Dear Customer:

We expect our System 203 lining systems to last at least twenty-years.  NFPA mandates that live fire training structures be inspected every five years by a structural engineer specializing in live fire training structures.  Because our lining systems typically cover most of the structural elements in a burn building, preventing the inspecting engineer from conducting a thorough visual inspection; and because the engineers do not thoroughly inspect our lining system, it is important to have HTL complete a maintenance on our systems at the same time the engineer performs their inspection.

Two maintenance cycles should ensure that you attain the expected twenty-year lining-life.  The total cost for both maintenance services is typically only about 5% to 10% of the initial cost of the installation.

Our services include a thorough evaluation and maintenance of the lining system.  We remove and replace inspection tiles to facilitate the engineer’s inspection.  We go through the system, looking for damage from normal wear and tear, and possible damage from water migrating behind the systems. We replace bolt hole mortar as needed, tighten the system and replace damaged refractory cast-in-place packing and/or curbs.  We may also make comments and/or recommendations with respect to the overall structure if we observe deficiencies.

Since our systems are lasting longer than even we projected, we feel it is incumbent upon HTL and yourself to take proactive steps to confirm that your training structure is safe, sound, and capable of providing continued service throughout the life of the lining.  We hope you agree that this is a logical and prudent approach.

We make every effort to coordinate with your schedules to avoid disruptions to training.

Please let us know if you require a proposal or contact us to let us know how your structure and our lining system are performing.  Thanks for your time and safe training.

Bill/William E. Glover

The post Regarding System Maintenance appeared first on High Temperature Linings.

Though System 203 is also imperfect, HTL has achieved our initial goal of producing a thermal lining system that will last well over twenty years without replacement.  We have several twenty year plus systems that are still in service for large municipal fire departments; and many more that are over fifteen years old. This is a track record that is hard to match.  We are so confident that we list every completed project with contact information on this website.  We are unaware of another company that does the same.

Nevertheless, our competition is very good at making promises.  One of our competitors came out with a new composite lining system about ten years ago.  They offered a dandy fifteen year warranty to attract new business.  Turns out the warranty only covered the insulation behind the protective shield which proved not to be so protective.  Today, another competitor says they also have a fifteen year warranty.  But the actual warranty doesn’t cover labor, and only covers 100% of the material cost for five years as long as other conditional provisions are met.  After that, your cost for materials is prorated.

HTL offers a five year warranty.  Labor and materials.  Five years.  We also have conditions, but basically we cover our full system for five years.  But really, who cares?  We almost never get called.  And frankly, we have been known to repair systems that are older than five years if we feel we made a mistake.  The bottom line is that our customers can realistically expect our lining systems to last twenty years or more.  That was our goal in the beginning, and we can honestly say we are generally meeting or exceeding that goal.  So if you’re looking for a proven history of performance, try us out.  If you’re looking for empty promises, you’ve come to the wrong place.

Just ask our customers!

The post Regarding Warranties appeared first on High Temperature Linings.

Our response might be of interest to other AHJs.  Keep in mind, this is only our opinion, NOT a formal NFPA interpretation.

It really is a tough question. 

NFPA does not have specific language that dictates what does or does not constitute an acceptable containerized structure.  Keep in mind that 1402 is merely a guide that is offering ideas.  1403 is a standard with shall language.  1403 does distinguish between permanent and acquired structures.  For permanent structures, the standard addresses what shall be considered when inspecting the burn facility on a daily, annual, five year and ten year basis.  However, it does not distinguish between a conventionally constructed permanent structure and a containerized structure.

Containerized structures should meet all of the building code requirements that a conventional structure must satisfy.  This is not so hard when it comes to space planning, but it is a real challenge to ensure that design compensates for all loads.  Those loads are dead, live, wind and even seismic.  All of those loads need to be transferred through the structure to a properly designed foundation.  Attachment to the foundation needs to be adequate to resist wind and seismic activity (earthquakes).

Engineers who are not familiar with fire training environments might fail to address stresses from expansion and contraction of structural materials.  Those numbers are huge and, if not addressed, the structure fails.

Each structural element should be calculated to ensure it is not compromised when openings (doors and windows) are cut through, by specifying adequate reinforcing to allow the member to continue to transfer the stresses imposed.  This seems very simple, but I believe it is complex.  These are questions to be considered by designers and code officials.

Assuming all of these things are properly designed when the facility is erected, the inspections conducted by the AHJ, and the engineers retained by the AHJ, should evaluate a containerized structure in the same manner as it would any structure.  The inspection should address any safety issues that might exist with respect to emergency means of egress, railings, stairs, openings, shutters, etc.  It should record any deficiencies such as corrosion, deflection, compromised structural connections (bolted or welded), etc.  The same engineer should then be retained to prepare repair documents providing details and specifications for corrective work.  Daily inspections should be looking for hazards related to clear means of egress, damaged shutter assemblies and shutter hardware, presence of improperly stored fuels, trip or fall hazards, etc.

