0.08mLBY: openingS1: openingLBY: fan onS7: closedBH: openingBR: double clearS1: fan movingS5: open/fan onBH: closedAir flow adjustedS7: opening 0.08mS5: closed/fan offS7: opened halfBH: openingLR: window failingBH: closedExperiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

0

200

400

600

800

1000

32

392

752

1112

1472

1832

Temperature (F)

TC Corr7AE C

TC Corr7AE 2.1m

TC Corr7AE 1.8m

TC Corr7AE 1.5m

TC Corr7AE 1.2m

TC Corr7AE 0.9m

TC Corr7AE 0.6m

Figure 9.4-25. Temperature versus time for the 7A hall thermocouple tree, Experiment 7E 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: IgnitionBR: double failingS7: opening 0.08mLBY: openingS1: openingLBY: fan onS7: closedBH: openingBR: double clearS1: fan movingS5: open/fan onBH: closedAir flow adjustedS7: opening 0.08mS5: closed/fan offS7: opened halfBH: openingLR: window failingBH: closedExperiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

0

200

400

600

800

1000

32

392

752

1112

1472

1832

Temperature (F)

TC CorrStair7E C

TC CorrStair7E 2.1m

TC CorrStair7E 1.8m

TC CorrStair7E 1.5m

TC CorrStair7E 1.2m

TC CorrStair7E 0.9m

TC CorrStair7E 0.6m

Figure 9.4-26. Temperature versus time for the 7th floor stair hall thermocouple tree, Experiment 7E 
510

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: IgnitionBR: double failingS7: opening 0.08mLBY: openingS1: openingLBY: fan onS7: closedBH: openingBR: double clearS1: fan movingS5: open/fan onBH: closedAir flow adjustedS7: opening 0.08mS5: closed/fan offS7: opened halfBH: openingLR: window failingBH: closedExperiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

0

200

400

600

800

32

392

752

1112

1472

Temperature (F)

TC Stair7E C

TC Stair7E 2.1m

TC Stair7E 1.8m

TC Stair7E 1.5m

TC Stair7E 1.2m

TC Stair7E 0.9m

TC Stair7E 0.6m

Figure 9.4-27. Temperature versus time for the 7th floor stairwell thermocouple tree, Experiment 7E 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: IgnitionBR: double failingS7: opening 0.08mLBY: openingS1: openingLBY: fan onS7: closedBH: openingBR: double clearS1: fan movingS5: open/fan onBH: closedAir flow adjustedS7: opening 0.08mS5: closed/fan offS7: opened halfBH: openingLR: window failingBH: closedExperiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

32

212

392

572

752

932

1112

Temperature (F)

TC Bulkhead MidE

TC Stair 6E

TC Stair 4E

TC Stair 2E

TC Stair1 MidE

Figure 9.4-28. Temperature versus time for the stair thermocouples, Experiment 7E 
511

9.4.3.2 Pressures 

Time (s)

Pressure (Pa)

BR: IgnitionBR: double failingS7: opening 0.08mLBY: openingS1: openingLBY: fan onS7: closedBH: openingBR: double clearS1: fan movingS5: open/fan onBH: closedAir flow adjustedS7: opening 0.08mS5: closed/fan offS7: opened halfBH: openingLR: window failingBH: closedExperiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

-20

0

20

40

60

80

DP Stair 7E

DP Stair 6E

DP Stair 5E

DP Stair 4E

DP Stair 3E

DP Stair 2E

DP Stair 1E

Figure 9.4-29. Differential pressure versus time for the stairwell bi-directional probes, Experiment 7E 

9.4.3.3 Velocities 

Time (s)

Velocity (m/s)

BR: IgnitionBR: double failingS7: opening 0.08mLBY: openingS1: openingLBY: fan onS7: closedBH: openingBR: double clearS1: fan movingS5: open/fan onBH: closedAir flow adjustedS7: opening 0.08mS5: closed/fan offS7: opened halfBH: openingLR: window failingBH: closedExperiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

-4

0

4

9

13

18

22

27

Velocity (mph)

VEL Stair7 TopE

VEL Stair7 MidE

VEL Stair7 BotE

Figure 9.4-30. Velocity versus time for the 7th floor stairwell bi-directional probes, Experiment 7E 
512

Time (s)

Velocity (m/s)

BR: IgnitionBR: double failingS7: opening 0.08mLBY: openingS1: openingLBY: fan onS7: closedBH: openingBR: double clearS1: fan movingS5: open/fan onBH: closedAir flow adjustedS7: opening 0.08mS5: closed/fan offS7: opened halfBH: openingLR: window failingBH: closedExperiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

-13

-9

-4

0

4

9

13

Velocity (mph)

VEL Stair1 TopE

VEL Stair1 MidE

VEL Stair1 BotE

Figure 9.4-31. Velocity versus time for the 1st floor stairwell bi-directional probes, Experiment 7E 

Time (s)

Velocity (m/s)

BR: IgnitionBR: double failingS7: opening 0.08mLBY: openingS1: openingLBY: fan onS7: closedBH: openingBR: double clearS1: fan movingS5: open/fan onBH: closedAir flow adjustedS7: opening 0.08mS5: closed/fan offS7: opened halfBH: openingLR: window failingBH: closedExperiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

-45

-34

-22

-11

0

11

Velocity (mph)

VEL Bulkhead TopE

VEL Bulkhead MidE

VEL Bulkhead BotE

Figure 9.4-32. Velocity versus time for the bulkhead bi-directional probes, Experiment 7E 
513

Time (s)

Velocity (m/s)

BR: IgnitionBR: double failingS7: opening 0.08mLBY: openingS1: openingLBY: fan onS7: closedBH: openingBR: double clearS1: fan movingS5: open/fan onBH: closedAir flow adjustedS7: opening 0.08mS5: closed/fan offS7: opened halfBH: openingLR: window failingBH: closedExperiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

-11

0

11

22

34

45

56

67

Velocity (mph)

VEL Apt7E TopE

VEL Apt7E MidE

VEL Apt7E BotE

Figure 9.4-33. Velocity versus time for the apartment 7E doorway bi-directional probes, Experiment 7E 

9.4.4 Experiment 7A

9.4.4.1 Temperatures 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: IgnitionS7: opening/closingBR: double failingLBY: openingBR: double clearS1: openingBH: openingS7: opening halfS7: closedBR: placing WCD (double)BR: WCD in place (double)S7: opening 0.08mS7: openS7: closedS1: fan onBH: closedS7: openingLR: window failingLR: window clearBR: FBN flowing (double)BR: removing WCD (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)S1: fan offS1: fan onExperiment completed

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

32

392

752

1112

1472

1832

2192

Temperature (F)

TC BR7AE 2.1m

TC BR7AE 1.8m

TC BR7AE 1.5m

TC BR7AE 1.2m

TC BR7AE 0.9m

TC BR7AE 0.6m

Figure 9.4-34. Temperature versus time for the 7A bedroom thermocouple tree, Experiment 7A 
514

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: IgnitionS7: opening/closingBR: double failingLBY: openingBR: double clearS1: openingBH: openingS7: opening halfS7: closedBR: placing WCD (double)BR: WCD in place (double)S7: opening 0.08mS7: openS7: closedS1: fan onBH: closedS7: openingLR: window failingLR: window clearBR: FBN flowing (double)BR: removing WCD (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)S1: fan offS1: fan onExperiment completed

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

32

392

752

1112

1472

1832

2192

Temperature (F)

TC Corr7AE C

TC Corr7AE 2.1m

TC Corr7AE 1.8m

TC Corr7AE 1.5m

TC Corr7AE 1.2m

TC Corr7AE 0.9m

TC Corr7AE 0.6m

Figure 9.4-35. Temperature versus time for the 7A hall thermocouple tree, Experiment 7A 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: IgnitionS7: opening/closingBR: double failingLBY: openingBR: double clearS1: openingBH: openingS7: opening halfS7: closedBR: placing WCD (double)BR: WCD in place (double)S7: opening 0.08mS7: openS7: closedS1: fan onBH: closedS7: openingLR: window failingLR: window clearBR: FBN flowing (double)BR: removing WCD (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)S1: fan offS1: fan onExperiment completed

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700

0

200

400

600

800

32

392

752

1112

1472

Temperature (F)

TC Corr7EE C

TC Corr7EE 2.1m

TC Corr7EE 1.8m

TC Corr7EE 1.5m

TC Corr7EE 1.2m

TC Corr7EE 0.9m

TC Corr7EE 0.6m

Figure 9.4-36. Temperature versus time for the 7E hall thermocouple tree, Experiment 7A 
515

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: IgnitionS7: opening/closingBR: double failingLBY: openingBR: double clearS1: openingBH: openingS7: opening halfS7: closedBR: placing WCD (double)BR: WCD in place (double)S7: opening 0.08mS7: openS7: closedS1: fan onBH: closedS7: openingLR: window failingLR: window clearBR: FBN flowing (double)BR: removing WCD (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)S1: fan offS1: fan onExperiment completed

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

32

392

752

1112

1472

1832

2192

Temperature (F)

TC CorrStair7E C

TC CorrStair7E 2.1m

TC CorrStair7E 1.8m

TC CorrStair7E 1.5m

TC CorrStair7E 1.2m

TC CorrStair7E 0.9m

TC CorrStair7E 0.6m

Figure 9.4-37. Temperature versus time for the 7th floor stair hall thermocouple tree, Experiment 7A 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: IgnitionS7: opening/closingBR: double failingLBY: openingBR: double clearS1: openingBH: openingS7: opening halfS7: closedBR: placing WCD (double)BR: WCD in place (double)S7: opening 0.08mS7: openS7: closedS1: fan onBH: closedS7: openingLR: window failingLR: window clearBR: FBN flowing (double)BR: removing WCD (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)S1: fan offS1: fan onExperiment completed

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700

0

200

400

600

800

1000

32

392

752

1112

1472

1832

Temperature (F)

TC Stair7E C

TC Stair7E 2.1m

TC Stair7E 1.8m

TC Stair7E 1.5m

TC Stair7E 1.2m

TC Stair7E 0.9m

TC Stair7E 0.6m

Figure 9.4-38. Temperature versus time for the 7th floor stairwell thermocouple tree, Experiment 7A 
516

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: IgnitionS7: opening/closingBR: double failingLBY: openingBR: double clearS1: openingBH: openingS7: opening halfS7: closedBR: placing WCD (double)BR: WCD in place (double)S7: opening 0.08mS7: openS7: closedS1: fan onBH: closedS7: openingLR: window failingLR: window clearBR: FBN flowing (double)BR: removing WCD (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)S1: fan offS1: fan onExperiment completed

