Edinburgh Fire Research Blog

The Science of Suppression FIRESEAT symposium

2012-01-19T07:30:00.000Z

On November 9th, 2011 the students from the International Masters of Science in Fire Safety Engineering (IMFSE) studying in Edinburgh University were invited to attend the 5th FIRESEAT symposium "The Science of Suppression". During this conference we saw eight different speakers from varying parts of the world discussing different topics focus around fire suppression.

The first speaker we had the privilege of seeing was Ronald Alpert. As the Alpert Correlations were among the topics covered in our Fire Dynamics course, we were all excited to hear him speak. Alpert explained how he designed his correlations and revisited them with new experiments. He eagerly stressed his excitement for someone to advance his correlations past the current level in which they are.

The next speaker was Yibing Xin of FM Global. Sprinkler technology was the topic discussed. FM Global is working on being able to affectively model how sprinkler systems work during suppression. By doing so, they are creating a new modeling tool, FireFOAM. This would be a very useful tool because of the expensive costs of having full-scale burns. We recognize the challenges faced in order to create a program such as this, although there is no doubt that it would be a great use to the Fire Protection Community.

Andre Marshall form the University of Maryland was the third speaker of FireSeat. The research Marshall is conducting also focuses around sprinklers. In contrast to Yibing, his research involves quantitatively breaking down the spray pattern of a sprinkler head and analyzing it. The techniques being used by Marshall are nothing short of impressive.

FireSeat at this point made a turn toward the use of water mist sprinkler systems. Louise Jackman of LPCB discussed some research she was conducting. This involved using mist systems in different setting with different variables. All we could conclude from this was that mist systems are temperamental, in which the system requires just the right variables to effectively work.

The next speaker was Stefan Kratzmeir of IFAB. He discussed his research involving the use of water mist systems in tunnels, hiting mist could be effective in mitigating a fire. Our concern with this topic was the interaction between the mist and the ventilation. We felt this concern was not addressed.

The next research area discussed was the use of cryogenic suppression, presented by MichaelDelichatsios of the University of Ulster. He explained the used of cryogenic material (mainly liquid nitrogen) to extinguish pool fires and wood crib fires. Although the method was effective, the delivering of the agent to the seat of the fire seems to remain the issue in which water and foam systems still have over such a suppression agent.

Suppression in tunnels again arose with the next speaker, Elizabeth Blanchard. Her modelling results of fire suppression inside a medium size tunnel seemed to be more accurate than previous studies. But the question already began to loom among our students concerning the interaction between the mist delivered and ventilation. Our concern was again not addressed, despite the effectiveness of the mist system to mitigate fire and enhance visibility, we felt more research should be performed to address the issue.

The final speaker of the 2011 FireSeat was Stefano Chiti of COWI. This research involved using hypoxic air for fire suppression and prevention. This would basically displace oxygen in the combustion process making combustion slow or near impossible to occur. This is a good research area, especially since Halon is no longer being used. We can see the use of this being great as long as it is ensured not to effect human life.

FireSeat was a great experience. It showed suppression research has many different areas that will improve the suppression actions of the Fire Protection Community in the future.

by Joshua Reichert and Oriol Rios, 2011 IMFSE students

World War II Fire Safety Propaganda Posters

2012-01-12T15:59:00.001Z

In June 2009 the Fire Safety Engineering group from The University ofEdinburgh begun the challenge of scanning more than 40,000 documents previouslylocated in the BRE Fire Research Archive at the BRE headquarters in Watford. TheBRE Fire Research Archive contained documents published during the early andmid-20th century, in almost every topic related to Fire Science, opinionsheared by the few ones that have gone through some of the tens of thousands ofdocuments. A previousdescription of this project was blogged at an earlier stage.

For the last two years the Fire Safety Engineering group has developeda, postgraduate student-led, self-funded, project to scan these documents, makingthem available online for the entire fire community at the Digital Preservation of theFRS/BRE Fire Research Archives open access collection from the Edinburgh Research Archive.

To date, the progress of this project has only been possible thanks tothe time and resources selflessly given by Kate Anderson, Susan Deeny, Guillermo Rein,Ania Grupka, Tao Gao, Natalia Mambrilla, John Gales, Agustin Majdalani,Marcin Gorączniak, Sarah Higginson, Iris Chang, Frances Radford, AleksandraDanielewicz and others members of the Fire Safety Engineering group (undergraduate,postgraduates, staff members and visitors), which have participated in some wayor another. The support of TheoAndrew, co-developer of the open access and open source Edinburgh Research Archive, has beenalso been of immense help.

Some time ago, John Gales, PhDstudent from the Fire Safety Engineering group, come across a file containing WorldWar II fire safety propaganda posters design and printed by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) inBoston, Massachusetts, between 1942 and 1944. The single act of finding the posterswas a gift on John’s behave, to the entire fire community, which would haveotherwise be lost with time. The posters went through a high quality scanningprocess and then uploaded into theopen access collection. The rareness of the posters found by John wassomething unique, and like this, many other documents have been found anduploaded into the online collection.