Regarding the “who” question: This has been a point of contention in the technical committee meetings.  So the final language is, in my opinion, kind of loose.  Reference appendix A.6.2.7 for more information.  However, even with the clarifying appendix language, your question is still valid.  “Who is a “another competent professional”?

Some AHJs complain about having to spend money on “licensed professional engineers with live fire training structure experience and expertise”.  So they insisted that we add “or by another competent professional as determined by the AHJ”.  This opens the door to much subjectivity when it comes to the meaning of “competent”.  Nevertheless, understand that 1403.7.2.5, 1403.7.2.6, and 1403.7.2.7 are all dealing with “structural integrity”.  The alternative to the licensed P.E. with experience, is a competent “professional”.  My opinion is that this means a professional with structural competence.  That translates to at least a Structural Engineer.  The part about “with live fire training structure experience and expertise” is in the air for the AHJ’s discretion.

I have been dealing with burn buildings for over twenty-years.  I believe these structures present unique concerns and loads that should be addressed by someone with experience.  Too frequently, we encounter good engineers who struggle with the special challenges associated with live fire training structures.  This inexperience can cause serious problems.

Finally, please remember that the engineer who inspects the structure for structural integrity is not inspecting the structure to certify it as a safe structure for the fire loads you build.  He is not a fire protection engineer.  He is a structural engineer.  It is incumbent upon the fire service to experiment with the structure to develop safe SOPs.  Then it is critical that the safety and ignition officers inspect every fire load and burn room before conducting each evolution to ensure compliance with the SOP.  In the end, those are the most important inspections.  Is the room safe? Is the room overheated?  Are we adhering to the SOP?  Critical.

Thanks and let me know if you have more questions.

The post Acceptable Containers for Training appeared first on High Temperature Linings.

First, understand that we are not fire protection engineers, and are not qualified to evaluate or predict environments created during live fire training evolutions.  However, Bill Glover has been working on live fire training structures for nearly twenty years, and has served on the National Fire Protection Association’s Technical Committee on Live Fire Training since 2002.

Question/Comment:  “Regarding the Burn Sequence Chart that is now mandated by the 2012 Edition of NFPA 1403: Does leaving a small fire burning most of the day to facilitate ignition of successive evolutions effectively negate the benefits of the burn sequence chart?”

Answer:  No, I don’t agree it negates the benefits, nor the intent of the burn sequence chart.  If you maintain the same small fire while developing your SOPs and burn sequence charts, you will be anticipating the environments that will be developed in future training scenarios, as long as the same basic operation (size and number of evolutions) is consistently repeated.  This simple process of “recording and repeating what works”, at least addresses the variables that are associated with the construction of the rooms (size, height, number of openings, finishes), and it standardizes the variables that are controllable (size of fire load, type of fuels, duration of evolutions, interval between evolutions, and the number of evolutions that are allowed for a given room).  By doing this, we have addressed those variables that can be controlled, and dramatically reduced the number of unknown variables (moisture content of fuel, specific weight of fuel, quantity of water used per evolution, effects of ambient temperature, humidity and wind).

Temperature monitoring systems then play a role in recording the number of evolutions conducted, and the durations and intervals of the evolutions.  The actual temperatures recorded may not be accurate, and you have to recognize that you still have no measure of the radiant energy developed.  However, the empirical data collected while experimenting and developing your SOP should inherently help to control that radiant energy.

Thanks for this opportunity to answer your questions.

The post SOP Burn Sequence Chart appeared first on High Temperature Linings.

First, understand that we are not fire protection engineers, and are not qualified to evaluate or predict environments created during live fire training evolutions.  However, Bill Glover has been working on live fire training structures for nearly twenty years, and has served on the National Fire Protection Association’s Technical Committee on Live Fire Training since 2002.

Please note the following warning that is included in our warranty:

WARNING:  Please be advised of a most important basic principle.  Burn rooms that are protected with thermal linings will be generally hotter than rooms that are not lined.  All burn rooms, whether lined or not, will absorb a certain amount of heat (energy) with each evolution.  Therefore, burn rooms get progressively hotter and reflect considerably more radiant energy with each additional evolution. You should experiment with each burn room to develop standard operating procedures that will ensure that fires are monitored and kept under control so that the rooms are not overheated, threatening the safety or life of the firefighters using the room.  HTL assumes no liability for environments and/or conditions created by the user in burn rooms.  System 203 is intended to be used to protect burn rooms that are operated in strict compliance with the National Fire Protection Association’s Publication 1403, Standard on Live Fire Training Evolutions, latest edition.

