Discussion: View Thread

California Fires ASCE response!

  • 1.  California Fires ASCE response!

    Posted 02-10-2025 11:12 AM
    Edited by Tirza Austin 02-10-2025 11:12 AM

    Media says 16000 structure destroyed in California fires . As a member of the ASCE and worked with members of The American Institute of Architects: AIA I believe it is good time to start speaking the matter to improve things going forward . Hope to get discussion going . Live in LA area for 2 about two years. 



    ------------------------------
    Len Andersen 
    American Society of Civil Engineers events in New York City -Graduate of the University of Arizona BSChE .
    ------------------------------



  • 2.  RE: California Fires ASCE response!

    Posted 02-11-2025 01:41 PM

    You make an excellent point, Len. I read that fire-resistant buildings cost more to build but it seems as if the alternative is worse. Do building codes and insurance rates reflect the need for increased fire resistance? Are burned structures grandfathered in from pre-code days?

    Bill Mc



    ------------------------------
    William McAnally Ph.D., P.E., BC.CE, BC.NE, F.ASCE
    ENGINEER
    Columbus MS
    ------------------------------



  • 3.  RE: California Fires ASCE response!

    Posted 02-11-2025 01:42 PM

    The destruction and loss of life from the recent fires is tragic. Possibly more tragic is the failure to learn from history. The 1961 Bel-Air Brentwood fire destroyed nearly 500 homes. See https://www.lafire.com/famous_fires/1961-1106_BelAirFire/1961-1106_LAFD-Report_BelAirFire.htm. 

    Regarding fixes, several key things have to happen and probably won't. these include

    1. Change the zoning in Los Angeles and its environs to allow for denser development. A consequence of the current zoning is residential construction at the wildland-urban interface.
    2. Strengthen the building code so that new construction is required to use fire-resistant materials and provide incentives for retrofitting legacy construction.
    3. Enforce the 2021 legislation requiring an "ember-resistant zone" around structures. A significant learning for me was the role that embers, technically known as firebrands, play in spreading these large fires. And how inexpensive fixes can provide significant mitigation to residential structures. 
    4. Allow insurance companies to set rates commensurate with the prevalent risk. Proposition 103, passed in 1988, created a distorted market that enabled homeowners and developers to build in places they had no business building.

    There are more things, but I believe these are some of the biggies.



    ------------------------------
    Mitch Winkler P.E.(inactive), M.ASCE
    Houston, TX
    ------------------------------



  • 4.  RE: California Fires ASCE response!

    Posted 02-18-2025 01:40 PM

    Has anyone proposed requiring a grey water system that would keep sufficient water to use in the case of a wildfire threatening a house?  

    I read that someone set up sprinklers on their roof and kept their house safe, but based on available potable water this would not work for every building at the same time.

    Instead, each building could be required to have a system that held water until needed.



    ------------------------------
    Sarah Halsey P.E., M.ASCE
    New York NY
    ------------------------------



  • 5.  RE: California Fires ASCE response!

    Posted 02-18-2025 02:39 PM

    Before answering this question, I would like to see a comprehensive threat assessment, including duration. We need to make sure we are solving the right problem :)



    ------------------------------
    Mitch Winkler P.E.(inactive), M.ASCE
    Houston, TX
    ------------------------------



  • 6.  RE: California Fires ASCE response!

    Posted 02-24-2025 11:07 AM

    I would think that the insurance companies have info on this general risk assessment - maybe the ones leaving the state have the most detail on this.

    In the near term for re-building, people should think about protection from the mudslides afterward as well. 

    How about the whole water balance?  A lot of the water in S. CA started with early 20th century federal dam building to control flooding for farming in states to the east of CA.  And then, of course, the Hoover Dam (I think in the 1930's)

    which of our members were involved in the most recent water rights negotiations?   What studies considered both flood seasons and droughts?  with the urban LA population so large now, perhaps water quantities for irrigation should be cut back a bit to continue to support agriculture, but accommodate more appropriate crops.



    ------------------------------
    Sarah Simon P.E., M.ASCE
    RETIRED
    Ipswich MA
    ------------------------------



  • 7.  RE: California Fires ASCE response!

    Posted 02-24-2025 11:08 AM

    Good idea.  For at least some of the houses.  They may already have codes and encourage grey water collection, but possibly just for gardens and lawns



    ------------------------------
    Sarah Simon P.E., M.ASCE
    RETIRED
    Ipswich MA
    ------------------------------



  • 8.  RE: California Fires ASCE response!

    Posted 02-24-2025 11:09 AM

    I know this is probably an argument That will not be popular nor would be accepted.

    There are things in life that cannot be resisted, areas where it is not prudent to build in,100 year flood plains, hurricane zones, extreme seismic zones.   My understanding is that very little could have been done to prevent damage from the wild fires  no matter what preventive measures were used I saw a similar situation occur  in Jasper, Alberta Canada  where 30 % of the town was burned to the ground in 2024.  Building in wooded areas cannot be totally protected as flooding cannot be prevented in South Florida. Have caveats on legal land surveys indicating the risk for the land owner.   At least then owners can not say " You didn't tell me." 