The project is now expanding fast and the Digital Preservation of theFRS/BRE Fire Research Archives online open access collection has now 291documents, which is expected to reach 500 during the first semester of 2012,being this just the tip of the iceberg of what can be achieved.

Thanks to Guillermo for being the driving force and common denominatorthroughout the project.

Fire on Earth at the 2011 European Geosciences Union

2012-01-04T11:59:00.000Z

Dear Researchers interested in Fire and the Earth System,

We very much hope that you will join us at European Geosciences Union (EGU) General Assembly 2012 in Vienna this April by submitting an abstract to our session "Understanding Fire Phenomena in the Earth System Using Interdisciplinary Approaches". The session aims to bring together all disciplines within fire science toward increasing scientific understanding of the impact of fires on the Earth system. The session will position contributors into four key fire research themes:

Fire Behaviour
Fire and the Biosphere
Fire and Earth’s Past
Fire and the Earth System

These groupings are designed to enhance interaction between the communities of fire safety science and engineering, wildfire ecology, palaeofire and Earth system science enabling insight to be gained into the influence of fire on our planet. More importantly we hope that the session will enhance interaction between all our communities.

The deadline for your abstract submission is 17th January 2012.

EGU has a number of exciting fire based sessions this year making it a must for all of us interested in fire science.

We hope to see you all at Vienna in April.

Best wishes,

Claire Belcher and Guillermo Rein (session organizers)

Letter to SciAm editors is published...

2011-12-22T09:54:00.004Z

Incredibly, my letter to the editors of Scientific American has been published in abridged form in the January 2012 issue of Scientific American magazine. The original letter is is posted below in the Blog. The published version is available here.

Thanks to Guillermo for encouraging me to write the letter in the first place!

The Sociology of Fire Engineering?

2011-12-16T16:26:00.009Z

I was recently asked to to explain to a group of Fire Safety Engineers, Policy Makers, Architects, Firefighters, and others why I think the University of Edinburgh's new project on "Integrating Technical and Social Aspects of Fire Safety Engineering Expertise (IT-SAFE)" is so exciting and important. Here's what I decided to say... in case anyone is interested in a self-indulgent, self-critical mini rant...

_____

Good afternoon, and thank you for attending this talk on our new research collaboration, IT-SAFE, which I find myself rather surprised to say I consider among the most important activities I have ever been involved in as a university academic and as an engineer.

For me, this new collaboration with sociologists of science is fundamentally about making technology matter. It is about making me, my colleagues, and my engineering discipline maximize our impact.

I’m a structural engineer, or rather more specifically a structural fire engineer. My specific expertise – such as it is – is in studying the thermal and physical response of materials and structures to fire. I’m interested in the weakening of materials and structures during fire… the 9/11 scenario where fires cause buildings or parts of buildings to collapse.

So why then, has sociology become so important to me?

As explanation, I hope you’ll forgive me for recounting a rather self-indulgent story of intellectual atonement.

Sir Duncan Michael, Trustee of the Ove Arup Foundation, to whom I am eternally grateful (both personally and professionally) for his support and more importantly for his prodding, will tell one story of how it is that I’ve come to work at Edinburgh, in partnership colleagues at Arup. My version of the story is somewhat simpler than his. I’ve said many times that I came to Edinburgh simply to atone for my sins.

I’ll not bore you with too many details, but my PhD in Structural Engineering, performed at Queen’s University and the National Research Council of Canada, was concerned with collapse of innovative types of columns – vertical load supporting elements in buildings – during fire.

To study this issue we did what any self respecting structural engineer would do; we performed a number of very costly and time-consuming standard tests in large scale fire testing furnace. Essentially, you take a column, you place a load on it, and you heat it in a furnace until it collapses… and in doing so you “prove” that the column is safe in a building in a fire… don’t you?

We spent about half a million dollars and several years performing these tests… we spent further years building sophisticated computer models to accurately simulate the tests and predict their outcomes… and further years interpreting the results and developing simplified design guidance. We obtained underwriters’ certified fire resistance ratings for our industrial sponsors, enabling them to sell their products to architects and developers… they were very pleased… and of course being good academics we wrote lots of papers.

And I knew that none of it truly mattered.

The testing furnace wasn’t a real fire.

The test columns weren’t real columns.

They weren’t in a real building; they didn’t interact with the rest of the building.

Essentially everything in these tests was unrealistic in some fundamental and important way.

Worse than this, the important aspects of the test results could easily have been predicted using simple hand calculations.

My tests were unnecessary. My models were misguided. I was very, very clever; but I was meaningless.

So why did we do it?

We did it because the regulatory process in North America (and in most other places) for approving use of new materials in structures requires this standard furnace testing and is willing to sacrifice rational thought and scientific understanding for compliance with the “standard”. The regulatory tail was wagging the scientific dog. I saw this, and I began to feel that I didn’t deserve my PhD.

