Fire Science Show

Wojciech Wegrzynski

Fire Science Show is connecting fire researchers and practitioners with a society of fire engineers, firefighters, architects, designers and all others, who are genuinely interested in creating a fire-safe future. Through interviews with a diverse group of experts, we present the history of our field as well as the most novel advancements. We hope the Fire Science Show becomes your weekly source of fire science knowledge and entertainment. Produced in partnership with the Diamond Sponsor of the show - OFR Consultants

Subscribe Listen in podnod RSS feed Show website

20 episodes
Updated Wednesday

Episodes20

Newest first

Wednesday · 1 hr 1 min
262 - Fire Fundamentals pt. 22 - Optical diagnostics in fire with Elizabeth Weckman
In todays episode of fire fundamentals we talk with Professor Elizabeth Weckman from University of Waterloo about advanced optical diagnostics that let fire researchers read temperature, chemistry, soot, and velocity from light without relying only on probes. We break down what cameras, infrared imaging, spectroscopy, lasers, and PIV can reveal, plus the calibration and interpretation pitfalls that can quietly ruin your data. Things covered in this episode: • why optical diagnostics are “non-intrusive” in practice and where they still perturb the flow • limits of probe-based measurements in fire including spatial resolution and radiation errors • using basic photography and video as a first diagnostic and as a planning tool • calibration habits for cameras and why cheap, robust cameras are often a better choice for a fire laboratory • infrared thermography for surface heating plus emissivity problems and practical coatings • Schlieren imaging for density and temperature gradients and what it can and cannot imply • point vs planar vs line-of-sight vs tomographic measurements and how “smearing” happens • FTIR and absorption spectroscopy for pyrolysis gases, emissions, and toxic species • chemiluminescence and laser-induced fluorescence to mark combustion and flame fronts • Raman and CARS for temperature and concentration and why they are technically demanding • soot diagnostics from light extinction to laser-induced incandescence and aging effects • PIV basics, seeding challenges in fire, and what velocity fields unlock for validation The episode is best enjoyed along Beth's paper from the IAFSS: Unravelling the mysteries of fire ---- The Fire Science Show is produced by the Fire Science Media in collaboration with OFR Consultants. Thank you to the podcast sponsor for their continuous support towards our mission.
July 22 · 1 hr 33 min
261 - The story of the Cone Calorimeter with Vyto Babrauskas
The cone calorimeter sits in thousands of labs, shaping what we know about flammability, smoke production, and heat release rate. This essential piece of equipment comes with quite a story of how it was engineered or why its “obvious” design choices were anything but obvious. We wanted that history from the source, so we invited Professor Vyto Babrauskas to walk us through the decisions, constraints, and small breakthroughs that turned an idea into the most practical bench-scale fire test in common use today. We dig into the 1970s research environment at NIST (then NBS), including the plastics-focused push that created funding, talent density, and the freedom to build new measurement tools. Vyto explains how the field moved from qualitative “widget tests” toward combustion-science thinking, and why oxygen consumption calorimetry was the turning point. We also talk about terminology and standardization, including how “heat release rate” became the key engineering variable for “how big is the fire,” and why that framing still guides modern fire modeling and performance-based design. Then we get concrete: why the specimen is 100 by 100 mm, how the cone heater geometry was modified to keep combustion products flowing where they should, why adding feedback control was so important, and how ignition and smoke measurement evolved into the robust setup many of us take for granted under ASTM E1354 and ISO 5660. We also cover heat flux selection for realism, horizontal versus vertical orientation, and why some promising variants like controlled-atmosphere attachments never became widespread. The closing brings it back to today, including Vyto's critique of fire research (mainly in Li-ON batteries) that stops at plotting heat release rate curves without answering the deeper engineering and forensic questions. If you would like to read more about the cone, I got you covered: https://www.nist.gov/nist-museum/cone-calorimeter-most-important-tool-fire-safety-science from the NIST Museum https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2022/03/happy-retirement-cone-calorimeter - a NIST note on the history of the cone https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/fst/41/1/41_21/_article paper by Vyto Babrauskas on the early history of the cone. Cover image credit: NIST, from the https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2022/03/happy-retirement-cone-calorimeter ---- The Fire Science Show is produced by the Fire Science Media in collaboration with OFR Consultants. Thank you to the podcast sponsor for their continuous support towards our mission.
