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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Considering possible fire senarios on each residential floor Same probability occurring on each floor  Considering reliability of sprinklers, detector/alarms and, Fire Department actions  Totally 152 fire scenarios for each type of building The proposed building Comparable non- combustible building 11 Scenario Probability Fire Depart. 0.7 Detector and Alarm 0.8 Sprinkler 0.95 Room fire 1/19 A Fire on each residential floor 19 storeys YesYY0.024N0.016NY0.006N0.004NoYY0.0013N8.4e-4NY3.16e-4N2.1e-4

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

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

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

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

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

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