But not so in Europe… or so I thought. This was a North American problem. Europeans, particularly Scots, are much more enlightened. So when Jose Torero at the University of Edinburgh and Barbara Lane at Arup Fire, the most advanced and innovative fire engineers in the world, came knocking, how could I resist the chance to set things right.

So I came to Scotland, began to atone for my sins, and for the past three and a bit years I’ve continued my efforts to truly understand the way that materials and structures respond to real fires in real buildings; and this is one of the best decisions I’ve ever made.

But all is not well. The problems I saw in North America exist also in Europe, and globally. I remain a very frustrated man. Read my letter to the Editors of Scientific American (below in the Blog) for an indication of my frustration.

In any case, I now find myself asking a number of questions that neither I nor my engineering colleagues are equipped to answer:

How is it that structural engineers and architects have managed for more than a decade to largely ignore the key engineering significance of the events of Sept 11, 2001 – that fire can cause the total collapse of a modern office building?

Why are so few buildings engineered with fire safety explicitly considered in the initial stages of design, particularly given that we (i.e. Arup and others) have the knowledge and skills to begin to do this?

What are society’s true perceptions and understanding of the personal, financial, environmental, and social risks associated with fire, how is tolerance of these risks shaped by our testing, design, and regulatory processes, and how does this perception and tolerance of risk influence design, regulation, and policy?

How do current fire safety testing, design, and compliance processes encourage or hinder innovation? To what extent is the tail wagging the dog, and how can we change this?

In short, how can we make our technology matter?

These questions (and many others) can’t be answered by engineers alone, as much as I prefer to think we have all the answers and that rationality will always triumph. It’s my hope that engaging with sociologists of science, Robin and his colleagues, will help us to understand and influence our own playing field, leading to better, more rational and holistic design, and eventually to a safer and more sustainable built environment; and I hope that all of you will engage with us in this process.

My deepest thanks to the Ove Arup Foundation and the Royal Academy of Engineering for supporting this unique initiative. Thank you for listening.

2010 Impact Factors for fire related journals

2011-12-05T07:00:00.000Z

The Journal Citation Reports has released the impact factors for 2010. The impact factor, one of the measures available to rank journals, is the frequency with which the "average article" in a journal has been cited in the previous two years. It is calculated dividing the number of citations to papers published in the previous two years by the total number of items published during the same period. In order and for fire related journals, these are:

#1 Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 10.36 (was 12.44 in 2009)
#2 Journal of Hazardous Materials 3.72 (was 4.14 in 2009)
#3 Combustion and Flame 2.747 (was 2.92 in 2009)
#4 International Journal of Wildland Fire 2.21 (was 1.90 in 2009)
#5 Building and Environment 2.13 (was 1.80 in 2009)
#6 Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 1.79 (was 3.51 in 2009)
#7 Engineering Structures 1.36 (was 1.26 in 2009)
#8 Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 1.27 (was 1.23 in 2009)
#9 Combustion Science and Technology 1.11 (was 1.14 in 2009)
#10 Fire Safety Journal 1.02 (was 1.26 in 2009)
#11 Fire and Materials 0.96 (was 1.20 in 2009)
#12 Journal of Structural Engineering 0.83 (was 0.93 in 2009)
#13 Fire Technology 0.36 (was 0.37 in 2009)
#14 Journal of Fire Protection Engineering 0.15 (was 0.30 in 2009)

Clarification (derived from the wikipedia):
The 2010 impact factor of a given journal is equal to A/B. Where A is the number of times articles published in 2008 and 2009 were cited during 2010, and B is the total number of papers published by that journal in 2008 and 2009.

NOTE: Support your favorite journals by reading (and citing) them often

2011 Lloyd’s Prize to fire research

2011-11-28T00:14:00.000Z

Congratulations to Dr Angus Law and co-authors for winning the 2011 Lloyd’s Science of Risk Prize in the Biological/Technological category for their paper on travelling fires for structural design. Dr Law graduated in 2010 with a PhD in Fire Safety Engineering from the University of Edinburgh and now works at Arup. The Science of Risk Prize was launched by Lloyd’s to stimulate cutting edge research into the latest emerging risks facing businesses.

Design for infrastructure protection

The winning paper is "The Influence of Travelling Fires on a Concrete Frame" (published in Engineering Structures 33), led by Dr Law and co-authored by Dr Stern-Gottfried, Dr Gillie and Dr Rein. The work argues that the trend towards open plan offices has changed the types of fire likely to occur in modern buildings. It uses science to look at ways to improve engineering guidelines and building design, reduce the risk of travelling fires, and help insurers better quantify and model fire risk. The presentation given by Dr Law at the award's ceremony built on the concepts of acceptable risk and the margin of error of design methods in the contextt of the engineering duty to use the world’s limited resources as efficiently as possible (see presentation here). The work was founded by BRE Trust and Arup.