July 15 · 1 hr 13 min
260 - Fire safety in a carbon budget with Cecilia Wetterqvist and Axel Mossberg
A carbon budget can feel like a hard wall in modern building design, and once you treat CO2 as currency, everything starts competing for a slice of it. The problem is that fire safety systems often show up in those spreadsheets only as a penalty: extra embodied carbon for sprinklers, alarms, and protection. What gets ignored is the payoff. A serious fire can erase years of “sustainable” choices through demolition, replacement materials, repair labor, and lost building value, all with a very real carbon footprint. We sit down with Swedish researchers Cecilia Wetterqvist (Lund University and Bengt Dahlgren Fire Research) and Axel Mossberg (Bengt Dahlgren Fire Research) to connect fire safety engineering with life cycle assessment (LCA), climate declarations, and green building certification thinking. We talk honestly about system boundaries, early design lock-in, why “50-year” assumptions can be misleading, and how reuse projects can be both a climate win and a detailing challenge that changes maintenance and risk. The heart of the conversation is a translation tool: turning fire risk into the same unit sustainability teams already use, kilograms of CO2e per square meter. Using incident statistics and damage categories, the method estimates expected fire-related emissions, including the big driver most models miss: replacement. The result can flip decisions on their head, especially for larger commercial buildings where sprinklers may reduce expected lifecycle carbon rather than increase it. If you are looking here for more resources, you know I got your back: Mossberg A. et al., A methodology for the integration of fire risk in building life cycle analysis Wetterqvist C. et al., Sustainability and fire safety decisions in the design process: Overview and two Swedish building projects McNamee M. et al., Challenges and opportunities for reuse of products and materials with fire safety requirements – A Swedish perspective ---- The Fire Science Show is produced by the Fire Science Media in collaboration with OFR Consultants. Thank you to the podcast sponsor for their continuous support towards our mission.
July 8 · 1 hr 2 min
259 - Communicating fire science with politicians with Birgitte Messerschmidt
Fire safety is a tough “product” to sell because the best outcome looks like nothing happened. That’s exactly why we sat down with Birgitte Messerschmidt (NFPA) to talk about communicating fire science to politicians, regulators, grant bodies, and other people in positions of power who can approve policies, permits, and funding, often with only a few minutes to spare. We share what changes when your audience is nontechnical, busy, and sometimes driven by incentives that do not neatly match engineering logic. We get practical about preparation: mapping who actually holds the decision power, building an elevator speech, and using storytelling so your message sticks. We also unpack the role of media and “sensation” in shaping political priorities, using electric vehicle fire headlines as a real example. Instead of amplifying fear, we talk about framing the issue as a changing fire landscape: new materials, tighter buildings, batteries, and evolving hazards that demand updated fire safety engineering. Then we go into the hard parts: how experts can get pulled into political fights, how soundbites get cherry-picked, and when the right move is to say less, not more. We also tackle ethical communication after tragedies, focusing on respect for victims and clear intent to prevent repeat losses. Finally, we wrestle with risk communication, why “it could happen” derails risk-based design, and how to acknowledge emotion while bringing people back to facts. ---- The Fire Science Show is produced by the Fire Science Media in collaboration with OFR Consultants. Thank you to the podcast sponsor for their continuous support towards our mission.
July 1 · 56 min
258 - e-mobility fires in trains with Adam Barowy
A battery fire on a train is not “just another small fire.” When a lithium-ion battery in an e-scooter or e-bike fails, the rail car can behave like a long pipe that moves smoke fast, limits escape options, and compresses decision-making into minutes. We sit down with Adam Barowy from UL Research Institutes FSRI to unpack new full-scale passenger rail car burn tests using real micro-mobility devices and realistic storage locations. We talk through what thermal runaway looks like before flames, why that venting phase is a crucial warning sign, and what changes once flaming ignition starts. Adam shares the data that surprised even seasoned fire researchers: smoke can spread from one end of the car to the other in about 30 seconds after flaming ignition, floor-level visibility can collapse in roughly two to three minutes, and toxic exposure can become a serious egress limiter on the same timescale as train stopping and evacuation. We also zoom out to the operational and societal reality. Rail operators want to support first mile last mile travel and riders who depend on e-mobility for work, yet they need policies that actually reduce risk. We cover practical options like limiting device size, avoiding carriage in the first or last car when exits are constrained, improving passenger education, requiring battery safety certifications, and exploring segregation strategies that keep devices away from passengers without pushing the problem underground. I promised you links, so here they are: Summary of the research on trains and batteries The full report Li-Ion battery safety guide Cover image created from pictures from their report linked above! Following Adam's recommendation and taking your resources for a creative spin :) ---- The Fire Science Show is produced by the Fire Science Media in collaboration with OFR Consultants. Thank you to the podcast sponsor for their continuous support towards our mission.
