S NO.
26
FIVE ROADS TO SMOKE CONTROL
There are few subjects upon which all fire protec-
tion engineers can agree today. Perhaps one is that
it is smoke, not fire itself, that is responsible for
most fire deaths in buildings. But having agreed to
this, most fire protection engineers then im-
mediately disagree on what measures are necessary
to solve the smoke problem.
Here I will discuss five solutions to the problem
that have been proposed by various authorities over
recent years.
THE "MORE RESEARCH" SOLUTION
There are those who argue that it is first necessary
to increase our knowledge of combustion products
and their effect on humans before we can intelli-
gently cope with the problem. These gentlemen
certainly have some persuasive arguments on their
side. Let's listen to a few of them.
Smoke is a complex mixture of combustion pro-
ducts. Aside from carbon monoxide, which we all
know is a killer, smoke can contain a variety of
other deadly gases including hydrogen chloride,
ammonia, carbon dioxide, hydrogen cyanide,
phosgene, chlorine, hydrocyanic acid, hydrogen
sulfide, and various oxides of nitrogen, just to
name a few. Many are unusually deadly, HCN,
for example can be rapidly fatal in concentrations
as low as 0.01 percent (100 ppm). Further, such
deadly gases can be produced by many common
materials such as paint, leather, wool, silk, rubber,
and even sawdust.
The composition of the combustion gas mixturewill
vary depending upon the materials burning. Since
the variety of materials that can be involved in a
fire are infinite, there is no limit to the combina-
tion of gases that can kill. But what complicates
things even more is that the combustion products
from a given fuel will vary depending on the level
of oxygen and temperatures involved.
But this is only the beginning of the complexity.
Man himself is a variable. Sume are much more
tolerant to smoke than others.
Now let's talk about synergistic effects. Two gases
in combination can be more deadly than either
singly. Put a half a dozen deadly gases together and
what do you have? A problem, for sure. Now add
heat, which in itself can be deadly. And now add
panic which all by itself can tremendously affect
human reactions. And let us not forget that smoke
can blind and disorient a person. Consider all these
factors and it's plain to see that smoke represents
one fantastically complex problem.
Some of our researchers are very quick to point
out there has been remarkably little research into
combustion products and their accumulative affect
on man. "How can we even begin to find solutions
to fire", they ask, "until we first find out more
about smoke, and man's tolerance to smoke and
heat?". So the first road to smoke control is to
spend more money and time researching combus-
tion products and their effects on man.
But my reaction to this proposed solution is —
HOGWASH.
Smoke, and man's tolerance to smoke, are such
complex matters that I am sure we could take
50 million dollars and 500 researchers, and give
them all of the analyzers and computers they can
handle, and all the things they want to burn, and at
the end of five years of fire testing they would have
five warehouses full of computer tapes and they
would be further from a solution to the fire problem
than when they started out.
Few researchers are oriented to produce solutions.
Most are oriented to produce reasons for further
research.
I do believe that additional knowledge of the com-
bustion process will eventually prove beneficial,
but we cannot sit on this fire problem pending
further revelations from the ivory tower boys. For
the moment we know all we really need to know
about smoke — it kills. Let's move on.
THE "LET'S REGULATE THE CONTENTS"
SOLUTION
Perhaps the most simplistic solution to the smoke
problem being proposed today is the suggestion
that we prohibit from public buildings those
materials that produce unusually toxic gases.
On the surface this is such a nice clean solution that
it is attractive to many people. All we have to do is
eliminate certain plastics and other nasty combus-
tibles and everything will be O.K., they reason.
But it's not that easy.
The truth of the matter is that there are three
components of cumbustion gases that are uni-
versally present, and which together represent
probably 95% to 98% of the problem. They are:
a) Carbon Monoxide, which dulls the senses and
kills.
b) Heat
c) Suspended particulate matter (both solids and
condensed vapors) that reduces vision, irritates
the eyes, damages respiratory passages, and
causes panic.
You don't have a fire without producing these
problems. And with these problems, you really
don't need the exotic combustion gases to cause
death. The elimination of certain plastics and other
special combustibles will have only a modest affect
on the overall smoke problem.
Now I am not saying that there aren't some
materials that are so unusually dangerous that they
should be prohibited. But I am saying that this is
only a small piece of the problem.
Perhaps the most underrated dangerous component
of combustion gases is heat. One lungful of super-
heated gas can be fatal almost instantly, and fires
can rapidly produce temperatures in the 1000°F
range or greater. A great many "carbon monoxide"
deaths probably are cases of seared lungs.
Usually the first untenable condition that develops
is obscuration. When visability is reduced to zero
panic and death are close at hand.
-2-
What worries me the most about this simplistic
plan to solve the smoke problem by regulating the
character of the interior furnishings is that it is so
si milar to that other plan to eliminate fire by
regulating the structural shell. Those who think
they can build a fireproof building are also inclined
to believe they can produce a nonbumable interior.
The lure of the nontoxic smoke and the non-
hazardous combustible could lead us on another
wild goose chase.
THE "SMOKETIGHT BUILDING" SOLUTION
Traditionally buildings have been compartmented
into fire resistive sections in order to trap and
contain a fire in one section.
As pointed out in Patton Report No. 24, these
supposedly fire tight compartments really are not
smoketight.
For example, when a major fire burned on the
fifth floor of a modern New York City high rise
smoke spread throughout all of the upper floors in
the 47-story structure.
There are many schemes at present to improve the
smoke containment capabilities of the fire compart-
ments aridtoT evacuate-the-Make-.