The 2012 edition of NFPA 1403 provides a process by which the Authority Having Jurisdiction (Owner controlling the use of the structure) can develop safe Standard Operating Procedures by experimenting with the structure as a Burn Sequence Chart is developed in consideration of the specific structure and fuels being used.  We have addressed the intent of this language in the operations and maintenance package provided for your project.  Please review it and let us know if you have questions.

1.  “What is the maximum temperature the fire tiles can reach?” Answer:  You will never get to that temperature using Class A materials in accordance with NFPA 1403.  The tiles can handle continuous temperatures in excess of 2000 degrees F.  When considering maximum temperatures, you should be primarily concerned with the limitations of your PPE.  Note that temperature is only one factor.  Radiant energy is more important, and is not measured by temperature.  See discussion in our website blog.

2. “Does the building dissipate the heat through the tiles?”   Answer:  All materials will absorb a certain amount of energy before radiating most of the energy back into the room.  Since the lining system includes a dense layer of concrete with a barrier of insulation behind, it will radiate energy back into the room faster and longer than the exposed block walls.  However, even block walls will also radiate energy.  All materials will slowly dissipate heat with time; the linings more slowly than unprotected surfaces.

3. “Does it radiate heat from the flame impingement area?”   Answer:  Yes, and from all parts of the room that heat up.

4.  “What is the recommended time length between burns for one burn room?”   Answer:   This is dependent upon many factors.  How much fuel is burned?  What type?  What is the moisture content of the fuel?  How is it arranged?  How much water is used for suppression with each evolution?  What is the ambient temperature, wind, humidity?  A collaboration of NIST, NFPA and UL have been working for years on a research study to answer your question, along with questions about maximum fuel loads and numbers of evolutions that can be conducted in a given room.  It is a complex issue that might not be answered with an acceptable level of certainty, given the number of factors involved, and given that the fire service might have difficulty applying such science in the field.  That is exactly why NFPA 1403 reads as it does today.  The new standard applies a practical, common sense approach to maintaining safe training environments.

5. “Does that time span depend on the temperature reached in that room?”   Answer:  Yes, but it depends more upon how many evolutions have been conducted at what temperature.  The environment of a burn room after the first evolution that achieves ceiling temperatures of 1000 degrees F, is a wholly different environment than that after the sixth 1000 degree evolution.  The room reflects more radiant energy with each successive burn.

6. “Does applying a hose stream to the hot tiles have a negative effect on them?”   Answer:  It is difficult to say “no, there is no effect from the thermal shock associated with hitting a tile that is heated to 1000 degrees with a pressurized hose stream”.  However, the tiles are designed to withstand this thermal shock while delivering years of service.  So, do not be concerned with hitting hot tiles with your hose streams.  We are trying to get 20 years of service out of this lining, and, after nineteen years of experience with our system, we are generally succeeding.

A couple of final comments.

Please see our blog for a discussion about burn racks.  Burn racks are essential to minimize heat conducting through fire brick pavers into the top of structural slabs.  See our learning center for examples of good racks.

Finally, if you have training officers who believe that a live fire training structure will offer the ability to replicate conditions found in actual structure fires, smack them in the head!  Permanent live fire training structures are non-combustible structures.  You cannot develop the realism he is hoping for.  The structure allows you to practice VES, hose line advancement, ladder work, incident command, and some fire suppression.  Do not underestimate the conditions that can be developed. They can be intense, and unsafe.  Indeed, you can create conditions in this structure that you will not see in a house fire because, quite simply, if such conditions existed in a house fire, the house would be gone.

Again, we are not Fire Protection Engineers, and we are not firefighters; so judge our comments accordingly.  However, if you are interested in talking to peers who have similar buildings, go to our Project List where every project is listed, including contact information.  We recommend that you speak with your peers to share experiences and ideas.  http://www.firetrain.com/htl-projects

Thanks for this opportunity to answer your questions.

The post Fuel Load Question appeared first on High Temperature Linings.

The new standard requires that “burn sequence charts” be developed to define fuel loads and numbers of evolutions that can be safely conducted in each burn room of the live fire training structure. The standard includes the following language:

7.3 Sequential Live Burn Evolutions.

7.3.1 The AHJ shall develop and utilize a safe live fire training action plan when multiple sequential burn evolutions are to be conducted per day in each burn room.