June 24 · 1 hr 3 min
257 - Fire Fundamentals pt. 21 - Radiation with Simo Hostikka
In this episode of fire fundamentals we sit down with Professor Simo Hostikka from Aalto University to cover radiation in fires, both from the angle of physical phenomena and ways to model it. In this episode we cover following topics: feel less mysterious, from blackbody basics and role of radiation actually does inside the CFD N-S equation. Spectrum and emissivity to real engineering outcomes like heat flux, tenability Radiation’s two roles in fire CFD: target heat flux and the gas energy source term Emission versus absorption and why Kirchhoff’s law is spectral, not just a single number Spectrum intuition using Planck, Wien’s law, and why T to the fourth explodes heat flux View factors as a hazard mental model for layers, panels, and distance effects Why gases are strongly non-gray while soot often looks smooth and easier to approximate How FDS uses the finite angle method, why 104 directions exists, and how updates are staged in time, how to manage spatial and temporal resolution of the radiation Ray effect and numerical diffusion, when you can see the error and when you cannot Other radiation models such as Monte Carlo, and when they are worth it. ---- The Fire Science Show is produced by the Fire Science Media in collaboration with OFR Consultants. Thank you to the podcast sponsor for their continuous support towards our mission.
June 17 · 1 hr 12 min
256 - Modelling turbulent combustion in fire CFD with Bart Merci
While we can get pretty far with a very simple approximation of what a fire is in our fire cfd, at some point our simplications are not enough. And there is a plenty of features and phenomena, for which we simply need a better tool to handle - carbon monoxide, soot, extinction, flashover behavior, and what happens when ventilation disappears. At the IAFSS symposium, we sit down with Professor Bart Merci (Ghent University), fresh off delivering the Howard Emmons Invited Plenary Lecture, to talk about what it really takes to model turbulent combustion in real fires without asking practitioners to become full-time combustion scientists. We start with the engineering reality check: you do not get unlimited mesh resolution, unlimited runtime, or the luxury of endless sensitivity studies. As Bart says - "you need to pick your battles". That practical constraint shapes everything, from whether LES is a smart choice to how you treat the “unseen” physics inside a CFD cell. Bart breaks down turbulence in plain terms, explains why the largest eddies dominate entrainment and smoke movement, and shows how mesh decisions can quietly decide whether LES outperforms unsteady RANS in practical smoke control and compartment fire problems. Then we go deep on sub-grid combustion models. We unpack why infinitely fast chemistry can be acceptable in well-ventilated flames yet collapses in under-ventilated conditions, where toxicity, soot, and extinction dominate the risk picture. Bart explains a finite-rate, autoignition-informed approach that uses detailed chemistry offline to tune simplified reactions, then applies flamelet concepts and turbulence measures to predict reaction rates and species production inside each cell, including ignition and extinction behavior without relying on a guessed “critical flame temperature.” We close with what’s next: validation in compartments, microgravity as a brutal test of “universality,” and why advanced non-intrusive diagnostics could finally improve near-wall heat transfer and flame-surface interaction. If you care about CFD, FDS modeling limits, fire dynamics, and the future of practical fire safety engineering, you’ll want this one. If you would like to read more on the topic, here is Bart's paper that accompanied his brilliant lecture. Figure 3 is what we discuss at the end of the episode. ---- The Fire Science Show is produced by the Fire Science Media in collaboration with OFR Consultants. Thank you to the podcast sponsor for their continuous support towards our mission.
June 10 · 1 hr
255 - Timber load bearing capacity in fire from nano- to megascale with Felix Wiesner
A timber column can survive the heating phase of a fire resistance test and still collapse later, after the flames are gone. We know there is so much more to structures in fires than the test demonstrates, but how much exactly do we know about timber nowadays? In this episode we try to dive deeper and discuss mass timber fire safety, structural fire engineering, and what a fire resistance rating does and does not tell us. I’m joined by Dr. Felix Wiesner from the University of British Columbia, this year’s IAFSS Proulx Award recipient, to unpack his review on mass timber load-bearing capacity in fire across scales. We start where most design decisions begin: full-scale furnace tests and the practical reality that many modern timber elements are too large, too new, or too costly to test under load. From there we dig into the reduced cross-section method, charring rate assumptions, and the controversial “zero-strength layer” that turns heated wood into a simplified design allowance, even as uncertainty and code-to-code differences persist. Then we turn to the decay phase and delayed failure, connecting recent column results to the bigger question of performance-based design for compartment fires that heat and cool. To model that behaviour, we need credible links between temperature, strength reduction, and elastic modulus reduction, and we need to care about how the data were generated: steady-state oven tests versus transient tests where timber is loaded first and heated with steep gradients. Finally, we go down to the microscale and nanoscale, where moisture migration and even hydrogen-bond changes in cellulose help explain why “loaded while heating and cooling” can permanently reshape capacity. If you work with mass timber buildings, timber fire design, Eurocode approaches, or structural safety in fire, this is a deep reset on what matters most. Read about the IAFSS Awards here https://www.iafss2026.com/awards Read the whole paper with a more in-depth view on the subject "From nano-to megastructure: A review of mass timber load-bearing capacity in fire" ---- The Fire Science Show is produced by the Fire Science Media in collaboration with OFR Consultants. Thank you to the podcast sponsor for their continuous support towards our mission.
