One of the items in my discussion on the fires in LA, I posted that there are problems with building homes out of fireproof materials. Someone asked what that could be, and I would like to expand on that a bit. Let me begin by saying that I am not an engineer, so I will be giving you a firefighter’s perspective on this, meaning that my knowledge is broad but shallow on the topic.
Building homes to be entirely fireproof has long been a goal. Attempting this is how we wound up with things like Asbestos. One of the things that was tried in the wake of the Chicago fire in 1871 was to build homes with a fireproof roof. In the aftermath of that fire, a great many homes in the US were built with slate roofing tiles. It appeared as though the problem was solved. No more would fire brands land on your roof and burn down your house.
Until 1900, when a hurricane struck Galveston, Texas. The storm was estimated to be a Category 4 on the Saffir-Simpson scale. The winds of the storm, estimated to be over 140 miles per hour, ripped those slate tiles from the roofs of the homes, and many people were killed by these flying stone axes.
It’s difficult to find building materials that withstand all conditions, and when you do, those materials make building homes prohibitively expensive. Even were one to build homes like that, the radiant heat coming through the glass of the windows will ignite materials inside of the house.
It is still a cheaper and easier solution to manage forests, create a defensible space around your home, and take other preventative measures. The issue is that people who move to “the country” like having the woods and other plant materials growing right next to the house.
10 Comments
Dan D. · January 14, 2025 at 6:16 am
“It is still a cheaper and easier solution to… create a defensible space around your home”
This opposition to this simple statement illustrates the extent of lazy thinking so replete online. It also reminds me of the scientific insight involved in inverting a problem to solve it.
One of my favorite examples in engineering is the portable and inexpensive oxygen concentrator. Not too many genuinely smart engineers know that it doesn’t directly concentrate oxygen but instead removes nitrogen from a volume of “air” leaving mostly oxygen behind. The details revolve around $5 words like zeolite and adsorb but the foundational concept applies to the fire proofing issue.
Back to fire proofing though – shifting the responsibility from “those who build the house” to “you who own the house and maintain the land” is probably a non-starter since Part Two of the online genius-grade thinking is avoidance of personal responsibility.
Stefan v. · January 14, 2025 at 6:43 am
Steel sheet roof, steel frame, masonry walls, steel shutters. Cisterns, ponds, ditches, pumps, clever landscaping. And a steel gallows and a thicket of skull-spikes for the meddling bureaucrats spreading stupidity and tyranny.
Divemedic · January 14, 2025 at 9:12 am
That’s called lightweight truss and Q decking, and comes with its own fire dangers.
Wally · January 14, 2025 at 7:01 am
https://i.postimg.cc/nzdzsZm3/multi-hazard-rating.jpg
From “Comparative Study of Various Wall Systems’ Performance Attributes in Different Environmental Conditions”, Memari et al, International Journal of Architecture, Engineering and Construction Vol 4, No 2, June 2015
I built an ICF home as our forever home about 20 years ago and would never want to live in a stick/brick home ever again. Fire “proof” isn’t accurate of course but they are very fire resistant. Beyond the hazards listed they’re also more air, sound, rodent, hot/cold (R value), radiation, vehicle (ramming), and bullet resistant than other typical residential homes. Common enough that mortgage lenders won’t roll their eyes if you’re looking for a construction loan either, and insurance rates are usually lower which saves a few bucks over the years as will savings in heating/cooling costs. Once the siding is on they’re outwardly indistinguishable from other homes. Short of building and living in a bunker an outstanding survival(ist) option imo.
Divemedic · January 14, 2025 at 10:19 am
Concrete is good, and its the way that homes are built in the Caribbean. However, in conditions like we are seeing in LA, it may not be enough. Remember that the moisture content of concrete is high, and this can lead to spalling if the concrete is exposed to conditions like what is being seen now in LA.
Boys being boys, I once saw this myself. There is a training facility for firefighters in Orlando. It’s made of brick and concrete, designed to have fires burning inside of it. We were playing around during training, and we got the fire pretty hot. Hot enough to spall the concrete and damage the structure to the point where it couldn’t be used for a period of time while it was being repaired.