Best runner-up

The best runner-up in the same category was our graduate Dr Sung-han Koo for his paper "Sensor-steered fire simulation" (published in Fire Safety Journal and co-authored by Dr J Fraser-Mitchell and Dr S Welch)

2010 Awards

This is the second time that Edinburgh recieves the award. Last year Dr Francesco Colella won the 2010 (inaugural) prize in Technology for the paper "A Novel Multiscale Methodology for Simulating Tunnel Ventilation Flows During Fires". And Dr Wolfram Jahn (in Technology) and Dr Claire Belcher (in Natural Hazards) were short-listed within the top five submissions.

Students from Glasgow Caledonian University in the lab

2011-11-23T11:30:00.002Z

Today we have a group of students from Glasgow Caledonian University doing some testing in our lab as part of their studies.

FireForum Award 2011 to IMFSE

2011-11-22T15:01:00.002Z

The International Master of Science in Fire Safety Engineering (IMFSE) has received the inaugural FireForum Award 2011 in the Social Value category. The IMFSE program is an Erasmus Mundus degree by the EU and coordinated by Ghent University (Prof. Bart Merci) in association with Lund University (Prof. Robert Jönsson) and The University of Edinburgh (Prof. José Torero).

Prof Bart Merci (right) receives the award as coordinator of IMFSE

The award

FireForum Awards is a new Belgium prize to celebrate excelence in fire safety engineering. It is organized by Fire Forum in cooperation with the Federal Public Service Home Affairs and the Federal Civil Security Knowledge (KCCE). The first edition of the awards was celebrated at the Koloniënpaleis, Tervuren, on 17 Nov 2011.

During the ceremony at the Kolonienpaleis

Awards to Edinburgh students at the 10th IAFSS

2011-10-27T14:00:00.000+01:00

The last Symposium of the International Association for Fire Safety Science (IAFSS), held at the University of Maryland, was attended by 18 members of the group who presented a total of 6 papers, 4 workshop talks, 9 posters, and 5 photos.

Members of the University of Edinburgh at the 10th IAFSS Symposium 2011.

Congratulations to our two students who recieved awards for their research:

Angus Law recieved the Best PhD Thesis Award in Europe/Africa for his thesis titled The Assessment and Response of Concrete Structures Subject to Fire (2010).

Cristian Maluk recieved the Best Student Poster Award for his work Bond Strength Degradation for CFRP Bars and Steel Prestressing Wires in Concrete at Elevated Temperature Fire Behaviour of Novel Concrete Structural Elements.

Researchers offer hope of answer to Bing fires

2011-10-20T14:21:00.000+01:00

Researchers at the Universities of Edinburgh and Strathclyde have studied a burning Bing. A 30 m high waste heap at Bogside, North Lanarkshire, Scotland, started to smoulder (flameless combustion) in 2009, approximately 80 years after the closure of the pit. They are studying how the fires develop and spread, and hope their new understanding will enable development of a low-cost effective way to manage or extinguish the fires.

This will help protect local communities by limiting the risk of landslip, and also safeguard local ecosystems and the environment. There are hundredds of these bings in Scotland alone. The threat of burning and risk of land movement pose a risk to those who live nearby. Anything we can do to limit the potential harm to local people and the environment is a step in the right direction.

The work was presented at the Geological Society of America Annual Meeting: Investigation of self-sustained combustion of a coal waste heap in Scotland. It was also featured in the The Scotsman, Edinburgh website, Strathclyde website, and Vision Systems (on our use of thermal imaging).

Coal mining was widespread in the central belt of Scotland from 1830 until the 1970’s and created a legacy of waste heaps or ‘bings’ that still dot the landscape. High content of coal fines and carbonaceous shales, make bings very prone to self-heating and smoldering combustion. Chemical, geotechnical and physical parameters of the Bogside Bing have been studied.

A combustion front is seen moving from west to east along the axis of the bing at an approximate rate of 1m/month. Three well-defined zones were identified and mapped using thermal imagery and temperature probes: the undisturbed zone, the preheating plus drying zone and the combustion zone. The subsurface fire results in a detrimental effect to the vegetation and structural integrity of the heap. Spread of the combustion is accompanied by the development of vents ahead of the front, fissures that run parallel to the direction of heating and smaller landslips along the flanks. Changes to the heap's soil mechanics induced by the smouldering front create a network of fissures, some running deep, that supply the front with enough air to sustain the process.

Analysis of gas from the vents, show elevated CO2, CO, CH4 and SO2, and partially depleted in oxygen. All these are indicative of smouldering activity within the bing. The primary environmental concerns are likely to be from SO2 release and metals leaching from waste material (i.e. Pb, Se, Cr). The stability of the structure may be compromised as smouldering progresses. Bogside Bing continues to release products of combustion and represents an accidental source of fossil fuel burning.