June 3 · 1 hr
254 - Communicating fire science with firefighters, with Steve Kerber
Fire science should have its place at the fireground, yet I've learned how hard it is to communicate it with the key stakeholder - the firefighters. It's not my isolated experience, and that tension drives our conversation with Steve Kerber, Vice President at UL Research Institutes Fire Safety Research Institute (FSRI). Today we dig into the real craft of communicating fire dynamics to firefighters without losing the truth of the science. We talk about why experience alone can mislead when every incident is full of unknowns, and how repeatable research can “rewind the tape” to test tactics under controlled conditions. Steve explains how measurements like temperature, heat flux, and toxic gas concentration can clarify what different decisions actually do to survivability and operational time windows. We also get honest about the trust gap between lab work and the messy reality firefighters see every day, especially when buildings and contents evolve faster than training programs. From there, we get practical: how FSRI listens to a more complete voice of the fragmented fire service using advisory boards and fire service technical panels, how to reach line firefighters through the media and training pathways they already rely on, and why “simplify, don’t dumb down” is the way to teach concepts like ventilation-limited fire, flashover, and ventilation control at scale. Steve shares how video, clear visuals, and well-designed props can build the muscle memory crews need under pressure, plus the story of how research challenged the old fear that exterior water “pushes fire.” We also cover a clear win where technical research and health research meet: firefighter exposure and cancer prevention, and why that evidence changed behavior across the profession. If you care about fire protection engineering, evidence-based firefighting, firefighter safety, and turning research into real-world outcomes, this one is for you. The Fire Science Show was built around the mission to communicate better. This is the kind of episode that is perfect for the occasion... as we are celebrating the 5th anniversary of the podcast today! Thank you all for being with us for the 5 years! If you would like some additional resources: https://fsri.org/resources All the resources by FSRI. A masterclass on how good communication looks like. Utilizing Research to Enhance Fire Service Knowledge - Steve Kerber's PhD Thesis very relevant to the topic we discuss today ---- The Fire Science Show is produced by the Fire Science Media in collaboration with OFR Consultants. Thank you to the podcast sponsor for their continuous support towards our mission.
May 27 · 1 hr 13 min
253 - NERIS - the paradigm shift for the US fire data collection with Craig Weinschenk
A national fire statistics system that updates in weeks is not a statistics system, it is a history lesson. We talk with Dr. Craig Weinschenk from UL Research Institutes - Fire Safety Research Institute about NERIS (the National Emergency Response Information System) and why it represents a real shift in fire incident reporting, emergency response data, and fire service analytics across the United States. We trace the arc from NFIRS, built for paper forms and rigid codes, to a modern cloud based, API driven platform that can scale to tens of thousands of departments and millions of records. Craig explains the practical problems that held fire data back: delayed batch uploads, validation errors that return long after the call, fractured “plus one” local codes, and how hard it was to update incidents when outcomes change. Then we get specific about what NERIS enables: easier updates with full change history, consistent unit typing, staffing counts per apparatus, all hazards reporting, and narrative fields that document impediments so the data keeps real world context. We also dig into what departments get back immediately: interactive dashboards, geospatial maps, time of day trends, mutual aid linking, and a clearer view of complex incidents that involve suppression, rescue, and medical actions at once. On top of that, NERIS enriches incident records with external data like parcel information and weather, creating new opportunities for fire safety engineering research, community risk reduction, and smarter resource planning while keeping sensitive operational details controlled. Learn more about the NERIS here: https://fsri.org/programs/neris Check this webinar to see the live demo: https://fsri.org/program-update/now-available-demand-access-neris-version-1-platform-launch-and-national-rollout ---- The Fire Science Show is produced by the Fire Science Media in collaboration with OFR Consultants. Thank you to the podcast sponsor for their continuous support towards our mission.