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700

0

200

400

600

800

32

392

752

1112

1472

Temperature (F)

TC Bulkhead MidE

TC Stair 6E

TC Stair 4E

TC Stair 2E

TC Stair1 MidE

Figure 9.4-39. Temperature versus time for the stair thermocouples, Experiment 7A 

9.4.4.2 Pressures 

Time (s)

Pressure (Pa)

BR: IgnitionS7: opening/closingBR: double failingLBY: openingBR: double clearS1: openingBH: openingS7: opening halfS7: closedBR: placing WCD (double)BR: WCD in place (double)S7: opening 0.08mS7: openS7: closedS1: fan onBH: closedS7: openingLR: window failingLR: window clearBR: FBN flowing (double)BR: removing WCD (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)S1: fan offS1: fan onExperiment completed

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700

-10

0

10

20

30

DP Stair 7E

DP Stair 6E

DP Stair 5E

DP Stair 4E

DP Stair 3E

DP Stair 2E

DP Stair 1E

Figure 9.4-40. Differential pressure versus time for the stairwell bi-directional probes, Experiment 7A 
517

9.4.4.3 Velocities 

Time (s)

Velocity (m/s)

BR: IgnitionS7: opening/closingBR: double failingLBY: openingBR: double clearS1: openingBH: openingS7: opening halfS7: closedBR: placing WCD (double)BR: WCD in place (double)S7: opening 0.08mS7: openS7: closedS1: fan onBH: closedS7: openingLR: window failingLR: window clearBR: FBN flowing (double)BR: removing WCD (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)S1: fan offS1: fan onExperiment completed

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700

-5

0

5

10

15

20

-11

0

11

22

34

45

Velocity (mph)

VEL Stair7 TopE

VEL Stair7 MidE

VEL Stair7 BotE

Figure 9.4-41. Velocity versus time for the 7th floor stairwell bi-directional probes, Experiment 7A 

Time (s)

Velocity (m/s)

BR: IgnitionS7: opening/closingBR: double failingLBY: openingBR: double clearS1: openingBH: openingS7: opening halfS7: closedBR: placing WCD (double)BR: WCD in place (double)S7: opening 0.08mS7: openS7: closedS1: fan onBH: closedS7: openingLR: window failingLR: window clearBR: FBN flowing (double)BR: removing WCD (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)S1: fan offS1: fan onExperiment completed

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

-9

-4

0

4

9

13

Velocity (mph)

VEL Stair1 TopE

VEL Stair1 MidE

VEL Stair1 BotE

Figure 9.4-42. Velocity versus time for the 1st floor stairwell bi-directional probes, Experiment 7A 
518

Time (s)

Velocity (m/s)

BR: IgnitionS7: opening/closingBR: double failingLBY: openingBR: double clearS1: openingBH: openingS7: opening halfS7: closedBR: placing WCD (double)BR: WCD in place (double)S7: opening 0.08mS7: openS7: closedS1: fan onBH: closedS7: openingLR: window failingLR: window clearBR: FBN flowing (double)BR: removing WCD (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)S1: fan offS1: fan onExperiment completed

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

-45

-34

-22

-11

0

11

Velocity (mph)

VEL Bulkhead TopE

VEL Bulkhead MidE

VEL Bulkhead BotE

Figure 9.4-43. Velocity versus time for the bulkhead bi-directional probes, Experiment 7A 

Time (s)

Velocity (m/s)

BR: IgnitionS7: opening/closingBR: double failingLBY: openingBR: double clearS1: openingBH: openingS7: opening halfS7: closedBR: placing WCD (double)BR: WCD in place (double)S7: opening 0.08mS7: openS7: closedS1: fan onBH: closedS7: openingLR: window failingLR: window clearBR: FBN flowing (double)BR: removing WCD (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)S1: fan offS1: fan onExperiment completed

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700

-10

0

10

20

30

40

-22

0

22

45

67

89

Velocity (mph)

VEL Apt7A TopE

VEL Apt7A MidE

VEL Apt7A BotE

Figure 9.4-44. Velocity versus time for the apartment 7A doorway bi-directional probes, Experiment 7A 
519

9.4.5 Experiment 7K

9.4.5.1 Temperatures 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: IgnitionS7: closedBR: double failingS7: opening 0.08mS7: closedS7: openingBH: openingBH: closedLBY: openingS7: closedS1: openingBH: openingS7: openingS7: closedLR: window failingBR: placing WCD (double)S7: opening 0.08mS7: openS7: closedS1: fan onBH: closedS7: openingBR: WCD removed (double)LR: FBN flowingLR: FBN stoppedRemoving air flowExperiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

32

392

752

1112

1472

1832

2192

Temperature (F)

TC BR7KW 1.8m

TC BR7KW 1.5m

TC BR7KW 1.2m

TC BR7KW 0.9m

TC BR7KW 0.6m

Figure 9.4-45. Temperature versus time for the 7K bedroom thermocouple tree, Experiment 7K 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: IgnitionS7: closedBR: double failingS7: opening 0.08mS7: closedS7: openingBH: openingBH: closedLBY: openingS7: closedS1: openingBH: openingS7: openingS7: closedLR: window failingBR: placing WCD (double)S7: opening 0.08mS7: openS7: closedS1: fan onBH: closedS7: openingBR: WCD removed (double)LR: FBN flowingLR: FBN stoppedRemoving air flowExperiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

0

200

400

600

800

1000

32

392

752

1112

1472

1832

Temperature (F)

TC Corr7KW C

TC Corr7KW 2.1m

TC Corr7KW 1.8m

TC Corr7KW 1.5m

TC Corr7KW 1.2m

TC Corr7KW 0.9m

TC Corr7KW 0.6m

Figure 9.4-46. Temperature versus time for the 7K hall thermocouple tree, Experiment 7K 
520

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: IgnitionS7: closedBR: double failingS7: opening 0.08mS7: closedS7: openingBH: openingBH: closedLBY: openingS7: closedS1: openingBH: openingS7: openingS7: closedLR: window failingBR: placing WCD (double)S7: opening 0.08mS7: openS7: closedS1: fan onBH: closedS7: openingBR: WCD removed (double)LR: FBN flowingLR: FBN stoppedRemoving air flowExperiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

32

212

392

572

752

932

1112

Temperature (F)

TC Corr7GW C

TC Corr7GW 2.1m

TC Corr7GW 1.8m

TC Corr7GW 1.5m

TC Corr7GW 1.2m

TC Corr7GW 0.9m

TC Corr7GW 0.6m

Figure 9.4-47. Temperature versus time for the 7G hall thermocouple tree, Experiment 7K 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: IgnitionS7: closedBR: double failingS7: opening 0.08mS7: closedS7: openingBH: openingBH: closedLBY: openingS7: closedS1: openingBH: openingS7: openingS7: closedLR: window failingBR: placing WCD (double)S7: opening 0.08mS7: openS7: closedS1: fan onBH: closedS7: openingBR: WCD removed (double)LR: FBN flowingLR: FBN stoppedRemoving air flowExperiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

32

212

392

572

752

932

1112

Temperature (F)

TC CorrStair7W 2.1m

TC CorrStair7W 1.8m

TC CorrStair7W 1.5m

TC CorrStair7W 1.2m

TC CorrStair7W 0.9m

TC CorrStair7W 0.6m

Figure 9.4-48. Temperature versus time for the 7th floor stair hall thermocouple tree, Experiment 7K 
521

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: IgnitionS7: closedBR: double failingS7: opening 0.08mS7: closedS7: openingBH: openingBH: closedLBY: openingS7: closedS1: openingBH: openingS7: openingS7: closedLR: window failingBR: placing WCD (double)S7: opening 0.08mS7: openS7: closedS1: fan onBH: closedS7: openingBR: WCD removed (double)LR: FBN flowingLR: FBN stoppedRemoving air flowExperiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

0

100

200

300

400

500

32

212

392

572

752

932

Temperature (F)

TC Stair7W 2.1m

TC Stair7W 1.8m

TC Stair7W 1.5m

TC Stair7W 1.2m

TC Stair7W 0.9m

TC Stair7W 0.6m

Figure 9.4-49. Temperature versus time for the 7th floor stairwell thermocouple tree, Experiment 7K 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: IgnitionS7: closedBR: double failingS7: opening 0.08mS7: closedS7: openingBH: openingBH: closedLBY: openingS7: closedS1: openingBH: openingS7: openingS7: closedLR: window failingBR: placing WCD (double)S7: opening 0.08mS7: openS7: closedS1: fan onBH: closedS7: openingBR: WCD removed (double)LR: FBN flowingLR: FBN stoppedRemoving air flowExperiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

0

100

200

300

400

32

212

392

572

752

Temperature (F)

TC Bulkhead MidW

TC Stair 6W

TC Stair 4W

TC Stair 2W

TC Stair1 MidW

Figure 9.4-50. Temperature versus time for the stair thermocouples, Experiment 7K 
522

9.4.5.2 Pressures 

Time (s)

Pressure (Pa)

BR: IgnitionS7: closedBR: double failingS7: opening 0.08mS7: closedS7: openingBH: openingBH: closedLBY: openingS7: closedS1: openingBH: openingS7: openingS7: closedLR: window failingBR: placing WCD (double)S7: opening 0.08mS7: openS7: closedS1: fan onBH: closedS7: openingBR: WCD removed (double)LR: FBN flowingLR: FBN stoppedRemoving air flowExperiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

DP Stair 7W

DP Stair 6W

DP Stair 5W

DP Stair 4W

DP Stair 3W

DP Stair 2W

DP Stair 1W

Figure 9.4-51. Differential pressure versus time for the stairwell bi-directional probes, Experiment 7K 

9.4.5.3 Velocities 

Time (s)

Velocity (m/s)

BR: IgnitionS7: closedBR: double failingS7: opening 0.08mS7: closedS7: openingBH: openingBH: closedLBY: openingS7: closedS1: openingBH: openingS7: openingS7: closedLR: window failingBR: placing WCD (double)S7: opening 0.08mS7: openS7: closedS1: fan onBH: closedS7: openingBR: WCD removed (double)LR: FBN flowingLR: FBN stoppedRemoving air flowExperiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

-4

0

4

9

13

18

22

Velocity (mph)