IT-SAFE Project Launch

2011-10-16T11:47:00.009+01:00

Integrating Technical and Social Aspects of Fire Safety Engineering and Expertise (IT-SAFE)

Monday 7 November 2011, 5.30 – 7.00 pm
Playfair Library, Old College, South Bridge, University of Edinburgh
Drinks and canapés

An interdisciplinary programme of social-science research designed to improve fire safety and the quality of our built environment by better interaction and integration of social and engineering research. Supported by The University of Edinburgh, The Ove Arup Foundation, and The Royal Academy of Engineering.

Visit the IT-SAFE project webpage

Programme:

Welcome
Professor Sir Timothy O'Shea, Principal, University of Edinburgh

Presentations
Mr Steven Torrie: Head of Fire and Rescue Advisory Unit, Scotland
Professor Robin Williams: Director, Institute for the Study of Science, Technology
and Innovation, University of Edinburgh
Sir Duncan Michael: Trustee, The Ove Arup Foundation

RSVP by 31 October 2011
Eileen Mothersole, University of Edinburgh
Telephone : +44 (0)131 650 6398
E-mail : R.Williams@ed.ac.uk

-------------------------------

An afternoon seminar will proceed this launch event:
In Case of Fire, Please Use the Elevator: Simulation Technology and Organization in Fire Engineering will be presented by Professor David Gann (Imperial College Business School) between 3.30 – 5pm in the Raeburn Room, Old College, University of Edinburgh. This event is free and open to all to attend. For further details please visit: www.stis.ed.ac.uk/events

-------------------------------

A London launch event for IT-SAFE is also being held on Tuesday 8 November 2011, 5.30pm for 6.15pm start, at Arup, 13 Fitzroy Street, London. For further information please contact Stephanie Wilde: stephanie.wilde@arup.com

L&B FireFighter Internship 2011

2011-10-14T02:16:00.001+01:00

Angus Elliot - 4th Year MEng Student

This year myself and AlastairTemple were lucky enough to be picked to take part in the Lothian & Borders Fire and Rescue Service internship, and what an experience it’s been! Theinternship lasted a total of 5 weeks and took us round every aspect of the FireService and enabled us to get a fantastic insight into what they do, how theydo it and how engineers can make their job easier and safer.

For our first week, we were to be based at the Scottish International Fire Training Centre at McDonald Rd, learning the basic skills wewould need in order to make the most of our time with the Service. Against all logic and common sense, theprinciple structure at the centre is The Ship. The huge ships hull, sat in theyard is completely dark inside and is filled with smoke and fire to enablefirefighters to get as realistic an environment as possible to hone theirskills. What would they do with us on the first day I wondered? Surely nothingtoo demanding, probably just a nice easy introduction and some simple tasks Ithought. Wrong! Within a couple of hours of arriving we were fully kitted up infire fighting gear and being given a crash course in setting up, servicing andoperating the fire service breathing apparatus, or BA for short. What followed,we were told, was usually taught to recruits over the space of a week andinvolved an afternoon learning search and rescue techniques in the hot, smokyand completely dark ship in full kit! A real highlight was the ‘confined space’test involving crawling through a purpose built narrow, multi-storey cage inthe dark and finally lying down and pulling yourself through an even narrower10ft long tunnel only just big enough to fit your shoulders and cylinder in.Not for the claustrophobic!! Most of the rest of the week was spent watching,helping to set up and also taking part in the various training exercises at thecentre for the watch crews. A real eye opener into the skill and professionalismthat fire fighters perform their duties with, and the level of pressure theycan be under. On the Wednesday we were also able to spend the day with one ofthe instructors who was running a Fire Marshals course at the offices of alarge company. This involved educating staff members on fire safety, evacuationand basic fire fighting skills (and also providing an excuse to try all thedifferent kinds of fire extinguishers without being told off). In the space of 3 days, were fullyqualified BA wearers and Fire Marshals!

Week 2 was based at Fire Service Headquarters on LauristonRoad with the Business and Commerce department. The week was spent followingtheir fire officers as they carried out fire safety audits on variouscommercial properties in the city ranging from care homes, bingo halls andindustrial units. Although it may not have been as action packed as the previousweek, it was interesting (and also frightening) to see for ourselves the rangeof fire precautions businesses use, from fully integrated systems andengineering, to hand held air horns and propane cylinders stored next to bronzekilns! You could get a real sense of the distance we still have to go to reallyget home the message of fire safety engineering, and avoid the completelypreventable accidents which still commonly occur. On the Tuesday, a trip hadbeen organised for us to visit the fire station at Edinburgh Airport. Here wewere shown round the phenomenal equipment they had there and were also shownround all areas of the airport to learn about the complex fire systems theyhave in place there. We even got a cheeky wee tour up the Air Traffic Controltower! The next day we were also shown round Scottish Parliament, where eventhough it is a new building, there are still some seemingly fundamental firedesign flaws when looked at closely.