Some of the plans are:
1. Pressurize stairways and elevator shafts to keep
them smoke free.
2. Use stairways and elevator shafts as smoke
exhaust channels (a highly questionable solu-
tion).
3. Use air handling systems as smoke removal
systems.
4. Have special knockout windows in high rise
buildings.
5. Program air handling systems to surround a fire
with high pressure zones to contain the smoke.
6. Install smoke partitions and close doors with
smoke detectors.
I believe some of these plans do have some useful
application in buildings. To some degree smoke can
be controlled, or automatically exhausted from a
building. But I also believe these solutions are very
li mited in application, and they also have some
potential to increase the fire size.
Injecting fresh air into a fire area can supply the
fire with the oxygen it may need for further rapid
expansion.
In addition, once fire achieves major size all
attempts at smoke control will break down. There
is no practical way to prevent the generation of or
spread of smoke when the fire becomes major,
except in the case of a one-story building where
smoke can be vented directly through roof vents
(and even here the results may be irrelevant if the
fire is not controlled).
I consider a scheme to control smoke by mechanical
or manual means to be relatively useless unless there
is also a plan to prevent a fire from achieving major
size. But many who are most energetically pro-
moting the smoke control schemes today seem to
be considering smoke control a solution to fire in
itself. It isn't! If the fire is not controlled, the smoke
will not be controlled! Smoke control must begin
with fire control.
THE "SMOKE DETECTOR" SOLUTION
A smoke detector is a useful tool. It has some
excellent applications. But it is also the most
oversold commodity in fire protection today.
The rationale that lies behind the overselling of
the smoke detector goes something like this. Smoke
— not the fire itself — is the prime killer. Therefore,
the fire problem is not really a fire problem — it is
a smoke problem. Since it is smoke that we are
really concerned with, the solution is to detect
smoke as rapidly as possible. (Seldom does anyone
bother to explain just what we are supposed to do
after we detect the smoke.)
This business of considering fire to be a smoke
problem rather than a fire problem is another
example of the type of fuzzy thinking that has
been in vogue in fire safety for decades now.
It's pure nonsense. The basic problem is the fire.
The fire is the generator of the smoke. It is also
a generator of heat. Fire is a self propagating and
rapidly expanding phenomenon. If you don't
control the fire, you can't control the smoke.
Detecting smoke is like finding out you have
cancer. Now you know you have a problem! But
the solution to the problem is quite another thing.
THE "FIRE SUPPRESSION" SOLUTION
It seems to me that the very best solution to smoke
is to put the fire out. I realize that this is a
revolutionary concept, and that when I talk this
way I make a lot of people unhappy. But I really
don't understand how we can hope to cope with
smoke unless we stop the smoke generator.
It takes a big fire to generate the very large
quantities of toxic gases that kill large numbers of
-3-
people. If the fire is intercepted before it becomes
a major smoke generator, then the smoke problem
is essentially solved.
Note how much cleaner this solution is than trying
to contain smoke after it is generated. It's easier to
put the fire out than it is to push the smoke into a
corner and contain it. It's a lot cheaper too.
So smoke control must begin with fire control.
Because it takes less time for a fire to grow to a
deadly level than it takes a fire department to
respond and hook up hose lines, the only way to
guarantee a very high level of fire safety is to
install an automatic fire suppression system.
While there is no other fire protection system that
even begins to approach the automatic suppression
system as a guardian of human life from fire, this is
not to say that there is no application for supple-
mental systems. For example, the automatic con-
verting of the air handling system to a smoke
removal system can help control the smoke. Closing
smoke stop doors automatically can also be helpful.
Some regulation of combustibles that are very
excessive smoke producers also makes sense. But
note that all of these things will be ultimately
beneficial — only if the fire is controlled. When the
fire isn't controlled all other systems fail.
When it comes to smoke control, automatic fire
suppression logically has to be the base. With-
out automatic suppression there is no guarantee of
safety regardless of other systems imposed. When
an automatic suppression system is installed, the
need and extent of other controls are drastically
reduced. So those who plan smoke control systems
without first considering a fire suppression system
have got to end up with inaccurate conclusions.
Why? Because without automatic suppression their
plans will fail. On the other hand, ancillary controls,
such as the regulation of the flammability of
materials, when predicated on no sprinklers being
installed will become excessively restrictive in
sprinklered buildings.
ON DINOSAUR AND DODO BIRDS
In summary, it is by feeling that much of the
debate over smoke that presently rages within
the fire protection community has an aura of
the unreal about it. I read articles on smoke
control and have the same reaction that I would
get from an article- telling me how to trap a
dinosaur. The dinosaur is dead. It is extinct. If de
must trap, let's trap bears, or tigers, or lions, or
some other species that still exists.
This is how I feel about articles that discuss him, become somewhat out of phase with the
smoke controls within the framework of non- reality of a controlled fire.
sprinklered "FIREPROOF" buildings. Surely,
The problem with smoke, in short, is that it has
everyone in America (with the possible exception of
gotten in eyes of the fire experts.
some of our foremost fire experts) must know by
now that the "fireproof building" — as a guarantor
of human safety, is as dead as the dinosaur (and
the dodo bird as well).

So, if the "fireproof building" as a guarantor of

fire safety is dead, what do we have. We have, of
course, fire suppression as the only valid solution
to fire. But if we guarantee fire safety then the
pursuit of nonburnable combustibles and non-
toxic smoke, and all those plans to trap and en-
close the smoke, or counterplans to trap and
enclose the occupant so that smoke cannot reach