VEL Stair7 TopW

VEL Stair7 MidW

VEL Stair7 BotW

Figure 9.4-52. Velocity versus time for the 7th floor stairwell bi-directional probes, Experiment 7K 
523

Time (s)

Velocity (m/s)

BR: IgnitionS7: closedBR: double failingS7: opening 0.08mS7: closedS7: openingBH: openingBH: closedLBY: openingS7: closedS1: openingBH: openingS7: openingS7: closedLR: window failingBR: placing WCD (double)S7: opening 0.08mS7: openS7: closedS1: fan onBH: closedS7: openingBR: WCD removed (double)LR: FBN flowingLR: FBN stoppedRemoving air flowExperiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

-13

-9

-4

0

4

9

Velocity (mph)

VEL Stair1 TopW

VEL Stair1 MidW

VEL Stair1 BotW

Figure 9.4-53. Velocity versus time for the 1st floor stairwell bi-directional probes, Experiment 7K 

Time (s)

Velocity (m/s)

BR: IgnitionS7: closedBR: double failingS7: opening 0.08mS7: closedS7: openingBH: openingBH: closedLBY: openingS7: closedS1: openingBH: openingS7: openingS7: closedLR: window failingBR: placing WCD (double)S7: opening 0.08mS7: openS7: closedS1: fan onBH: closedS7: openingBR: WCD removed (double)LR: FBN flowingLR: FBN stoppedRemoving air flowExperiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

-45

-22

0

22

45

67

Velocity (mph)

VEL Apt7K TopW

VEL Apt7K MidW

Figure 9.4-54. Velocity versus time for the apartment 7K doorway bi-directional probes, Experiment 7K 
524

9.4.6 Experiment 5E  

9.4.6.1 Temperatures 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: Ignition

BR: placing WCD (double)

BR: double failing

S5: opening

BH: opening

LBY: opening

S1: opening

S5: opening/closing 3x

S5: opening

BR: single failing

BH: closed

S1: fan on

BR: placing WCD (single)

Removing air flow

S5: closed

BH: opening

BH: closed

S5: opening

Experiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

32

392

752

1112

1472

1832

2192

Temperature (F)

TC BR5EE 2.1m

TC BR5EE 1.8m

TC BR5EE 1.5m

TC BR5EE 1.2m

TC BR5EE 0.9m

TC BR5EE 0.6m

Figure 9.4-55. Temperature versus time for the 5E bedroom thermocouple tree, Experiment 5E 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: Ignition

BR: placing WCD (double)

BR: double failing

S5: opening

BH: opening

LBY: opening

S1: opening

S5: opening/closing 3x

S5: opening

BR: single failing

BH: closed

S1: fan on

BR: placing WCD (single)

Removing air flow

S5: closed

BH: opening

BH: closed

S5: opening

Experiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

0

50

100

150

200

250

32

122

212

302

392

482

Temperature (F)

TC Corr5EE C

TC Corr5EE 2.1m

TC Corr5EE 1.8m

TC Corr5EE 1.5m

TC Corr5EE 1.2m

TC Corr5EE 0.9m

TC Corr5EE 0.6m

Figure 9.4-56. Temperature versus time for the 5E hall thermocouple tree, Experiment 5E 
525

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: Ignition

BR: placing WCD (double)

BR: double failing

S5: opening

BH: opening

LBY: opening

S1: opening

S5: opening/closing 3x

S5: opening

BR: single failing

BH: closed

S1: fan on

BR: placing WCD (single)

Removing air flow

S5: closed

BH: opening

BH: closed

S5: opening

Experiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

32

86

140

194

248

302

356

Temperature (F)

TC Corr5AE C

TC Corr5AE 2.1m

TC Corr5AE 1.8m

TC Corr5AE 1.5m

TC Corr5AE 1.2m

TC Corr5AE 0.9m

TC Corr5AE 0.6m

Figure 9.4-57. Temperature versus time for the 5A hall thermocouple tree, Experiment 5E 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: Ignition

BR: placing WCD (double)

BR: double failing

S5: opening

BH: opening

LBY: opening

S1: opening

S5: opening/closing 3x

S5: opening

BR: single failing

BH: closed

S1: fan on

BR: placing WCD (single)

Removing air flow

S5: closed

BH: opening

BH: closed

S5: opening

Experiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

0

30

60

90

120

150

32

86

140

194

248

302

Temperature (F)

TC CorrStair5E 2.1m

TC CorrStair5E 1.8m

TC CorrStair5E 1.5m

TC CorrStair5E 1.2m

TC CorrStair5E 0.9m

TC CorrStair5E 0.6m

Figure 9.4-58. Temperature versus time for the 5th floor stair hall thermocouple tree, Experiment 5E 
526

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: Ignition

BR: placing WCD (double)

BR: double failing

S5: opening

BH: opening

LBY: opening

S1: opening

S5: opening/closing 3x

S5: opening

BR: single failing

BH: closed

S1: fan on

BR: placing WCD (single)

Removing air flow

S5: closed

BH: opening

BH: closed

S5: opening

Experiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

32

68

104

140

176

212

248

Temperature (F)

TC Stair5E C

TC Stair5E 2.1m

TC Stair5E 1.8m

TC Stair5E 1.5m

TC Stair5E 1.2m

TC Stair5E 0.9m

TC Stair5E 0.6m

Figure 9.4-59. Temperature versus time for the 5th floor stairwell thermocouple tree, Experiment 5E 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: Ignition

BR: placing WCD (double)

BR: double failing

S5: opening

BH: opening

LBY: opening

S1: opening

S5: opening/closing 3x

S5: opening

BR: single failing

BH: closed

S1: fan on

BR: placing WCD (single)

Removing air flow

S5: closed

BH: opening

BH: closed

S5: opening

Experiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

0

20

40

60

80

100

32

68

104

140

176

212

Temperature (F)

TC Bulkhead MidE

TC Stair 4E

TC Stair 2E

TC Stair1 MidE

Figure 9.4-60. Temperature versus time for the stair thermocouples, Experiment 5E 
527

9.4.6.2 Pressures 

Time (s)

Pressure (Pa)

BR: Ignition

BR: placing WCD (double)

BR: double failing

S5: opening

BH: opening

LBY: opening

S1: opening

S5: opening/closing 3x

S5: opening

BR: single failing

BH: closed

S1: fan on

BR: placing WCD (single)

Removing air flow

S5: closed

BH: opening

BH: closed

S5: opening

Experiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

DP Stair 7E

DP Stair 6E

DP Stair 5E

DP Stair 3E

DP Stair 2E

DP Stair 1E

Figure 9.4-61. Differential pressure versus time for the stairwell bi-directional probes, Experiment 5E 

9.4.6.3 Velocities 

Time (s)

Velocity (m/s)

BR: Ignition

BR: placing WCD (double)

BR: double failing

S5: opening

BH: opening

LBY: opening

S1: opening

S5: opening/closing 3x

S5: opening

BR: single failing

BH: closed

S1: fan on

BR: placing WCD (single)

Removing air flow

S5: closed

BH: opening

BH: closed

S5: opening

Experiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

6

Velocity (mph)

VEL Stair5 TopE

VEL Stair5 MidE

VEL Stair5 BotE

Figure 9.4-62. Velocity versus time for the 5th floor stairwell bi-directional probes, Experiment 5E 
528

Time (s)

Velocity (m/s)

BR: Ignition

BR: placing WCD (double)

BR: double failing

S5: opening

BH: opening

LBY: opening

S1: opening

S5: opening/closing 3x

S5: opening

BR: single failing

BH: closed

S1: fan on

BR: placing WCD (single)

Removing air flow

S5: closed

BH: opening

BH: closed

S5: opening

Experiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

-2

0

2

4

7

9

11

Velocity (mph)

VEL Stair1 TopE

VEL Stair1 BotE

Figure 9.4-63. Velocity versus time for the 1st floor stairwell bi-directional probes, Experiment 5E 

Time (s)

Velocity (m/s)

BR: Ignition

BR: placing WCD (double)

BR: double failing

S5: opening

BH: opening

LBY: opening

S1: opening

S5: opening/closing 3x

S5: opening

BR: single failing

BH: closed

S1: fan on

BR: placing WCD (single)

Removing air flow

S5: closed

BH: opening

BH: closed

S5: opening

Experiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

-9

-7

-4

-2

0

2

4

Velocity (mph)

VEL Bulkhead TopE

VEL Bulkhead MidE

VEL Bulkhead BotE

Figure 9.4-64. Velocity versus time for the bulkhead bi-directional probes, Experiment 5E 
529

Time (s)

Velocity (m/s)

BR: Ignition

BR: placing WCD (double)

BR: double failing

S5: opening

BH: opening

LBY: opening

S1: opening

S5: opening/closing 3x

S5: opening

BR: single failing

BH: closed

S1: fan on

BR: placing WCD (single)

Removing air flow

S5: closed

BH: opening

BH: closed

S5: opening

Experiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

Velocity (mph)

VEL Apt5E TopE

VEL Apt5E MidE

VEL Apt5E BotE

Figure 9.4-65. Velocity versus time for the apartment 5E doorway bi-directional probes, Experiment 5E 

9.4.7 Experiment 5E2

9.4.7.1 Temperatures 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

LR: Ignition

BH: opening

LR: window failing

BH: closed

LR: window clear

LBY: fan on

LBY: left closed

LBY: fan movedLBY: fan moved

LR: FBN flowing

LBY: fan moved

LR: FBN stopped

LBY: left opening

Experiment completed

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

32

392

752

1112

1472

1832

2192

Temperature (F)

TC BR5EE 2.1m

TC BR5EE 1.8m

TC BR5EE 1.5m

TC BR5EE 1.2m

TC BR5EE 0.9m

TC BR5EE 0.6m

Figure 9.4-66. Temperature versus time for the 5E2 bedroom thermocouple tree, Experiment 5E2 
530

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

LR: Ignition

BH: opening

LR: window failing

BH: closed

LR: window clear

LBY: fan on

LBY: left closed

LBY: fan movedLBY: fan moved

LR: FBN flowing

LBY: fan moved

LR: FBN stopped

LBY: left opening

Experiment completed

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

32

392

752

1112

1472

1832

2192

Temperature (F)

TC Corr5EE C

TC Corr5EE 2.1m

TC Corr5EE 1.8m

TC Corr5EE 1.5m

TC Corr5EE 1.2m

TC Corr5EE 0.9m

TC Corr5EE 0.6m

Figure 9.4-67. Temperature versus time for the 5E2 hall thermocouple tree, Experiment 5E2 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