Alastair and I split up for weeks 3 and 4 between FireInvestigation and Fire Crew Operations. I did fire investigation first,followed by a week following the watch crews at Tollcross fire station, andAlastair vice versa. The Fire Investigation branch is based in Livingston,shadowing the investigators whenever they were called to investigate the causesof a fire. Unfortunately for me, Edinburgh was being very sensible and thereweren’t many call outs that week! I did however have the opportunity toaccompany them to re-investigate the cause of a fatal fire at a chip fryingfactory in Duns. Picking through the wreckage of a completely destroyedbuilding certainly opens up your eyes to the power of fire and what it can doto a structure.

The highlight of the week however, was the Fire Behaviourtraining day at Fillyside. The Fire service use Fillyside as their base inwhich to train crews in Fire Behaviour. It includes a full scale flashoverunit, attack unit as well as a mock-house. The day included kitting up in fullkit and BA and sitting in a shipping container in full flashover conditions.Inside the unit, temperatures range from 750C at 2m, to 400C at 1m and areenough to melt fire proof clothing! Inside we took part in the crew trainingexercise, taking it in turns to control the conditions with water. Although wewere safety briefed and there was a safety team monitoring the exercise, itgave us a huge appreciation of the dangers caused by a fully developed fire andthe effect it can have on humans as well as the structure. In terms of firesafety engineering, this day is absolutely invaluable and will be extremelyuseful in years to come during our studies, as well as being a lot of fun!

Next up was the week I’d been waiting for, a week ‘on therun’ at Tollcross fire station. AsTollcross serves virtually the entire city centre, it’s the busiest of theEdinburgh fire stations. A majority of the calls were AFA’s, or automatic firealarms, however on the Tuesday I was lucky enough to be in the appliance whichwas first on scene to a flat fire on the Royal Mile.It was an incredible experience to see the skill and professionalism of thefire fighters, and to see them implementing the training they’d been given at‘the ship’. Even though it hadn’t quite flashed over, the flat was almost completelydestroyed, taking with it all of the 93yr old residents possessions. A soberingreminder what we’re all up against in this discipline.

Alastair Temple - 4th Year MEng student

Iwas not quite so lucky (or maybe luckier depending on what point of view youtake!) in that I didn’t manage to be on the scene of any fire in either week.Despite this I managed to see a lot of what the Fire Fighters do in the more“everyday” sense, from tests on all the equipment which is held on theappliances to once again getting acquainted with my notes and lashes. Or in theweek at Livingston even getting a demonstration of the force of which carairbags deploy with and how to avoid accidently setting them off whenperforming a recovery at a road traffic accident. And I did get a glimpse ofthe professionalism of the fire fighters with the speed and no-nonsensereactions each time we got a call out to an AFA even though the likelihood wasit would be a false alarm, they never take this for granted.

Week 5 involved us being back atthe MacDonald Road training centre for half the week where we got a refresherwith our BA skills and then helped prepare the centre for the weeks recruitmentdrive by being guinea pigs for the tests that they put wanna-be fire fightersthrough in their initial screening process. These range from a confined spacetest (like the one we did on the first day but with just the mask and withoutthe tunnel) to check for claustrophobia, to a fine motor skills test where someequipment must be assembled and de-assembled within 5 minutes, to physicaltests of of upper body and arm strength as well as general fitness. Suffice tosay here I established that I am definitely not of the right build to become afire fighter, some serious gym work would be required before I could haul theweight up two stories on the single pully!

Our final day with theService was the week after where we spent a day at The Fire ServicesTraining College in Gullane, this is where all new fire fighters in Scotlandgo for their first 13 weeks of training after joining the Service. We got tosee quite a few new things here including our first backdraft done in theback-yard of the centre which was really interesting to see. It also gave usanother chance to get use your newly found BA skills (something we weredefinitely enjoying by this point!) in some more unusual situations as theyhave a roll-over simulated gas fire to simulate flashover. This was also greatas it was the first (and only) time either of us had taken a camera down, andgetting some photos of us doing some things, was… well… definitely worth it.

All in all it was a thoroughly enjoyable and informative 5 weeks and I would highly recommend applying for it to any Fire Safety Engineering students.

Another dangerous media interpretation: Castles in the Air

2011-10-07T16:04:00.003+01:00

Letter to the editors, September 2011

Dear Editors of the Scientific American

I am writing in response to the article “Castles in the Air” by Mark Lamster, featured in the September 2011 issue. I have struggled to find the word to describe how I feel, but I think the best would be to suggest that I am overwhelmingly disappointed.

Firstly, I am disappointed with the content and indeed with the approach Mr Lamster has taken in proposing to discuss the issues of tall building design that have apparently been addressed over the last decade as a result, or at least in part to the events on 11 September 2001. Secondly I am disheartened that this article, in my opinion, propagates almost completely the anecdotal approach the media seems to take time and time again with respect to issues of debate in engineering fields. Obviously, I don’t expect to open Scientific American and find myself faced with a selection of technical papers, however I would expect that an article designed to give readers of related or scientific fields some insight into another area, would at least be built upon the founds of the root problem to which solutions are being proudly presented.