    ------------------------------
    David Thompson P.E., M.ASCE
    Principal
    KTA Structural Engineers Ltd.
    Calgary AB
    ------------------------------



  • 9.  RE: California Fires ASCE response!

    Posted 02-27-2025 10:28 PM

    Those with property rapidly losing value might disagree (or not).  I believe it to be self-evident that we don't use land and water reasonably, e.g. populating the southern CA desert with so many people, allowing construction where sea level rise is happening, and growing rice in the dry CA central valley.  But "market forces" and not safety are stronger drivers if no one speaks up.



    ------------------------------
    Sarah Simon P.E., M.ASCE
    RETIRED
    Ipswich MA
    ------------------------------



  • 10.  RE: California Fires ASCE response!

    Posted 03-08-2025 12:49 PM

    Knowing Los Angeles, is like knowing a Bee Hive.  There is so much activity, especially the auto traffic, and the way the air sets up, it doesn't exactly funnel out.  

    So it seems an experiment could be setup that would condense pollution into a liquid state at the boundaries, such as how the air sets up beneath the Mountainous regions at the edges.  Such pollution residual settlement in the earth which is not very full of sands which might keep pollution from stagnating in the heat of the LA Basin.  That I think is one of the fundamentals that allowed the fire to launch.



    ------------------------------
    Refugio Rochin P.E., M.ASCE
    Civil Engineer V
    Saint Charles MO
    ------------------------------



  • 11.  RE: California Fires ASCE response!

    Posted 02-25-2025 10:08 AM

    First of all, I am not implying that the fires were started by power lines.  However, for consideration on the electric grid infrastructure side of the equation, California follows its own standard for overhead power lines; General Order 95.  The other 49 states and territories of the U.S. all follow the IEEE National Electrical Safety Code (NESC).  While the NESC certainly has many shortcomings (it is a SAFETY code, not a design code), it is significantly superior to GO95.  My first recommendation would be for California to adopt the NESC like the rest of the U.S. and its territories have; this would be the quick easy button that the state government could do with the stroke of a pen.

    ASCE has advocated for many years in the National Report Card on America's Infrastructure in the Energy chapter (https://infrastructurereportcard.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Energy-2021.pdf) under Recommendations to Raise the Grade to "Require the adoption of consensus-based standards for all overhead T&D lines, structures, and substations to ensure safety and increase reliability."  This often comes as a surprise to many civil engineers and others, but ASCE has an entire set of Standards and Manuals of Practices specifically for the overhead electric grid; most of the overhead line infrastructure is all civile/structural/geotechnical engineering, not electrical.  First, there is ASCE 74 which directs how to apply ASCE 7 for overhead power lines; this means wind, ice, temperature on a high level, but goes into much further detail considering heights and span lengths, which are much different than single location structures.  Next, there are a whole slew of Standards and MoPs for wood poles (ASCE 141), steel poles (ASCE 48), concrete poles (ASCE 123), FRP poles (ASCE 104), and the big, beautiful (in my opinion) lattice steel towers (ASCE 10).  These Standards and MoPs are written and updated by the best of the best engineers in the overhead power line industry.  The NESC does reference portions of these Codes and MoPs to follow, but it specifically exempts structures less than 60 feet tall from meeting them (i.e. what we normally call "Distribution" lines and poles.)  This choice of exemption by the NESC committees is political and economic.  Designing distribution lines to meet proper engineering standards is time consuming I will admit; but isn't that what we as engineers are supposed to advocate?  I will go so far as to say that we as engineers took the oath to uphold the safety of the public; why isn't there more outrage by engineers that these standards are not being followed?

    I just did a quick search again, and "ASCE" is not mentioned anywhere in GO95.  In addition to engineering-based winds (and ice in the higher elevations), this means the proper design of wood, steel, and FRP structures (not just simple "ground line moment" that is often used on distribution systems).  One of the most noticeable issues that I see is that GO95 does not require that vegetation clearances be calculated under the wire blow out and structure deflections under extreme wind (i.e. Santa Anna wind).  For those of you in California, can you lobby your state government to start following ASCE Standards and MoPs for your overhead line designs?  Keep in mind that this will NOT suddenly strengthen your electric grid overnight and will not prevent fires immediately as this will not require that everything be rebuilt.  That will take a generation to change as poles and lines that are replaced or newly built should begin to follow these engineering-based practices.  But every day adopting these Standards and MoPs is delayed means another day added to when your electric grids will be more reliable, resilient, and wildfire preventive.

    I believe that this is one way to start speaking the matter to improve things going forward as you requested.



    ------------------------------
    Otto J. Lynch, P.E.,F.SEI,F.ASCE
    President and CEO
    Power Line Systems
    otto@...
    ------------------------------



  • 12.  RE: California Fires ASCE response!

    Posted 02-25-2025 10:09 AM

    In New York City years ago, possibly even today, theatres had to have a water tank on the stage roof for fire protection.  As I understand the idea was enough water to stop or at least control the fire so everyone could get out.  