Bigus Macus · January 14, 2025 at 8:40 am
When Oakland CA had their fires back in the last century. The first thing my Uncle did with their house in Concord CA was ditch the old shaker shingle roof for a metal look alike. and he always made sure the surrounding brush was cut back around his house.
Pat H. Bowman · January 14, 2025 at 8:53 am
I agree with your overall assessment. Building a “fireproof” house would be expensive and largely impractical. Clearing brush and creating a firebreak is a lot easier and less expensive. However, I’m a belt and suspenders kind of guy, so we can do both. Sort of. Certainly land management is a huge key. Clear brush to make it harder for the trees around your yard to ignite. Keep trees away from your house.
Use fire resistant materials for construction. A metal roof would help minimize the risk from flying embers from your idiot neighbors who didn’t clear their brush. If it’s raining embers, a soaker hose along each side of the ridge line would be good. Using brick, stucco, Hardiboard or similar non-combustible siding would be a great idea. Don’t plant big bushes up near the house under the eves.
There are a lot of little things that can be done that don’t double the cost of the house and make it reasonably safe from fires. Not perfectly safe, but reasonably so. Sadly, most people would still rather have cheap shingle roofs and vinyl siding so they can have granite countertops and Jacuzzi tubs and three extra bedrooms they don’t need.
Elrod · January 14, 2025 at 9:54 am
A great many people focus on absolute survivability, ignoring relative survivability.
EX: Some years back my house went through 112 MPH hurricane winds “naked” – windows and doors not boarded up, garage door not braced, etc. I was expecting substantial damage, dawn showed that I had lost a lot of shingle tabs and some of the carpets were damp (throw water at a house at 112MPH and water will come in around the windows). FYI, Categorty 3 begins at 111 MPH
That told me that, first, the structure was solid and sound, and that with the proper protection – windows and doors boarded, garage door solidly braced, etc.- it would probably survive a full Cat 3 (Cat 3 is from 111 to 129 MPH) but that prudence would dictate being somewhere else just in case, because structural failure often becomes a “cascading event” in which the distance from “zero failure” to “complete, massive failure” can occur a lot faster than one thinks.
Which is why I always had bug-out equipment handy and a bug-out plan ready to go.
Fire not only wasn’t a severe threat, it wasn’t any greater than barely average; the greatest threat would be embers and radiated heat from both immediate neighbors should their house become fully involved, but I had confidence that the government-supplied fire response would be adequate under such circumstances, given the type of construction (reinforced masonry walls, fire-resistant fiberglas shingles and good house-to-landscaping clearance).
But I was well aware that there was a certain threshold, from various threats, above which my house would probably not survive. Which is why I had good insurance, multiple threat response plans, and a bug-out plan, because nothing is absolute. Flooding, in my case, was not a issue.
From what I’ve learned, absolute fire proofing is not possible; better than average resistance to fire damage is achievable, and that’s probably as good as it will ever get. That means design, construction materials and techniques, property owner maintenance, and intelligent government planning and response all become important, and are parts of a whole, and “three out of four” won’t cut it, it has to be all, or it winds up being nothing. Fire resitant roofing, good design, rapid FD response, but flammable landscaping right against the structure, and you’re precariously close to that “zero point” where the whole fails because of one or two if its components.
Mark · January 14, 2025 at 10:55 am
I know it’s not possible for most people, but an underground house would be the most “fire proof” that I can imagine.
TRX · January 14, 2025 at 11:08 am
> The issue is that people who move to “the country” like having the woods and other plant materials growing right next to the house.
—
A clear tell of “city people” is a cabin with firewood stacked up against one wall, where it’s convenient to get to. Often right by the door, because why walk further than you have to?
Stacked firewood can contain termites, wood borers, carpenter bees, and carpenter ants. You don’t want any of those nestled up against a wood-framed structure. It’s also a nice habitat for spiders, mice, and snakes, none of which are very welcome in the yard.