Surely before explaining the “new” measures that have been adopted in tall building design in response to the collapse of three such buildings, one might consider, as a premise for the article, alluding to why the buildings did collapse in the first place? I find it odd that one might present answers to a problem when the problem has not actually been defined. Indeed, how is it possible to present “answers” in this circumstance?

As a professional in Fire Engineering and research, my immediate reaction was one of outrage, followed by disappointment, followed by despair. Three buildings collapsed that day due to uncontrolled fires and as a function of how the steel structures subsequently performed under such conditions. I feel that the omission of at least an acknowledgment of this fact seriously undermines any arguments or conclusions drawn in the article.

Unfortunately I feel that the inadequate definition of an accurate premise further hinders the article throughout and in fact, after reading for a while, I feel that for me, all meaning becomes lost. Certainly, I lose faith halfway through that I will find some definitive, purposeful and inspiring reports of meaningful developments within tall building design for life safety.

Mr Lamster opens with the Les Robertson remark: "I espoused… that the responsibility was to keep planes away from the buildings and not to design the buildings for that circumstance". On one hand, I fully understand this philosophy and agree that it would be impossible to design every building for an “imagined future worst case scenario”, but one has to ask at this point, if fire is not noted as a issue, and we are ignoring the attacks by hijacked planes, then what are the problems with the buildings that we will seek to address during the rest of the article?

As Fire Engineers, we do hope that fire will be kept out of buildings, but to assume that it will be so would be to miss the point entirely. Dynamic, performance-based solutions and cost effective fire engineered designs are sought to minimise the effects should an unlikely event such as a fire occur. Is it not realistic to hope rather, or at least suggest, that we will be able to design buildings where life safety will not be so severely impacted because of intuitive design and advancement of materials science in the future, as opposed to what seems to be assumed here, that buildings would need to be made “sturdier” in the traditional sense with more materials and more expense? Perhaps this is a question for engineers and persons whose sound bites appear in this article rather than the author.

"One safety-enhancing design feature that is only beginning to be
implemented is the use of sky-bridges between buildings"

Certainly, access between buildings at high levels provides more safety through increased egress options, but I struggle to agree on the appropriateness of highlighting this as one of the "new", main safety design features in response to WTC 1 & 2. A poor choice given the context.

I could go on, but I think at this point it would not be constructive to do so. In fairness, Lamster does not have much to work with. Perhaps the lack of formal examples presented here of lessons we have learned from 9/11 with respect to all aspects of tall building design, is so because, frankly they are few and far between. Certainly, with regards to fire safety, no direct changes can be cited since the problem of fire safety was never defined in the first instance. I would certainly hope that the inclusion of “radio repeaters in stair towers” [to improve fire fighter communication] does not define the evolution of fire and life safety measure development over the past decade.

The problem on that day was the subject of the accumulation of numerous independent events, however the final trigger for the catastrophic outcome was one of inadequate performance of the building structures under fire conditions. Subsequently egress was compromised due to the nature of the attacks and how these impacted on the specific design of WTC 1 and 2.

I felt disappointed mostly because I was excited to read a summary of meaningful progression in design ideas and technical thinking about a difficult and sometimes misunderstood issue, but instead was presented with an anecdotal article whose main purpose seemed to be to continue the overarching theme of the September 2011 issue that [from cover] “We have seen a brighter future, and it is urban”, and very little else.

A purposeful consideration of steps needed in order to incite meaningful changes to the way we design for fire and life safety can be read here:

http://www.ctbuh.org/Publications/Journal/911_10yrson/tabid/2684/language/en-US/Default.aspx

Article entitled “Challenging Attitudes on Codes and Safety”.

The author, Prof. Jose Torero, is Co-chair of the CTBUH Fire and Life Safety Working Group. Mr Lamster does include comments from several CTBUH members in the article, so perhaps this may be of interest?

Thank you for your time

Kind Regards

Ryan Hilditch

PhD Researcher
BRE Centre for Fire Safety Engineering
The University of Edinburgh

Group photo - September 2011

2011-09-30T10:26:00.002+01:00

A group photo, taken on 28th September 2011. Includes a few new faces, a few visitors and there are quite a few people missing as well, but you rarely get everyone in the same place at the same time. Visit our Facebook page to see the tagged people.

Fire Group News Overview Jan to Aug 2011

2011-09-28T08:55:00.001+01:00

News overview from the BRE Centre for Fire Safety Engineering at the University of Edinburgh during the first semester of 2011 (extracted from the IAFSS Newsletter n31, August 2011).