May 20 · 1 hr 7 min
252 - Substantiating Fire Models with Craig Hofmeister and Bryan Klein
Jumping straight to CFD has become the default move in fire safety engineering, but that habit can quietly weaken our work: more inputs, more assumptions, more ways to be wrong, and often no clearer link to the actual design question. We sit down with Craig Hofmeister and Brian Klein to unpack a practical, defensible way to choose the right fire model for the job using the SFPE guideline “Substantiating a Fire Model for a Given Application.” The broad framework of this work is to define the phenomena of interest and questions at hand, then choose the candidate models and evaluate them through set of core qualities, then address the verification and validation of the models, consider uncertainties and user impact, and finally document the whole process. We walk through the framework step by step, starting where good performance-based design always starts: the questions the model must answer. From sprinkler and detector activation to atrium smoke control, pressurization, visibility and tenability, we talk about translating objectives into key physics and required outputs. That sets up a grounded comparison across hand calculations and algebraic correlations, zone models like CFAST, node network tools like CONTAM and Ventus, and field models like FDS built in PyroSim. From there, we get into the part many projects rush past: verification versus validation, how to use published V&V evidence (and when you are outside the validated scope), and how uncertainty and user effects should shape your confidence. We also address real-world constraints like AHJ expectations and contract requirements, plus practical tools like sensitivity studies, bounding analysis, and grid sensitivity checks to keep complexity from turning into false precision. If you want a cleaner way to defend your modeling decisions to reviewers and stakeholders, this conversation gives you a repeatable process you can build into your own practice. ---- The Fire Science Show is produced by the Fire Science Media in collaboration with OFR Consultants. Thank you to the podcast sponsor for their continuous support towards our mission.
May 13 · 1 hr 3 min
251 - Occupant loads in Car Parks with Mike Spearpoint
“Two people per parking space” is one of those default fire engineering inputs that we are very used to place into a model without really thinking much of it. But it is one of those defaults that show a huge richness once you dig deeper. Are all parking spaces taken? Are people in their cars? What are they doing? How long have they been there concurrently... We take that simple rule and pull on the thread until it turns into a full conversation about evidence, uncertainty, and what “credible maximum” should mean when you are designing for real-world risk. Dr Mike Spearpoint from the OFR joins me to explain how occupant load values end up in codes, why they are so hard to interpret, and why “maximum possible” can push designs into unrealistic corners. Then we get practical: we build a static, risk-based method for car park occupant load using distributions for car park utilisation and people per vehicle, run it through Monte Carlo simulation, and talk about selecting percentiles like the 95th or 99th for design. If you work with evacuation analysis, performance-based fire engineering, or fire safety assessment, this is the kind of reasoning you can reuse anywhere. In his consideration, Mike reaches something he calls the dynamic model: people are only briefly “in the car park” as they park, unload, walk to the destination, and leave. Because published data on “around-the-car” activity time is scarce, Mike measures it directly using public CCTV observations and turns it into a usable distribution. Why did he do this? This is a part of a larger project on adequate fire resistance periods in car parks. We also connect utilisation to vehicle-to-vehicle fire spread and why those assumptions can ripple into design fires and structural fire resistance decisions for open-sided car parks. If you are looking for the report itself with all the details, look here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fire-safety-open-sided-car-parks I'll make it easy for you, it starts at page 218 ;) ---- The Fire Science Show is produced by the Fire Science Media in collaboration with OFR Consultants. Thank you to the podcast sponsor for their continuous support towards our mission.
May 6 · 52 min
250 - Communicating fire science with construction professionals
A fire strategy can be technically correct, but if the team building the building never truly understands it - goals and objectives may be missed. For the 250th Fire Science Show, we slow down and talk about the craft of communicating fire science to construction professionals so that the intent survives real projects, real deadlines, and real handovers. This episode is an extended version of my talk I gave recently at the IAFSS Research Sub-Committee Workshop, which we have organised with Felix Wiesner, and I had a chance to talk along my friends - prof. Guillermo Rein, Birgitte Messerschmidt and dr Steve Kerber. In this episode, we share why the biggest failures are rarely tiny compliance misses. The scary failures come from misread strategy, missing execution on site, and teams optimizing for the wrong target because we explained the “what” but not the “why.” From smoke zoning misunderstandings to the way product labels and ratings get interpreted, we unpack how simple miscommunication can create life-threatening conditions even when everyone is working hard. Then we offer a practical framework built around three ideas: context, timeliness, and the way we speak. Context means understanding the building ecosystem: code and local planning, sustainability and energy efficiency, LEED or BREEAM certification pressures, business model realities, and aesthetics. Timeliness means matching our message to the building lifecycle, keeping high-level objectives clear early on, translating them into technical concepts during design, and only then driving into the technical detailing that makes compartmentation, egress, smoke control, and structural fire safety real. Finally, we get honest about what works: simple anchors like ASAT versus RSAT, consequence-focused language, and respectful collaboration, plus what breaks trust fast: jargon, paper-style writing, megawatt talk, and false certainty around “60 minutes” ratings. Some other podcast recommendations after this one: https://www.firescienceshow.com/136-fire-fundamentals-pt-6-the-fire-automation-in-a-building/ what happens in a building during a fire? https://www.firescienceshow.com/246-fire-fundamentals-pt-20-fire-resistance-criteria-with-piotr-turkowski/ a wider view on the fire resistance https://www.firescienceshow.com/199-commercial-timber-guidebook-with-danny-hopkin-and-luis-gonzalez-avila/ commercial timber guidebook which is an example of excellent communication of fire safety concepts. ---- The Fire Science Show is produced by the Fire Science Media in collaboration with OFR Consultants. Thank you to the podcast sponsor for their continuous support towards our mission.