LR: Ignition

BH: opening

LR: window failing

BH: closed

LR: window clear

LBY: fan on

LBY: left closed

LBY: fan movedLBY: fan moved

LR: FBN flowing

LBY: fan moved

LR: FBN stopped

LBY: left opening

Experiment completed

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100

0

200

400

600

800

32

392

752

1112

1472

Temperature (F)

TC Corr5AE C

TC Corr5AE 2.1m

TC Corr5AE 1.8m

TC Corr5AE 1.5m

TC Corr5AE 1.2m

TC Corr5AE 0.9m

TC Corr5AE 0.6m

Figure 9.4-68. Temperature versus time for the 5A hall thermocouple tree, Experiment 5E2 
531

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

LR: Ignition

BH: opening

LR: window failing

BH: closed

LR: window clear

LBY: fan on

LBY: left closed

LBY: fan movedLBY: fan moved

LR: FBN flowing

LBY: fan moved

LR: FBN stopped

LBY: left opening

Experiment completed

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100

0

200

400

600

800

1000

32

392

752

1112

1472

1832

Temperature (F)

TC CorrStair5E C

TC CorrStair5E 2.1m

TC CorrStair5E 1.8m

TC CorrStair5E 1.5m

TC CorrStair5E 1.2m

TC CorrStair5E 0.9m

TC CorrStair5E 0.6m

Figure 9.4-69. Temperature versus time for the 5th floor stair hall thermocouple tree, Experiment 5E2 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

LR: Ignition

BH: opening

LR: window failing

BH: closed

LR: window clear

LBY: fan on

LBY: left closed

LBY: fan movedLBY: fan moved

LR: FBN flowing

LBY: fan moved

LR: FBN stopped

LBY: left opening

Experiment completed

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100

0

200

400

600

800

32

392

752

1112

1472

Temperature (F)

TC Stair5E C

TC Stair5E 2.1m

TC Stair5E 1.8m

TC Stair5E 1.5m

TC Stair5E 1.2m

TC Stair5E 0.9m

TC Stair5E 0.6m

Figure 9.4-70. Temperature versus time for the 5th floor stairwell thermocouple tree, Experiment 5E2 
532

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

LR: Ignition

BH: opening

LR: window failing

BH: closed

LR: window clear

LBY: fan on

LBY: left closed

LBY: fan movedLBY: fan moved

LR: FBN flowing

LBY: fan moved

LR: FBN stopped

LBY: left opening

Experiment completed

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100

0

300

600

900

1200

1500

32

572

1112

1652

2192

2732

Temperature (F)

TC Bulkhead MidE

TC Stair 4E

TC Stair 2E

TC Stair1 MidE

Figure 9.4-71. Temperature versus time for the stair thermocouples, Experiment 5E2 

9.4.7.2 Pressures 

Time (s)

Pressure (Pa)

LR: Ignition

BH: opening

LR: window failing

BH: closed

LR: window clear

LBY: fan on

LBY: left closed

LBY: fan movedLBY: fan moved

LR: FBN flowing

LBY: fan moved

LR: FBN stopped

LBY: left opening

Experiment completed

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

DP Stair 7E

DP Stair 6E

DP Stair 5E

DP Stair 4E

DP Stair 3E

DP Stair 2E

DP Stair 1E

Figure 9.4-72. Differential pressure versus time for the stairwell bi-directional probes, Experiment 5E2 
533

9.4.7.3 Velocities 

Time (s)

Velocity (m/s)

LR: Ignition

BH: opening

LR: window failing

BH: closed

LR: window clear

LBY: fan on

LBY: left closed

LBY: fan movedLBY: fan moved

LR: FBN flowing

LBY: fan moved

LR: FBN stopped

LBY: left opening

Experiment completed

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100

-3

0

3

6

9

12

-7

0

7

13

20

27

Velocity (mph)

VEL Stair5 TopE

VEL Stair5 MidE

VEL Stair5 BotE

Figure 9.4-73. Velocity versus time for the 5th floor stairwell bi-directional probes, Experiment 5E2 

Time (s)

Velocity (m/s)

LR: Ignition

BH: opening

LR: window failing

BH: closed

LR: window clear

LBY: fan on

LBY: left closed

LBY: fan movedLBY: fan moved

LR: FBN flowing

LBY: fan moved

LR: FBN stopped

LBY: left opening

Experiment completed

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

Velocity (mph)

VEL Stair1 TopE

VEL Stair1 MidE

VEL Stair1 BotE

Figure 9.4-74. Velocity versus time for the 1st floor stairwell bi-directional probes, Experiment 5E2 
534

Time (s)

Velocity (m/s)

LR: Ignition

BH: opening

LR: window failing

BH: closed

LR: window clear

LBY: fan on

LBY: left closed

LBY: fan movedLBY: fan moved

LR: FBN flowing

LBY: fan moved

LR: FBN stopped

LBY: left opening

Experiment completed

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

-45

-34

-22

-11

0

11

22

Velocity (mph)

VEL Bulkhead TopE

VEL Bulkhead MidE

VEL Bulkhead BotE

Figure 9.4-75. Velocity versus time for the bulkhead bi-directional probes, Experiment 5E2 

Time (s)

Velocity (m/s)

LR: Ignition

BH: opening

LR: window failing

BH: closed

LR: window clear

LBY: fan on

LBY: left closed

LBY: fan movedLBY: fan moved

LR: FBN flowing

LBY: fan moved

LR: FBN stopped

LBY: left opening

Experiment completed

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

-4

0

4

9

13

18

22

27

Velocity (mph)

VEL Apt5E TopE

VEL Apt5E MidE

VEL Apt5E BotE

Figure 9.4-76. Velocity versus time for the apartment 5E doorway bi-directional probes, Experiment 5E2 
535

9.4.8 Experiment 5K

9.4.8.1 Temperatures 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: Ignition

BR: double failing

S5: opening

LBY: opening

S1: opening

BH: opening

BR: double clear

BR: placing WCD (double)

LR: window failing

BR: FBN flowing (double)

BR: FBN stopped (double)

BH: closed

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

S1: fan on

BH: opening

BH: closed

Removing air flow

Experiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

32

392

752

1112

1472

1832

2192

Temperature (F)

TC BR5KW 1.8m

TC BR5KW 1.5m

TC BR5KW 1.2m

TC BR5KW 0.9m

TC BR5KW 0.6m

Figure 9.4-77. Temperature versus time for the 5K bedroom thermocouple tree, Experiment 5K 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: Ignition

BR: double failing

S5: opening

LBY: opening

S1: opening

BH: opening

BR: double clear

BR: placing WCD (double)

LR: window failing

BR: FBN flowing (double)

BR: FBN stopped (double)

BH: closed

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

S1: fan on

BH: opening

BH: closed

Removing air flow

Experiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

32

932

1832

2732

3632

4532

Temperature (F)

TC Corr5KW 2.1m

TC Corr5KW 1.8m

TC Corr5KW 1.5m

TC Corr5KW 1.2m

TC Corr5KW 0.9m

TC Corr5KW 0.6m

Figure 9.4-78. Temperature versus time for the 5K hall thermocouple tree, Experiment 5K 
536

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: Ignition

BR: double failing

S5: opening

LBY: opening

S1: opening

BH: opening

BR: double clear

BR: placing WCD (double)

LR: window failing

BR: FBN flowing (double)

BR: FBN stopped (double)

BH: closed

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

S1: fan on

BH: opening

BH: closed

Removing air flow

Experiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

0

200

400

600

800

1000

32

392

752

1112

1472

1832

Temperature (F)

TC Corr5GW C

TC Corr5GW 2.1m

TC Corr5GW 1.8m

TC Corr5GW 1.5m

TC Corr5GW 1.2m

TC Corr5GW 0.9m

TC Corr5GW 0.6m

Figure 9.4-79. Temperature versus time for the 5G hall thermocouple tree, Experiment 5K 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: Ignition

BR: double failing

S5: opening

LBY: opening

S1: opening

BH: opening

BR: double clear

BR: placing WCD (double)

LR: window failing

BR: FBN flowing (double)

BR: FBN stopped (double)

BH: closed

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

S1: fan on

BH: opening

BH: closed

Removing air flow

Experiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

0

200

400

600

800

1000

32

392

752

1112

1472

1832

Temperature (F)

TC CorrStair5W C

TC CorrStair5W 2.1m

TC CorrStair5W 1.8m

TC CorrStair5W 1.5m

TC CorrStair5W 1.2m

TC CorrStair5W 0.9m

TC CorrStair5W 0.6m

Figure 9.4-80. Temperature versus time for the 5th floor stair hall thermocouple tree, Experiment 5K 
537

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: Ignition

BR: double failing

S5: opening

LBY: opening

S1: opening

BH: opening

BR: double clear

BR: placing WCD (double)

LR: window failing

BR: FBN flowing (double)

BR: FBN stopped (double)

BH: closed

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

S1: fan on

BH: opening

BH: closed

Removing air flow

Experiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

0

200

400

600

800

32

392

752

1112

1472

Temperature (F)

TC Stair5W 2.1m

TC Stair5W 1.8m

TC Stair5W 1.5m

TC Stair5W 1.2m

TC Stair5W 0.9m

TC Stair5W 0.6m

Figure 9.4-81. Temperature versus time for the 5th floor stairwell thermocouple tree, Experiment 5K 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: Ignition

BR: double failing

S5: opening

LBY: opening

S1: opening

BH: opening

BR: double clear

BR: placing WCD (double)

LR: window failing

BR: FBN flowing (double)

BR: FBN stopped (double)

BH: closed

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

S1: fan on

BH: opening

BH: closed

Removing air flow

Experiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

0

200

400

600

800

32

392

752

1112

1472

Temperature (F)

TC Bulkhead MidW

TC Stair 6W

TC Stair 4W

TC Stair 2W

TC Stair1 MidW

Figure 9.4-82. Temperature versus time for the stair thermocouples, Experiment 5K 
538

9.4.8.2 Pressures 

Time (s)

Pressure (Pa)

BR: Ignition

BR: double failing

S5: opening

LBY: opening

S1: opening

BH: opening

BR: double clear

BR: placing WCD (double)

LR: window failing

BR: FBN flowing (double)

BR: FBN stopped (double)

BH: closed

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

S1: fan on

BH: opening

BH: closed

Removing air flow

Experiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

DP Stair 7W

DP Stair 6W

DP Stair 5W

DP Stair 4W

DP Stair 3W

DP Stair 2W

DP Stair 1W

Figure 9.4-83. Differential pressure versus time for the stairwell bi-directional probes, Experiment 5K 