    ------------------------------
    Frank Hermann P.E.
    Sr Engineer
    Leo A Daly
    Las Vegas NV
    ------------------------------



  • 13.  RE: California Fires ASCE response!

    Posted 02-27-2025 10:27 PM

    Lots of ways we can use our expertise to make infrastructure and construction better in these times of change and destructive weather.  

    An interesting article (research) by the Luskin Center of UC Los Angeles asks if any urban water system is ready for conflagrations like wildfires:

    https://innovation.luskin.ucla.edu/water/local-water-resiliency/do-urban-water-supply-systems-put-out-wildfires/   

    Time to feedback new data into the way we continue to improvement infrastructure for safety and property protection



    ------------------------------
    Sarah Simon P.E., M.ASCE
    RETIRED
    Ipswich MA
    ------------------------------



  • 14.  RE: California Fires ASCE response!

    Posted 03-03-2025 11:30 AM

    So, I read the Luskin Center article as well as other possible solutions for a future fire event.  I know several people that lost homes in the recent fires and here is what makes them the most upset:  the empty reservoir during fire season with no realistic schedule to get it back line as quickly as possible once it was shut down for minor repairs, the shortage of fire trucks due to a part/labor shortage, the lack of schedule/control over the in house and subcontracted water trucks that delivered water to the fire fighters, the lack of coordination to clear the brush in advance (pretty low tech and the neighbors would have assisted), and the cutting of the fire budget when the homelessness budget keeps increasing.  Most of them believe that keeping taxpayers safe is government's number one concern and regular audits of this cabability by an outside source should be mandatory.  



    ------------------------------
    David Bentley M.ASCE
    Project Manager
    Redondo Beach CA
    ------------------------------



  • 15.  RE: California Fires ASCE response!

    Posted 03-03-2025 11:31 AM

    Reduction of loss due to wildfires requires a four pronged approach.

    1. Reduction of wildfires. Establishing fire breaks around populated areas, Removal of material that promotes wildfire.
    2. Upgraded water infrastructure. Bigger pipes and tanks at boundary between wildfire areas and populated areas.
    3. Fire resistant buildings materials. Removal of material from around buildings that can promote fires.
    4. Controlling global climate change which aggravates wind and drought conditions.

    We can do better but it won't be cheap.

    Tom Walski Ph.D., P.E., F.EWRI, F.ASCE
    Bentley Systems 
    Philadelphia PA



    ------------------------------
    Thomas Walski Ph.D., P.E., F.EWRI, F.ASCE
    SR PROD MNGR
    Philadelphia PA
    ------------------------------



  • 16.  RE: California Fires ASCE response!

    Posted 03-03-2025 11:30 AM

    My thoughts go to the vast devastation, not the source.  Every few years there seems to be a house explosion caused by a natural gas line leak and subsequent spark in my area. Because of my heightened awareness of that end, when I came across an article describing a firefighter saving 2 houses, the only two left standing in that neighborhood, by cooling the gas meter/piping outside these two houses, I felt like we may be missing something.  Are there ways to reduce the destruction by identifying improvements to the design of gas lines?  Providing a shutoff valve and blowoff that can be operated in areas of pending emergency (well before the fire is within reach), fire-retardant protection for exposed pipe and meters, etc.  

    Calif. Fire Chief Saves Homes Using Milk, 'Couple of Beers' | Newsmax.com



    ------------------------------
    Erin Steever, PE

    Eastern Branch of South Dakota ASCE Section
    Region 7 Director
    ------------------------------



  • 17.  RE: California Fires ASCE response!

    Posted 03-10-2025 12:11 PM

    I would suggest that jurisdictions be encouraged to adopt the IWUIC, "International Wildland-Urban Interface Code" published in 2021 by the ICC. Regretfully, like most building codes it is not retroactive, but it provides excellent guidance for new construction and can be used as a starting point for a community to address interface zones and existing structures.



    ------------------------------
    John Cross P.E., M.ASCE
    Algoma WI
    ------------------------------



  • 18.  RE: California Fires ASCE response!

    Posted 03-15-2025 04:36 PM
    Edited by Tirza Austin 03-15-2025 04:36 PM

    Great hearing from our members on the subject. My thoughts going forward would be to create higher humidity with water gotten into the air with spray from nozzles on pumps, water trucks putting out water on pavement etc. and/or airplanes up with water dump at best point in three dimensional space. The air pollution of LA got three dimensional modelling for a long time. Such modified could direct such cresting higher humidity and suppress fire more effectively. Details are sought. Your views are sought. There will be better ways to suppress fires and more of them.

    Len Anderson


    Original Message:
    Sent: 02-08-2025 12:28 PM
    From: Len Andersen
    Subject: California Fires ASCE response!

    Media says 16000 structure destroyed in California fires . As a member of the ASCE and worked with members of The American Institute of Architects: AIA I believe it is good time to start speaking the matter to improve things going forward . Hope to get discussion going . Live in LA area for 2 about two years. 



    ------------------------------
    Len Andersen 
    American Society of Civil Engineers events in New York City -Graduate of the University of Arizona BSChE .
    ------------------------------