April 29 · 1 hr
249 - PBD of a large car park with EVs (Case study) with Jonathan Hodges, Mark McKinnon and Christian Rippe
From the SFPE Performance Based Design Conference in Singapore, we sit down with Jonathan Hodges and Mark McKinnon (UL Research Institutes) and Christian Rippe (Jensen Hughes) moments after their case study presentation to break down a modern parking garage fire engineering workflow with a huge does of performance based and probabilistic approaches. We talk about what changes when today’s vehicle fleet makes multi-vehicle fire spread more plausible, and why picking a single car fire curve can quietly bake bias into an entire performance-based design. The team shares how they use real incident data, vehicle size distributions, ignition location categories, and percentile-based heat release rate curves to build design fires that are transparent and defensible. We also dig into EV charging as an initiating mode, what the data can and cannot support, and how a “gap analysis” mindset helps practitioners avoid false precision. Then we get into the risk machinery: scenario binning, frequencies, sprinkler reliability assumptions, and how CFD (FDS) fits when you cannot simulate 100,000 possibilities. Finally, we go structural with concrete spalling, thermal finite element modeling in Abaqus, and a scripted workflow that iteratively removes damaged concrete to understand how exposure evolves during long-duration multi-vehicle fires. For this episode, there is a ton of resources. From Jonathan: Reference for first design fire paper: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2024.104145 Reference for second design fire paper: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2026.104721 Reference for database paper: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-025-01701-5 Reference for number of parking garages: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2022.103565 Reference for ULRI vehicle fire data: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2026.112471 Reference for ULRI material database: https://materials.fsri.org/ Reference for NERIS: http://neris.fsri.org/ Reference for NFPA Vehicles data: https://www.nfpa.org/education-and-research/research/nfpa-research/fire-statistical-reports/vehicle-fires And two from myself: Outcomes of the massive fire with spalling in Warsaw https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2025.104352 Open sided car park report by OFR https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fire-safety-open-sided-car-parks/real-fires-open-sided-car-park-fire-resistance-introduction-and-conclusion ---- The Fire Science Show is produced by the Fire Science Media in collaboration with OFR Consultants. Thank you to the podcast sponsor for their continuous support towards our mission.
April 22 · 1 hr 3 min
248 - JRC update on Fire Safety Engineering in Europe with Francesca Sciarretta
Fire safety in Europe is shaped in a challenging ecosystem - each member country owns its fire safety rules, yet the construction market, standards, and technical language are increasingly shared. I’m joined by Francesca Sciarretta, Scientific Project Officer at the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC), to explain how the JRC supports EU decision-making with independent research and why that “science behind the policy” matters for every practicing fire safety engineer. We unpack what the latest JRC work says about performance-based fire safety engineering in Europe and why prescriptive design still dominates. Francesca walks through how the same country can look “performance-based” to engineers but “not allowed” to regulators, depending on how approval pathways, deviation procedures, and legal wording work. We also talk about where performance-based methods show up most often, from smoke control and structural fire engineering to compartmentation, and why complex assets like high-rise buildings, airport terminals, and underground infrastructure frequently demand engineering judgment. From there, we connect fire safety to the sustainable construction ecosystem: the Construction Products Regulation (CPR), the recast Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD), major renovations, and the reality that low-carbon innovation must not introduce hidden fire risk. The conversation then turns to the real engine of progress: education, training, qualification frameworks, and liability. If we expect engineers to define scenarios, design fires, safety criteria, and take responsibility, we need credible pathways to competence and continuous professional development across borders. You can find the new JRC report here. Information about the FIEP platform: https://efectis.com/en/fire-information-exchange-platform-fiep-2/ ---- The Fire Science Show is produced by the Fire Science Media in collaboration with OFR Consultants. Thank you to the podcast sponsor for their continuous support towards our mission.