9.4.8.3 Velocities 

Time (s)

Velocity (m/s)

BR: Ignition

BR: double failing

S5: opening

LBY: opening

S1: opening

BH: opening

BR: double clear

BR: placing WCD (double)

LR: window failing

BR: FBN flowing (double)

BR: FBN stopped (double)

BH: closed

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

S1: fan on

BH: opening

BH: closed

Removing air flow

Experiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

-5

0

5

10

15

20

-11

0

11

22

34

45

Velocity (mph)

VEL Stair5 MidW

VEL Stair5 BotW

Figure 9.4-84. Velocity versus time for the 5th floor stairwell bi-directional probes, Experiment 5K 
539

Time (s)

Velocity (m/s)

BR: Ignition

BR: double failing

S5: opening

LBY: opening

S1: opening

BH: opening

BR: double clear

BR: placing WCD (double)

LR: window failing

BR: FBN flowing (double)

BR: FBN stopped (double)

BH: closed

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

S1: fan on

BH: opening

BH: closed

Removing air flow

Experiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

-1

0

1

2

3

4

-2

0

2

4

7

9

Velocity (mph)

VEL Stair1 TopW

VEL Stair1 MidW

VEL Stair1 BotW

Figure 9.4-85. Velocity versus time for the 1st floor stairwell bi-directional probes, Experiment 5K 

Time (s)

Velocity (m/s)

BR: Ignition

BR: double failing

S5: opening

LBY: opening

S1: opening

BH: opening

BR: double clear

BR: placing WCD (double)

LR: window failing

BR: FBN flowing (double)

BR: FBN stopped (double)

BH: closed

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

S1: fan on

BH: opening

BH: closed

Removing air flow

Experiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

-9

-6

-3

0

3

6

9

12

-20

-13

-7

0

7

13

20

27

Velocity (mph)

VEL Apt5K TopW

VEL Apt5K MidW

VEL Apt5K BotW

Figure 9.4-86. Velocity versus time for the apartment 5K doorway bi-directional probes, Experiment 5K 
540

9.4.9 Experiment 5A

9.4.9.1 Temperatures 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: IgnitionBR: double failingLBY: right openingS1: openingS5: openingBH: openingBR: double half clearBR: single failingBR: double clearBH: closedBR: single clearBR: placing WCD (double)LBY: fans onBR: moving WCD (double)BR: FBN flowing (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)Experiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

0

300

600

900

1200

1500

32

572

1112

1652

2192

2732

Temperature (F)

TC BR5AE 2.1m

TC BR5AE 1.8m

TC BR5AE 1.5m

TC BR5AE 1.2m

TC BR5AE 0.9m

TC BR5AE 0.6m

Figure 9.4-87. Temperature versus time for the 5A bedroom thermocouple tree, Experiment 5A 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: IgnitionBR: double failingLBY: right openingS1: openingS5: openingBH: openingBR: double half clearBR: single failingBR: double clearBH: closedBR: single clearBR: placing WCD (double)LBY: fans onBR: moving WCD (double)BR: FBN flowing (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)Experiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

0

200

400

600

800

1000

32

392

752

1112

1472

1832

Temperature (F)

TC Corr5AE C

TC Corr5AE 2.1m

TC Corr5AE 1.8m

TC Corr5AE 1.5m

TC Corr5AE 1.2m

TC Corr5AE 0.9m

TC Corr5AE 0.6m

Figure 9.4-88. Temperature versus time for the 5A hall thermocouple tree, Experiment 5A 
541

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: IgnitionBR: double failingLBY: right openingS1: openingS5: openingBH: openingBR: double half clearBR: single failingBR: double clearBH: closedBR: single clearBR: placing WCD (double)LBY: fans onBR: moving WCD (double)BR: FBN flowing (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)Experiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

0

50

100

150

200

250

32

122

212

302

392

482

Temperature (F)

TC Corr5EE C

TC Corr5EE 1.8m

TC Corr5EE 1.5m

TC Corr5EE 1.2m

TC Corr5EE 0.9m

TC Corr5EE 2.1m

Figure 9.4-89. Temperature versus time for the 5E hall thermocouple tree, Experiment 5A 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: IgnitionBR: double failingLBY: right openingS1: openingS5: openingBH: openingBR: double half clearBR: single failingBR: double clearBH: closedBR: single clearBR: placing WCD (double)LBY: fans onBR: moving WCD (double)BR: FBN flowing (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)Experiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

0

200

400

600

800

1000

32

392

752

1112

1472

1832

Temperature (F)

TC CorrStair5E C

TC CorrStair5E 2.1m

TC CorrStair5E 1.8m

TC CorrStair5E 1.5m

TC CorrStair5E 1.2m

TC CorrStair5E 0.9m

TC CorrStair5E 0.6m

Figure 9.4-90. Temperature versus time for the 5th floor stair hall thermocouple tree, Experiment 5A 
542

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: IgnitionBR: double failingLBY: right openingS1: openingS5: openingBH: openingBR: double half clearBR: single failingBR: double clearBH: closedBR: single clearBR: placing WCD (double)LBY: fans onBR: moving WCD (double)BR: FBN flowing (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)Experiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

0

200

400

600

800

32

392

752

1112

1472

Temperature (F)

TC Stair5E C

TC Stair5E 2.1m

TC Stair5E 1.8m

TC Stair5E 1.5m

TC Stair5E 1.2m

TC Stair5E 0.9m

TC Stair5E 0.6m

Figure 9.4-91. Temperature versus time for the 5th floor stairwell thermocouple tree, Experiment 5A 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: IgnitionBR: double failingLBY: right openingS1: openingS5: openingBH: openingBR: double half clearBR: single failingBR: double clearBH: closedBR: single clearBR: placing WCD (double)LBY: fans onBR: moving WCD (double)BR: FBN flowing (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)Experiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

0

100

200

300

400

500

32

212

392

572

752

932

Temperature (F)

TC Bulkhead MidE

TC Stair 4E

TC Stair 2E

TC Stair1 MidE

Figure 9.4-92. Temperature versus time for the stair thermocouples, Experiment 5A 
543

9.4.9.2 Pressures 

Time (s)

Pressure (Pa)

BR: IgnitionBR: double failingLBY: right openingS1: openingS5: openingBH: openingBR: double half clearBR: single failingBR: double clearBH: closedBR: single clearBR: placing WCD (double)LBY: fans onBR: moving WCD (double)BR: FBN flowing (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)Experiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

-20

0

20

40

60

80

DP Stair 7E

DP Stair 6E

DP Stair 5E

DP Stair 4E

DP Stair 3E

DP Stair 2E

DP Stair 1E

Figure 9.4-93. Differential pressure versus time for the stairwell bi-directional probes, Experiment 5A 

9.4.9.3 Velocities 

Time (s)

Velocity (m/s)

BR: IgnitionBR: double failingLBY: right openingS1: openingS5: openingBH: openingBR: double half clearBR: single failingBR: double clearBH: closedBR: single clearBR: placing WCD (double)LBY: fans onBR: moving WCD (double)BR: FBN flowing (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)Experiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

-6

-3

0

3

6

9

12

-13

-7

0

7

13

20

27

Velocity (mph)

VEL Stair5 TopE

VEL Stair5 MidE

VEL Stair5 BotE

Figure 9.4-94. Velocity versus time for the 5th floor stairwell bi-directional probes, Experiment 5A 
544

Time (s)

Velocity (m/s)

BR: IgnitionBR: double failingLBY: right openingS1: openingS5: openingBH: openingBR: double half clearBR: single failingBR: double clearBH: closedBR: single clearBR: placing WCD (double)LBY: fans onBR: moving WCD (double)BR: FBN flowing (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)Experiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

6

Velocity (mph)

VEL Stair1 TopE

VEL Stair1 BotE

Figure 9.4-95. Velocity versus time for the 1st floor stairwell bi-directional probes, Experiment 5A 

Time (s)

Velocity (m/s)

BR: IgnitionBR: double failingLBY: right openingS1: openingS5: openingBH: openingBR: double half clearBR: single failingBR: double clearBH: closedBR: single clearBR: placing WCD (double)LBY: fans onBR: moving WCD (double)BR: FBN flowing (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)Experiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

-6

-3

0

3

6

9

12

-13

-7

0

7

13

20

27

Velocity (mph)

VEL Apt5A TopE

VEL Apt5A MidE

VEL Apt5A BotE

Figure 9.4-96. Velocity versus time for the apartment 5A doorway bi-directional probes, Experiment 5A 
545

9.4.10 Experiment 5G

9.4.10.1 Temperatures 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: IgnitionBR: double failingLBY: left openingS1: openingS5: openingBH: opening 0.02 mBH: openBR: double clearBR: placing WCD (single)LR: window ventingExperiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

0

300

600

900

1200

1500

32

572

1112

1652

2192

2732

Temperature (F)

TC BR5GW 2.1m

TC BR5GW 1.8m

TC BR5GW 1.5m

TC BR5GW 1.2m

TC BR5GW 0.9m

TC BR5GW 0.6m

Figure 9.4-97. Temperature versus time for the 5G bedroom thermocouple tree, Experiment 5G 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: IgnitionBR: double failingLBY: left openingS1: openingS5: openingBH: opening 0.02 mBH: openBR: double clearBR: placing WCD (single)LR: window ventingExperiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

32

212

392

572

752

932

1112

Temperature (F)

TC Corr5GW 2.1m

TC Corr5GW 1.8m

TC Corr5GW 1.5m

TC Corr5GW 1.2m

TC Corr5GW 0.9m

TC Corr5GW 0.6m

Figure 9.4-98. Temperature versus time for the 5G hall thermocouple tree, Experiment 5G 
546

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: IgnitionBR: double failingLBY: left openingS1: openingS5: openingBH: opening 0.02 mBH: openBR: double clearBR: placing WCD (single)LR: window ventingExperiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

0

100

200

300

400

32

212

392

572

752

Temperature (F)

TC Corr5KW 2.1m

TC Corr5KW 1.8m

TC Corr5KW 1.5m

TC Corr5KW 1.2m

TC Corr5KW 0.9m

TC Corr5KW 0.6m

Figure 9.4-99. Temperature versus time for the 5K hall thermocouple tree, Experiment 5G 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: IgnitionBR: double failingLBY: left openingS1: openingS5: openingBH: opening 0.02 mBH: openBR: double clearBR: placing WCD (single)LR: window ventingExperiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