7.3.2 A burn sequence matrix chart shall be developed for the burn rooms in a live fire training structure.

7.3.2.1 The burn sequence matrix chart shall include the maximum fuel loading per evolution and maximum number of sequential live fire evolutions that can be conducted per day in each burn room.

7.3.3* The burn sequence for each room shall define the maximum fuel load that can be used for the first burn and each successive burn.

7.3.4* The burn sequence matrix for each room shall also specify the maximum number of evolutions that can be safely conducted during a given training period before the room is allowed to cool.

7.3.5 The fuel loads per evolution and the maximum number of sequential evolutions in each burn room shall not be exceeded under any circumstances.

Also see information starting at page 6 of the document found at this link:

http://www.firetrain.com/PDFs/burn-rooms-standards.pdf

The new standard is written with the following in mind.  The users of the facility are in the best position to determine safe operating procedures with respect to fuel loads and numbers of evolutions.  The intent of the 2012 Edition of 1403 is for the Authority Having Jurisdiction to develop a burn sequence program based upon the results of its experimentation in each room within the structure, using typical fuels that are available to the AHJ.

Experienced training officers should burn throughout the structure, determining safe fuel loads to be used per evolution, and the maximum number of evolutions that can be safely conducted in each room before the room is allowed to cool.  It is important to conduct the evolutions in the same manner as you would during training, including suppression.

One of our customers, who recently received a new burn building, collaborated with a local university with a fire sciences program to instrument the building with thermocouples to take readings while they conducted test burns.  However, since temperature is not necessarily an indication of safety, as it does not measure radiant energy, it must be understood that such data is of limited value, and should not be considered the sole governing criteria for your training program.

Once you are comfortable with the results from your test burns, the data should be entered into a spreadsheet to develop the Burn Sequence Chart, and included in your SOP.  Anyone using the building then has a guide for what can be safely conducted in the building, room by room.

The post 2012 Edition of NFPA 1403 appeared first on High Temperature Linings.

The post SCBA Safety Alert appeared first on High Temperature Linings.

There are a number of critical advantages:

1.  A fire training prop that includes a structural frame, protected with a thermal lining, and non-load-bearing, unprotected sacrificial walls, is much less expensive to construct than a typical wall bearing structure which frequently requires a much greater quantity of expensive lining systems to protect the large structural wall surfaces.
2. Sacrificial concrete block walls help to absorb and dissipate heat in burn rooms. Consequently, the rooms do not become overheated as quickly as do fully lined rooms.
3. Sacrificial walls can be demolished and/or relocated with relative ease, and without concern to the structural integrity of the building.
4. Sacrificial walls are relatively cheap and easy to maintain. Usually, most of these walls do not require replacement. Only those portions of the walls that are closest to the burn pads require periodic replacement. Remember, an 8″ concrete block, installed, typically costs less than $10/s.f. Thermal linings are much more expensive ($30 to $70/s.f), and some of them require replacement just as frequently, if not more frequently than the sacrificial block.
5. Design details associated with allowances for expansion and contraction are an even greater challenge when working with load bearing walls.

Using burn racks is an important consideration as they pick the heat up off the floor; they define a fuel load; and they move the fires away from the walls. All of these things help to protect the live fire training structure as well as your personnel.

There are a number of tricks to making this design scheme work, so please do not hesitate to contact us for more information.

The post Why Sacrifical Walls? appeared first on High Temperature Linings.

Using burn racks is an important consideration as:

1. They pick the heat up off the floor.  It is common practice to maintain a bed of hot embers throughout the day by not extinguishing fuel loads while conducting successive evolutions.  This facilitates ignition of the next evolution.  However, that bed of smoldering fuel can cause fairly serious temperatures to conduct through floor coverings (frequently a layer of fire brick) and into the underlying structural concrete.  Those temperatures can cause problems.  By using a burn rack that is just a foot off the floor, you can generally reduce or eliminate this issue.
2. They define a fuel load.  Now that NFPA 1403 requires you to define fuel packages and numbers of evolutions, why not design your burn racks to accommodate maximum fuel loads that you have specified?  Racks can help your staff control and promote safety by controlling the quantity and configuration of fuel.
3. They move the fire away from the walls.  The point is obvious.  This helps lengthen the life of your walls.

All these things help to protect the live fire training structure, as well as your personnel.

It is not necessary to spend a bunch of money on fancy burn racks.  Keep it simple.  Buy them locally, or fabricate them yourselves.  Talk to your peers for ideas.  Let us know if you need assistance, and we can probably plug you into another fire department that is already doing what you are trying to figure out.  Don’t hesitate to use us to network with your peers.

The post Benefits of Burn Racks appeared first on High Temperature Linings.

The post Commissioning New or Refurbished Burn Building appeared first on High Temperature Linings.