April 15 · 1 hr
247 - Calculation methods for fire resistance with Piotr Turkowski
You don’t always need a furnace to end up with a fire resistance rating, but you do need to understand what kind of “proof” you’re actually creating. I’m joined again by Dr. Piotr Turkowski from ITB to unpack calculation methods for fire resistance and the real-world chain from engineering assumptions to a Declaration of Performance. We talk about when standards and European Assessment Documents (EADs) explicitly allow Eurocode-based assessment, and how different methods will lead you to your resulting class in a different way. We spend a lot of time on the practical heart of structural fire engineering: concrete and steel. For reinforced concrete (Eurocode 2, EN 1992-1-2), we compare tabulated data, simplified calculation approaches like the zone method, and advanced global modeling that starts to look more like performance-based fire safety engineering than classification. For steel (Eurocode 3, EN 1993-1-2), we break down critical temperature, utilization, section factor, and what you can realistically expect from unprotected members under the standard fire curve. Then we get into the more challenging part that tables or simplified methods can’t completely capture: fire protection materials. Sprayed mortars, boards, and intumescent coatings change properties with temperature, moisture, and expansion, and their performance can hinge on stickability, cracking, and detachment during large deflections. Finally, Piotr shares a strong caution on masonry, where tabulated data can be dangerously optimistic for some concrete hollow blocks, and we close with a look at what machine learning might someday add to fire resistance prediction. Here is a link to the paper about Masonry: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0379711226000512 ITB and Piotr have international courses on fire resistance and fire testing - keep an eye out on them! ---- The Fire Science Show is produced by the Fire Science Media in collaboration with OFR Consultants. Thank you to the podcast sponsor for their continuous support towards our mission.
April 8 · 1 hr 1 min
246 - Fire Fundamentals pt. 20 - Fire Resistance Criteria with Piotr Turkowski
In this episode of fire fundamentals with the ITB fire resistance expert Piotr Turkowski we break down what a fire resistance rating criteria, and what the letters behind ratings like “REI 60” exactly stand for. We use lab experience to explain where the standards are clear, where they are oddly traditional, and where comparisons between products can mislead. • ISO definition of fire resistance as an ability over time • What R E I W and M mean in fire resistance classification • Load bearing capacity as deformation and collapse criteria • How test loads are applied and why load choice matters • Integrity E as flames and openings rather than smoke tightness • Cotton pad test and why it blurs integrity versus insulation • Insulation I temperature rise limits and prescribed thermocouple points • Radiation W as a heat flux limit and when it matters • Mechanical impact M and the wrecking ball style verification • Why fire resistance time does not add up across layers • Furnace minutes, strict thresholds, and unknown test uncertainty If you liked this podcast episode, you will definietely enjoy: https://www.firescienceshow.com/070-fire-resistance-is-whatever-you-want-it-to-be-with-piotr-turkowski/ our previous conversation with Piotr about general fire resistance paradigm https://www.firescienceshow.com/010-seeking-the-origins-of-standardized-fire-testing-and-ancient-fire-protection-materials-with-john-gales/ another take on the origins of fire resistance ---- The Fire Science Show is produced by the Fire Science Media in collaboration with OFR Consultants. Thank you to the podcast sponsor for their continuous support towards our mission.