32

212

392

572

752

932

1112

Temperature (F)

TC CorrStair5W 2.1m

TC CorrStair5W 1.8m

TC CorrStair5W 1.5m

TC CorrStair5W 1.2m

TC CorrStair5W 0.9m

TC CorrStair5W 0.6m

Figure 9.4-100. Temperature versus time for the 5th floor stair hall thermocouple tree, Experiment 5G 
547

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: IgnitionBR: double failingLBY: left openingS1: openingS5: openingBH: opening 0.02 mBH: openBR: double clearBR: placing WCD (single)LR: window ventingExperiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

0

100

200

300

400

500

32

212

392

572

752

932

Temperature (F)

TC Stair5W 2.1m

TC Stair5W 1.8m

TC Stair5W 1.5m

TC Stair5W 1.2m

TC Stair5W 0.9m

TC Stair5W 0.6m

Figure 9.4-101. Temperature versus time for the 5th floor stairwell thermocouple tree, Experiment 5G 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

BR: IgnitionBR: double failingLBY: left openingS1: openingS5: openingBH: opening 0.02 mBH: openBR: double clearBR: placing WCD (single)LR: window ventingExperiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

0

100

200

300

400

32

212

392

572

752

Temperature (F)

TC Bulkhead MidW

TC Stair 6W

TC Stair 4W

TC Stair 2W

TC Stair1 MidW

Figure 9.4-102. Temperature versus time for the stair thermocouples, Experiment 5G 
548

9.4.10.2 Pressures 

Time (s)

Pressure (Pa)

BR: IgnitionBR: double failingLBY: left openingS1: openingS5: openingBH: opening 0.02 mBH: openBR: double clearBR: placing WCD (single)LR: window ventingExperiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

-20

0

20

40

60

80

DP Stair 7W

DP Stair 6W

DP Stair 5W

DP Stair 4W

DP Stair 3W

DP Stair 2W

DP Stair 1W

Figure 9.4-103. Differential pressure versus time for the stairwell bi-directional probes, Experiment 5G 

9.4.10.3 Velocities 

Time (s)

Velocity (m/s)

BR: IgnitionBR: double failingLBY: left openingS1: openingS5: openingBH: opening 0.02 mBH: openBR: double clearBR: placing WCD (single)LR: window ventingExperiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

-2

0

2

4

6

8

-4

0

4

9

13

18

Velocity (mph)

VEL Stair5 TopW

VEL Stair5 MidW

VEL Stair5 BotW

Figure 9.4-104. Velocity versus time for the 5th floor stairwell bi-directional probes, Experiment 5G 
549

Time (s)

Velocity (m/s)

BR: IgnitionBR: double failingLBY: left openingS1: openingS5: openingBH: opening 0.02 mBH: openBR: double clearBR: placing WCD (single)LR: window ventingExperiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

-4

0

4

9

13

18

22

Velocity (mph)

VEL Apt5G TopW

VEL Apt5G MidW

VEL Apt5G BotW

Figure 9.4-105. Velocity versus time for the apartment 5G doorway bi-directional probes, Experiment 5G 

9.4.11 Experiment 5G2

9.4.11.1 Temperatures 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

LR: Ignition

S1: fan off

S5: closed

S5: opening

BH: opening

LR: placing WCD

LBY: fans on

LR: moving WCD

BH: closed

LR: WCD replaced

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

LR: moving WCD

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

LR: WCD replaced

LBY: fan moved

Experiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

0

100

200

300

400

32

212

392

572

752

Temperature (F)

TC BR5GW 2.1m

TC BR5GW 1.8m

TC BR5GW 1.5m

TC BR5GW 1.2m

TC BR5GW 0.9m

TC BR5GW 0.6m

Figure 9.4-106. Temperature versus time for the 5G2 bedroom thermocouple tree, Experiment 5G2 
550

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

LR: Ignition

S1: fan off

S5: closed

S5: opening

BH: opening

LR: placing WCD

LBY: fans on

LR: moving WCD

BH: closed

LR: WCD replaced

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

LR: moving WCD

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

LR: WCD replaced

LBY: fan moved

Experiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

0

200

400

600

800

1000

32

392

752

1112

1472

1832

Temperature (F)

TC Corr5GW 2.1m

TC Corr5GW 1.8m

TC Corr5GW 1.5m

TC Corr5GW 1.2m

TC Corr5GW 0.9m

TC Corr5GW 0.6m

Figure 9.4-107. Temperature versus time for the 5G2 hall thermocouple tree, Experiment 5G2 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

LR: Ignition

S1: fan off

S5: closed

S5: opening

BH: opening

LR: placing WCD

LBY: fans on

LR: moving WCD

BH: closed

LR: WCD replaced

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

LR: moving WCD

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

LR: WCD replaced

LBY: fan moved

Experiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

32

212

392

572

752

932

1112

Temperature (F)

TC Corr5KW 2.1m

TC Corr5KW 1.8m

TC Corr5KW 1.5m

TC Corr5KW 1.2m

TC Corr5KW 0.9m

TC Corr5KW 0.6m

Figure 9.4-108. Temperature versus time for the 5K hall thermocouple tree, Experiment 5G2 
551

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

LR: Ignition

S1: fan off

S5: closed

S5: opening

BH: opening

LR: placing WCD

LBY: fans on

LR: moving WCD

BH: closed

LR: WCD replaced

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

LR: moving WCD

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

LR: WCD replaced

LBY: fan moved

Experiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

0

200

400

600

800

1000

32

392

752

1112

1472

1832

Temperature (F)

TC CorrStair5W 2.1m

TC CorrStair5W 1.8m

TC CorrStair5W 1.5m

TC CorrStair5W 1.2m

TC CorrStair5W 0.9m

TC CorrStair5W 0.6m

Figure 9.4-109. Temperature versus time for the 5th floor stair hall thermocouple tree, Experiment 5G2 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

LR: Ignition

S1: fan off

S5: closed

S5: opening

BH: opening

LR: placing WCD

LBY: fans on

LR: moving WCD

BH: closed

LR: WCD replaced

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

LR: moving WCD

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

LR: WCD replaced

LBY: fan moved

Experiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

0

200

400

600

800

32

392

752

1112

1472

Temperature (F)

TC Stair5W 2.1m

TC Stair5W 1.8m

TC Stair5W 1.5m

TC Stair5W 1.2m

TC Stair5W 0.9m

TC Stair5W 0.6m

Figure 9.4-110. Temperature versus time for the 5th floor stairwell thermocouple tree, Experiment 5G2 
552

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

LR: Ignition

S1: fan off

S5: closed

S5: opening

BH: opening

LR: placing WCD

LBY: fans on

LR: moving WCD

BH: closed

LR: WCD replaced

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

LR: moving WCD

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

LR: WCD replaced

LBY: fan moved

Experiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

0

200

400

600

800

32

392

752

1112

1472

Temperature (F)

TC Bulkhead MidW

TC Stair 6W

TC Stair 4W

TC Stair 2W

TC Stair1 MidW

Figure 9.4-111. Temperature versus time for the stair thermocouples, Experiment 5G2 

9.4.11.2 Pressures 

Time (s)

Pressure (Pa)

LR: Ignition

S1: fan off

S5: closed

S5: opening

BH: opening

LR: placing WCD

LBY: fans on

LR: moving WCD

BH: closed

LR: WCD replaced

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

LR: moving WCD

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

LR: WCD replaced

LBY: fan moved

Experiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

DP Stair 7W

DP Stair 6W

DP Stair 5W

DP Stair 4W

DP Stair 3W

DP Stair 2W

DP Stair 1W

Figure 9.4-112. Differential pressure versus time for the stairwell bi-directional probes, Experiment 5G2 
553

9.4.11.3 Velocities 

Time (s)

Velocity (m/s)

LR: Ignition

S1: fan off

S5: closed

S5: opening

BH: opening

LR: placing WCD

LBY: fans on

LR: moving WCD

BH: closed

LR: WCD replaced

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

LR: moving WCD

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

LR: WCD replaced

LBY: fan moved

Experiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

-4

0

4

9

13

18

22

Velocity (mph)

VEL Stair5 TopW

VEL Stair5 MidW

VEL Stair5 BotW

Figure 9.4-113. Velocity versus time for the 5th floor stairwell bi-directional probes, Experiment 5G2 

Time (s)

Velocity (m/s)

LR: Ignition

S1: fan off

S5: closed

S5: opening

BH: opening

LR: placing WCD

LBY: fans on

LR: moving WCD

BH: closed

LR: WCD replaced

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

LR: moving WCD

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

LR: WCD replaced

LBY: fan moved

Experiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

-4

0

4

9

13

18

22

Velocity (mph)

VEL Apt5G TopW

VEL Apt5G MidW

VEL Apt5G BotW

Figure 9.4-114. Velocity versus time for the apartment 5G doorway bi-directional probes, Experiment 5G2 
554

9.4.12 Experiment 3E

9.4.12.1 Temperatures 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

Multiple IgnitionsLBY: openingS1: openingS3: openingBH: openingBR: double failingBR: double clearBR: FBN flowing (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)LR: window failingBR: FBN flowing (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)LR: device activatedLR: placing WCDLR: WCD removedBH: closedLBY: fans onS1: fan onLR: FBN flowingLR: FBN stoppedExperiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

32

392

752

1112

1472

1832

2192

Temperature (F)

TC BR3EE 2.1m

TC BR3EE 1.8m

TC BR3EE 1.5m

TC BR3EE 1.2m

TC BR3EE 0.9m

TC BR3EE 0.6m

Figure 9.4-115. Temperature versus time for the 3E bedroom thermocouple tree, Experiment 3E 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

Multiple IgnitionsLBY: openingS1: openingS3: openingBH: openingBR: double failingBR: double clearBR: FBN flowing (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)LR: window failingBR: FBN flowing (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)LR: device activatedLR: placing WCDLR: WCD removedBH: closedLBY: fans onS1: fan onLR: FBN flowingLR: FBN stoppedExperiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400

0

200

400

600

800

1000

32

392

752

1112

1472

1832

Temperature (F)

TC Corr3EE C

TC Corr3EE 2.1m

TC Corr3EE 1.8m

TC Corr3EE 1.5m

TC Corr3EE 1.2m

TC Corr3EE 0.9m

TC Corr3EE 0.6m

Figure 9.4-116. Temperature versus time for the 3E hall thermocouple tree, Experiment 3E 
555

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

Multiple IgnitionsLBY: openingS1: openingS3: openingBH: openingBR: double failingBR: double clearBR: FBN flowing (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)LR: window failingBR: FBN flowing (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)LR: device activatedLR: placing WCDLR: WCD removedBH: closedLBY: fans onS1: fan onLR: FBN flowingLR: FBN stoppedExperiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400

0

200

400

600

800

32

392

752

1112

1472

Temperature (F)

TC Corr3AE C

TC Corr3AE 2.1m

TC Corr3AE 1.8m

TC Corr3AE 1.5m

TC Corr3AE 1.2m

TC Corr3AE 0.9m

TC Corr3AE 0.6m

Figure 9.4-117. Temperature versus time for the 3A hall thermocouple tree, Experiment 3E 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

Multiple IgnitionsLBY: openingS1: openingS3: openingBH: openingBR: double failingBR: double clearBR: FBN flowing (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)LR: window failingBR: FBN flowing (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)LR: device activatedLR: placing WCDLR: WCD removedBH: closedLBY: fans onS1: fan onLR: FBN flowingLR: FBN stoppedExperiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400

0

200

400

600

800

1000

32

392

752

1112

1472

1832

Temperature (F)

TC CorrStair3E C

TC CorrStair3E 2.1m

TC CorrStair3E 1.8m

TC CorrStair3E 1.5m

TC CorrStair3E 1.2m

TC CorrStair3E 0.9m

TC CorrStair3E 0.6m

Figure 9.4-118. Temperature versus time for the 3rd floor stair hall thermocouple tree, Experiment 3E 
556

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

Multiple IgnitionsLBY: openingS1: openingS3: openingBH: openingBR: double failingBR: double clearBR: FBN flowing (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)LR: window failingBR: FBN flowing (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)LR: device activatedLR: placing WCDLR: WCD removedBH: closedLBY: fans onS1: fan onLR: FBN flowingLR: FBN stoppedExperiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400

0

200

400

600

800

32

392

752

1112

1472

Temperature (F)

TC Stair3E C

TC Stair3E 2.1m

TC Stair3E 1.8m

TC Stair3E 1.5m

TC Stair3E 1.2m

TC Stair3E 0.9m

TC Stair3E 0.6m

Figure 9.4-119. Temperature versus time for the 3rd floor stairwell thermocouple tree, Experiment 3E 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

Multiple IgnitionsLBY: openingS1: openingS3: openingBH: openingBR: double failingBR: double clearBR: FBN flowing (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)LR: window failingBR: FBN flowing (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)LR: device activatedLR: placing WCDLR: WCD removedBH: closedLBY: fans onS1: fan onLR: FBN flowingLR: FBN stoppedExperiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

32

212

392

572

752

932

1112

Temperature (F)

TC Bulkhead MidE

TC Stair 2E

TC Stair1 MidE

Figure 9.4-120. Temperature versus time for the stair thermocouples, Experiment 3E 
557

9.4.12.2 Pressures 

Time (s)

Pressure (Pa)

Multiple IgnitionsLBY: openingS1: openingS3: openingBH: openingBR: double failingBR: double clearBR: FBN flowing (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)LR: window failingBR: FBN flowing (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)LR: device activatedLR: placing WCDLR: WCD removedBH: closedLBY: fans onS1: fan onLR: FBN flowingLR: FBN stoppedExperiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400

-20

0

20

40

60

80

DP Stair 7E

DP Stair 6E

DP Stair 4E

DP Stair 3E

DP Stair 2E

DP Stair 1E

Figure 9.4-121. Differential pressure versus time for the stairwell bi-directional probes, Experiment 3E 

9.4.12.3 Velocities 

Time (s)

Velocity (m/s)

Multiple IgnitionsLBY: openingS1: openingS3: openingBH: openingBR: double failingBR: double clearBR: FBN flowing (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)LR: window failingBR: FBN flowing (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)LR: device activatedLR: placing WCDLR: WCD removedBH: closedLBY: fans onS1: fan onLR: FBN flowingLR: FBN stoppedExperiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

-7

-4

-2

0

2

4

7

9

Velocity (mph)

VEL Stair1 TopE

VEL Stair1 BotE

Figure 9.4-122. Velocity versus time for the 1st floor stairwell bi-directional probes, Experiment 3E 
558

Time (s)

Velocity (m/s)

Multiple IgnitionsLBY: openingS1: openingS3: openingBH: openingBR: double failingBR: double clearBR: FBN flowing (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)LR: window failingBR: FBN flowing (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)LR: device activatedLR: placing WCDLR: WCD removedBH: closedLBY: fans onS1: fan onLR: FBN flowingLR: FBN stoppedExperiment completed

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400

-15

-12

-9

-6

-3

0

3

-34

-27

-20

-13

-7

0

7

Velocity (mph)

VEL Bulkhead TopE

VEL Bulkhead MidE

VEL Bulkhead BotE

Figure 9.4-123. Velocity versus time for the bulkhead bi-directional probes, Experiment 3E 

9.4.13 Experiment 3A

9.4.13.1 Temperatures 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

Multiple ignitions

LBY: right opening

S1: opening

S3: opening/closing

S3: opening

BH: opening

BR: double failing

BR: double clear

BR: FBN flowing (double)

BR: FBN stopped (double)

LR: window failing

LR: window clear

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

S1: fan added

BH: closed

Experiment completed

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200

0

300

600

900

1200

1500

32

572

1112

1652

2192

2732

Temperature (F)

TC BR3AE 2.1m

TC BR3AE 1.8m

TC BR3AE 1.5m

TC BR3AE 1.2m

TC BR3AE 0.9m

TC BR3AE 0.6m

Figure 9.4-124. Temperature versus time for the 3A bedroom thermocouple tree, Experiment 3A 
559

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

Multiple ignitions

LBY: right opening

S1: opening

S3: opening/closing

S3: opening

BH: opening

BR: double failing

BR: double clear

BR: FBN flowing (double)

BR: FBN stopped (double)

LR: window failing

LR: window clear

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

S1: fan added

BH: closed

Experiment completed

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200

0

200

400

600

800

1000

32

392

752

1112

1472

1832

Temperature (F)

TC Corr3AE C

TC Corr3AE 2.1m

TC Corr3AE 1.8m

TC Corr3AE 1.5m

TC Corr3AE 1.2m

TC Corr3AE 0.9m

TC Corr3AE 0.6m

Figure 9.4-125. Temperature versus time for the 3A hall thermocouple tree, Experiment 3A 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

Multiple ignitions

LBY: right opening

S1: opening

S3: opening/closing

S3: opening

BH: opening

BR: double failing

BR: double clear

BR: FBN flowing (double)

BR: FBN stopped (double)

LR: window failing

LR: window clear

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

S1: fan added

BH: closed

Experiment completed

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

32

212

392

572

752

932

1112

Temperature (F)

TC Corr3EE C

TC Corr3EE 2.1m

TC Corr3EE 1.8m

TC Corr3EE 1.5m

TC Corr3EE 1.2m

TC Corr3EE 0.9m

TC Corr3EE 0.6m

Figure 9.4-126. Temperature versus time for the 3E hall thermocouple tree, Experiment 3A 
560

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

Multiple ignitions

LBY: right opening

S1: opening

S3: opening/closing

S3: opening

BH: opening

BR: double failing

BR: double clear

BR: FBN flowing (double)

BR: FBN stopped (double)

LR: window failing

LR: window clear

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

S1: fan added

BH: closed

Experiment completed

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

32

392

752

1112

1472

1832

2192

Temperature (F)

TC CorrStair3E C

TC CorrStair3E 2.1m

TC CorrStair3E 1.8m

TC CorrStair3E 1.5m

TC CorrStair3E 1.2m

TC CorrStair3E 0.9m

TC CorrStair3E 0.6m

Figure 9.4-127. Temperature versus time for the 3rd floor stair hall thermocouple tree, Experiment 3A 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

Multiple ignitions

LBY: right opening

S1: opening

S3: opening/closing

S3: opening

BH: opening

BR: double failing

BR: double clear

BR: FBN flowing (double)

BR: FBN stopped (double)

LR: window failing

LR: window clear

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

S1: fan added

BH: closed

Experiment completed

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200

0

200

400

600

800

1000

32

392

752

1112

1472

1832

Temperature (F)

TC Stair3E C

TC Stair3E 2.1m

TC Stair3E 1.8m

TC Stair3E 1.5m

TC Stair3E 1.2m

TC Stair3E 0.9m

TC Stair3E 0.6m

Figure 9.4-128. Temperature versus time for the 3rd floor stairwell thermocouple tree, Experiment 3A 
561

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

Multiple ignitions

LBY: right opening

S1: opening

S3: opening/closing

S3: opening

BH: opening

BR: double failing

BR: double clear

BR: FBN flowing (double)

BR: FBN stopped (double)

LR: window failing

LR: window clear

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

S1: fan added

BH: closed

Experiment completed

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200

0

100

200

300

400

500

32

212

392

572

752

932

Temperature (F)

TC Bulkhead MidE

TC Stair 2E

TC Stair1 MidE

Figure 9.4-129. Temperature versus time for the stair thermocouples, Experiment 3A 

9.4.13.2 Pressures 

Time (s)

Pressure (Pa)

Multiple ignitions

LBY: right opening

S1: opening

S3: opening/closing

S3: opening

BH: opening

BR: double failing

BR: double clear

BR: FBN flowing (double)

BR: FBN stopped (double)

LR: window failing

LR: window clear

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

S1: fan added

BH: closed

Experiment completed

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200

-10

0

10

20

30

40

DP Stair 7E

DP Stair 6E

DP Stair 4E

DP Stair 3E

DP Stair 2E

DP Stair 1E

Figure 9.4-130. Differential pressure versus time for the stairwell bi-directional probes, Experiment 3A 
562

9.4.13.3 Velocities 

Time (s)

Velocity (m/s)

Multiple ignitions

LBY: right opening

S1: opening

S3: opening/closing

S3: opening

BH: opening

BR: double failing

BR: double clear

BR: FBN flowing (double)

BR: FBN stopped (double)

LR: window failing

LR: window clear

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

S1: fan added

BH: closed

Experiment completed

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

-45

-34

-22

-11

0

11

Velocity (mph)

VEL Bulkhead TopE

VEL Bulkhead MidE

VEL Bulkhead BotE

Figure 9.4-131. Velocity versus time for the bulkhead bi-directional probes, Experiment 3A 

Time (s)

Velocity (m/s)