April 1 · 8 min
245 - FDS input file ASMR in forest
plume_rise_1.fds from the FDS Validation Guide (by NIST) &HEAD CHID='plume_rise_1', TITLE='Test plume rise height in stable atmosphere' / &MESH IJK=50,52,50, XB=-50.,50.,-52.,52.,0.,100., MULT_ID='mesh1' / &MULT ID='mesh1', DZ=100., K_UPPER=1 / &MESH IJK=50,52,50, XB= 50.,250.,-104.,104.,0.,200., MULT_ID='mesh2' / &MULT ID='mesh2', DZ=200., K_UPPER=1 / &MESH IJK=50,50,50, XB=250.,650.,-200.,200.,0.,400., MULT_ID='mesh3' / &MULT ID='mesh3', DX=400., DZ=400., I_UPPER=3, K_UPPER=1 / &TIME T_END=900. / &MISC TMPA=20.36 / &WIND SPEED=5., LAPSE_RATE=-0.0048 / &SPEC ID='SULFUR DIOXIDE' / &VENT MB='XMIN', SURF_ID='OPEN' / &VENT MB='XMAX', SURF_ID='OPEN' / &VENT MB='YMIN', SURF_ID='OPEN' / &VENT MB='YMAX', SURF_ID='OPEN' / &VENT MB='ZMAX', SURF_ID='OPEN' / &PART ID='TRACERS', MASSLESS=.TRUE., SAMPLING_FACTOR=1 / &SURF ID='TOP', TMP_FRONT=200., MASS_FLUX(1)=0.01563, SPEC_ID(1)='SULFUR DIOXIDE', MASS_FLUX(2)=18.85, SPEC_ID(2)='AIR', COLOR='BLACK', PART_ID='TRACERS' / &OBST XB=-2.0,2.0,-2.0,2.0, 0,75, SURF_IDS='TOP','INERT','INERT' / &SLCF PBY=0, QUANTITY='VELOCITY', VECTOR=.TRUE. / &SLCF PBY=0, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE' / &SLCF PBY=0, QUANTITY='DENSITY' / &SLCF PBY=0, QUANTITY='MASS FRACTION', SPEC_ID='SULFUR DIOXIDE' / &DEVC ID='z_CL', QUANTITY='MASS FRACTION', SPEC_ID='SULFUR DIOXIDE', XB=1800,1850,-200,200,0,800, SPATIAL_STATISTIC='MAXLOC Z' / &TAIL / Thank you NIST for providing an endless source of ASMR scripts on your github here: https://github.com/firemodels/fds/tree/master/Validation I recommend everyone to go through this rich resource. ---- The Fire Science Show is produced by the Fire Science Media in collaboration with OFR Consultants. Thank you to the podcast sponsor for their continuous support towards our mission.
March 25 · 1 hr 5 min
244 - Decision making in large-scale evacuations with Erica Kuligowski
When one takes a decision to evacuate and starts moving, this is not the end of their decision-making process. Which route to take? Who to contact? How to arrange a place of shelter? Where to go first? Have I forgotten anything? I previously discussed the decision-making with Erica Kuligowski from RMIT, and today we're meeting again to follow up on decision-making for large-scale evacuations. We focus on choices and uncertainties that make many of the evacuees take additional trips, and those trips become background traffic that interferes with your escape. In this episode, we dive deep into the decision making in this stage, the sources of data, and hypothesise how this knowledge could be used in practice. And of course, Erica being one of the leaders of the Human Behaviour in Fire community gives us a high level overview how this part of science looks like, and what is currently being researched. The HBiF conference we mentioned in the episode can be found here: https://humanbehaviourinfires.se/ ---- The Fire Science Show is produced by the Fire Science Media in collaboration with OFR Consultants. Thank you to the podcast sponsor for their continuous support towards our mission.
March 18 · 1 hr 12 min
243 - 20 Informal Settlement Fire Experiments with Sam Stevens
A fire in an informal settlement is not just another small building fire. It can be the first domino in a fast-moving neighborhood event, and the little details like the wall material, roof material, door location, even a light breeze, can decide what happens next. I’m joined by Dr. Sam Stevens from Kindling to unpack a massive FSRI funded experimental program carried out in South Africa that burned twenty different informal and humanitarian shelter types to measure real heat flux, flame extension, and fire spread potential. We start repeating the uncomfortable gap: humanitarian guidance often relies on rules of thumb like a universal separation distance and vague advice to “use fire-resistant materials,” with little experimental evidence behind it. Sam explains how Kindling built a global database of shelter designs and materials, then narrowed it down to common typologies spanning sheet metal, mud, timber, bamboo mats, split bamboo, thatch, and tarpaulin tents. We dig into the field-scale test setup, why wood cribs were chosen, and how external instrumentation like thin skin calorimeters helps quantify the heat transfer that drives structure-to-structure ignition. Then we get into what the burns actually show. Non-combustible shelters often behave like classic compartment fires where openings dominate, but even modest wind can push flames meters outward. Add combustible walls or roofs and the hazard shifts dramatically: some materials produce short, intense exposure windows while others sustain burning long enough to threaten neighbors at greater distances. The fully thatched shelter stands out for extreme radiant heat and duration, and our discussion on tarpaulin tents reveals why common fire test methods can produce reassuring ratings that still miss real-world behavior. If you care about informal settlement fire safety, humanitarian shelter design, fire engineering guidance, or modeling large outdoor fires in dense communities, this conversation gives you a data-driven foundation and a clear sense of what questions still need answering. Learn more about the project and watch their educational videos here: https://kindlingsafety.org/projects/large-scale-fire-experiments-for-humanitarian-shelters/ ---- The Fire Science Show is produced by the Fire Science Media in collaboration with OFR Consultants. Thank you to the podcast sponsor for their continuous support towards our mission.