Multiple ignitions

LBY: right opening

S1: opening

S3: opening/closing

S3: opening

BH: opening

BR: double failing

BR: double clear

BR: FBN flowing (double)

BR: FBN stopped (double)

LR: window failing

LR: window clear

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

LR: FBN flowing

LR: FBN stopped

S1: fan added

BH: closed

Experiment completed

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

-13

-9

-4

0

4

9

13

Velocity (mph)

VEL Stair1 TopE

VEL Stair1 BotE

Figure 9.4-132. Velocity versus time for the 1st floor stairwell bi-directional probes, Experiment 3A 
563

9.4.14 Experiment 3G/K

9.4.14.1 Temperatures 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

Multiple IgnitionsLBY: left openingS1: openingBR: single failingBR: single clearS3: openingBH: openingBH: closedBH: openingLBY: fans onS1: fan onBH: closedLR: window failingBR: double failingBR: placing WCD (single)BR: double clearLR: placing WCDIntroducing air flowBR2: placing WCDAir flow removedBR: FBN flowing (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)LR: moving WCDLR: FBN flowingLR: FBN stopped

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

32

122

212

302

392

482

572

Temperature (F)

TC BR3KW 1.8m

TC BR3KW 1.5m

TC BR3KW 1.2m

TC BR3KW 0.9m

TC BR3KW 0.6m

Figure 9.4-133. Temperature versus time for the 3G_K bedroom thermocouple tree, Experiment 3G_K 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

Multiple IgnitionsLBY: left openingS1: openingBR: single failingBR: single clearS3: openingBH: openingBH: closedBH: openingLBY: fans onS1: fan onBH: closedLR: window failingBR: double failingBR: placing WCD (single)BR: double clearLR: placing WCDIntroducing air flowBR2: placing WCDAir flow removedBR: FBN flowing (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)LR: moving WCDLR: FBN flowingLR: FBN stopped

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000

0

200

400

600

800

32

392

752

1112

1472

Temperature (F)

TC Corr3KW C

TC Corr3KW 2.1m

TC Corr3KW 1.8m

TC Corr3KW 1.5m

TC Corr3KW 0.9m

TC Corr3KW 0.6m

Figure 9.4-134. Temperature versus time for the 3G_K hall thermocouple tree, Experiment 3G_K 
564

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

Multiple IgnitionsLBY: left openingS1: openingBR: single failingBR: single clearS3: openingBH: openingBH: closedBH: openingLBY: fans onS1: fan onBH: closedLR: window failingBR: double failingBR: placing WCD (single)BR: double clearLR: placing WCDIntroducing air flowBR2: placing WCDAir flow removedBR: FBN flowing (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)LR: moving WCDLR: FBN flowingLR: FBN stopped

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

32

392

752

1112

1472

1832

2192

Temperature (F)

TC Corr3GW C

TC Corr3GW 2.1m

TC Corr3GW 1.8m

TC Corr3GW 1.5m

TC Corr3GW 1.2m

TC Corr3GW 0.9m

TC Corr3GW 0.6m

Figure 9.4-135. Temperature versus time for the 7K hall thermocouple tree, Experiment 3G_K 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

Multiple IgnitionsLBY: left openingS1: openingBR: single failingBR: single clearS3: openingBH: openingBH: closedBH: openingLBY: fans onS1: fan onBH: closedLR: window failingBR: double failingBR: placing WCD (single)BR: double clearLR: placing WCDIntroducing air flowBR2: placing WCDAir flow removedBR: FBN flowing (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)LR: moving WCDLR: FBN flowingLR: FBN stopped

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000

0

200

400

600

800

1000

32

392

752

1112

1472

1832

Temperature (F)

TC CorrStair3W C

TC CorrStair3W 2.1m

TC CorrStair3W 1.8m

TC CorrStair3W 1.5m

TC CorrStair3W 1.2m

TC CorrStair3W 0.9m

TC CorrStair3W 0.6m

Figure 9.4-136. Temperature versus time for the 7th floor stair hall thermocouple tree, Experiment 3G_K 
565

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

Multiple IgnitionsLBY: left openingS1: openingBR: single failingBR: single clearS3: openingBH: openingBH: closedBH: openingLBY: fans onS1: fan onBH: closedLR: window failingBR: double failingBR: placing WCD (single)BR: double clearLR: placing WCDIntroducing air flowBR2: placing WCDAir flow removedBR: FBN flowing (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)LR: moving WCDLR: FBN flowingLR: FBN stopped

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

32

122

212

302

392

482

572

Temperature (F)

TC Stair3W 1.5m

TC Stair3W 1.2m

TC Stair3W 0.9m

TC Stair3W 0.6m

Figure 9.4-137. Temperature versus time for the 7th floor stairwell thermocouple tree, Experiment 3G_K 

Time (s)

Temperature (C) 

Multiple IgnitionsLBY: left openingS1: openingBR: single failingBR: single clearS3: openingBH: openingBH: closedBH: openingLBY: fans onS1: fan onBH: closedLR: window failingBR: double failingBR: placing WCD (single)BR: double clearLR: placing WCDIntroducing air flowBR2: placing WCDAir flow removedBR: FBN flowing (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)LR: moving WCDLR: FBN flowingLR: FBN stopped

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000

0

50

100

150

200

250

32

122

212

302

392

482

Temperature (F)

TC Bulkhead MidW

TC Stair 6W

TC Stair 2W

TC Stair1 MidW

Figure 9.4-138. Temperature versus time for the stair thermocouples, Experiment 3G_K 
566

9.4.14.2 Pressures 

Time (s)

Pressure (Pa)

Multiple IgnitionsLBY: left openingS1: openingBR: single failingBR: single clearS3: openingBH: openingBH: closedBH: openingLBY: fans onS1: fan onBH: closedLR: window failingBR: double failingBR: placing WCD (single)BR: double clearLR: placing WCDIntroducing air flowBR2: placing WCDAir flow removedBR: FBN flowing (double)BR: FBN stopped (double)LR: moving WCDLR: FBN flowingLR: FBN stopped

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000

-40

-20

0

20

40

DP Stair 7W

DP Stair 6W

DP Stair 5W

DP Stair 4W

DP Stair 3W

DP Stair 2W

DP Stair 1W

Figure 9.4-139. Differential pressure versus time for the stairwell bi-directional probes, Experiment 3G_K 
567

9.5 Appendix E – Post Fire Images

9.5.1 Apartment 7G

Figure 9.5-1. 7G apartment entrance Figure 9.5-2. To the corridor from the living room 

Figure 9.5-3. Down the corridor toward apartment 7K Figure 9.5-4. Through the bedrooms from the living room 

Figure 9.5-5. 7G apartment entrance Figure 9.5-6. Down the stairwell from the fire floor 
568

9.5.2 Apartment 7E

Figure 9.5-7. 7E apartment entrance Figure 9.5-8. Living room from entrance 

Figure 9.5-9. Living room window Figure 9.5-10. Bedroom double window 

Figure 9.5-11. Bedroom single window Figure 9.5-12. Bedroom single window 
569

9.5.3 Apartment 7A

Figure 9.5-13. Living room window Figure 9.5-14. Bedroom double window 

Figure 9.5-15. Bedroom single window Figure 9.5-16. Bedroom door from ignition bedroom 

Figure 9.5-17. Living room from bedroom-side corner Figure 9.5-18. 7A apartment entrance from living room 
570

9.5.4 Apartment 7K

Figure 9.5-19. Apartment 7K entrance Figure 9.5-20. Living room from entrance 

Figure 9.5-21. Living room to bedroom hallway Figure 9.5-22. Bedroom 2 window 

Figure 9.5-23. Bedroom double window Figure 9.5-24. Bedroom single window 
571

9.5.5 Apartment 5E

Figure 9.5-25. Living room from entrance Figure 9.5-26. Living room window 

Figure 9.5-27. Bedroom windows from adjacent bedroom Figure 9.5-28. Bedroom double from adjacent bedroom 

Figure 9.5-29. 5E apartment entrance from the inside Figure 9.5-30. 5E apartment entrance from the corridor 
572

9.5.6 Apartment 5K

Figure 9.5-31. 5K apartment entrance Figure 9.5-32. Living room from entrance 

Figure 9.5-33. Living room window and kitchen Figure 9.5-34. Bedroom 2 from hallway 

Figure 9.5-35. Bedroom double window Figure 9.5-36. Bedroom single window 
573

9.5.7 Apartment 5A

Figure 9.5-37. 5A apartment entrance Figure 9.5-38. Living room window 

Figure 9.5-39. Living room toward bedroom-side wall Figure 9.5-40. Living room toward wall opposite window 

Figure 9.5-41. Bedroom single window Figure 9.5-42. Bedroom double window 
574

9.5.8 Apartment 5G

Figure 9.5-43. 5G apartment entrance Figure 9.5-44. Toward entrance from living room 

Figure 9.5-45. Bedroom 2 from hallway Figure 9.5-46. bedroom 2 toward hallway 

Figure 9.5-47. Bedroom double window Figure 9.5-48. Bedroom single window 
575

9.5.9 Apartment 3A

Figure 9.5-49. 3A apartment entrance Figure 9.5-50. Living room from entrance 

Figure 9.5-51. From apartment door into corridor Figure 9.5-52. Bedroom double window 

Figure 9.5-53. Bedroom single window Figure 9.5-54. Toward apartment entrance from living room 
576

9.5.10 Apartment 3E

Figure 9.5-55. Living room from entrance Figure 9.5-56. Living room window 

Figure 9.5-57. 3E apartment entrance from living room Figure 9.5-58. Living room to bedroom hallway 

Figure 9.5-59. Bedroom double window Figure 9.5-60. Bedroom single window 
577

9.5.11 Apartments 3G and 3K

9.5.11.1 3G 

Figure 9.5-61. Living room from entrance Figure 9.5-62. Bedroom double window 

Figure 9.5-63. Bedroom single window Figure 9.5-64. Bedroom doorway from far corner 

Figure 9.5-65. Living room through bedroom 2 Figure 9.5-66. Living room window 
578

9.5.11.2 Public Corridor 

Figure 9.5-67. Corridor target 
579

9.5.11.3 3K 

Figure 9.5-68. Into corridor from 3K apartment entrance Figure 9.5-69. Living room window 

Figure 9.5-70. Bedroom 2 window Figure 9.5-71. Bedroom double window 

Figure 9.5-72. Bedroom single window Figure 9.5-73. Down the corridor from 3K apartment entrance