Since Jan 2011 two new PhD students have joined us: Shaun Devaney (Ireland) and Ryan Hilditch (UK). During the same time, three students received the PhD degree: Dr Rory Hadden (now at University of Western Ontario, Canada), Dr Pauline Bartoli (now University of Corsica, France) and Dr Jamie Stern-Gottfried (now at Arup, UK). Two Research Associates promoted outside the group: Dr David Lange joined SP, Sweden, and Dr Claire Belcher got an academic position at University of Exeter, UK, in Earth System Science. The current group consists of nine academics, four research associates and 26 PhD students. Other worthy news are summarized as follows.

The Ove Arup Foundation has made a major investment to tackle the obdurate problems surrounding fire safety. Working with Fire Safety Engineers and Architects at the University of Edinburgh, The Institute for the Study of Science, Technology and Innovation (ISSTI) will explore how to ensure the effective adoption of technical advances in the built environment. The Ove Arup Foundation has agreed to invest £200,000 over the next 5 years in a major interdisciplinary research and knowledge transfer initiative aimed at Integrating Technical and Social Aspects of Fire Safety Engineering Expertise (ITSAFE).

The Centre has secured a major grant from The Lloyd's Register Educational Trust (LRET) to hold a series of three annual week-long intensive seminars ("think tanks") in areas related to Fire Safety Engineering. This series of seminars was motivated by the need to have a new generation of leaders in Fire Safety Engineering that can drive the field through the drastic transition it is currently experiencing. An ever evolving construction industry, drastic changes in regulatory environment, multi-disciplinary drivers for innovation, and ever increasing demands for the fire service require a new face of leadership. The seminars are intended to bring together selected leaders of today with the leaders of the future to define a coherent path for different areas of critical importance to the field. This unique initiative was launched this year with The 1st Annual LRET/UoE Global Technical Leadership Seminar in Fire Safety Engineering. The seminar had the theme of "Education for the Future of Fire Safety Engineering," and was held in Scotland between 30 May and 3 June 2011. Participants were selected as key players in defining the future of advanced fire safety engineering as a professional/academic discipline. The seminar was run as a five day retreat, delivered by the BRE Centre for Fire Safety Engineering at a residential venue close to Edinburgh. Each session began with a presentation to be given by one of the participants. This initiated discussions on the relevant issues. A small group of undergraduate and graduate students, some of whose studies are also financially supported by The LRET, were also competitively selected to join the seminar, bringing the total number of participants to approximately 20. Dissemination activities will include the publication of a "white paper" based on the seminar's discussions and outcomes. All of the participants felt that the event was a great success and will lead to a number of important changes, actions, and significant progress for fire safety engineering education globally. Feedback has been very positive thus far, and several participants have formulated specific personal action items within their own organizations.

Prof José Torero delivered the public lecture: "The Twin Towers: 10 years – 10 Lessons on Sustainable Infrastructure" on 14th March 2011. This was a joint event of The Royal Academy of Engineering and The Royal Society of Edinburgh. The collapse of the World Trade Center towers represents one of the most dramatic failures of modern structural engineering. One of the most exhaustive and expensive failure analyses in history was conducted in the midst of speculation, controversy and conspiracy theories. In parallel, the world has seen an extraordinary evolution of the super-tall building. Seven of the ten tallest buildings in the world have been built after 9/11. These not only include the tallest four, but eight of these buildings are outside the USA. Furthermore, a strong drive towards sustainability has driven tall building design to levels of innovation never seen before. Prof Torero’s presentation extracted, from a decade of questioning and innovation, ten lessons on what is sustainable infrastructure.

Prof José Torero was awarded the 2010 Tom Dalyell Prize for Science Communication at the University of Edinburgh during his Christmas Lecture "Fire: A story of fascination, fear and familiarity". In his lecture, Prof Torero discussed how humans have been fascinated with fire for millions of years. He examined how fire can provide welcome warmth in everyday life but, on a bigger scale, the unpredictability of fire can be terrifying. He contrasted the emotions associated with fire, depending on whether it is under control or not.

Congratulations to Dr Francesco Colella for winning the Lloyd’s Science of Risk Prize in the Technology Category. The prize was for his research paper "A Novel Multiscale Methodology for Simulating Tunnel Ventilation Flows During Fires" (published in Fire Technology). He led this work as a Research Associate at The School of Engineering from 2007 to 2010. This is Lloyd’s research prize for academics and aims at keeping the world’s leading specialist insurance market with the pace of academic knowledge and cutting edge thinking. For the same award competition, the fire group had two more papers short-listed as the top of each category. Dr Wolfram Jahn was short-listed in Technology Risk, for his paper "Forecasting Fire Growth using an Inverse Zone Modelling Approach" (published in Fire Safety Journal). And Dr Claire Belcher was short-listed in Climate Change Risk for her paper "Increased fire activity at the Triassic/Jurassic boundary in Greenland due to climate-driven floral change" (published in Nature Geoscience).

The University is one of 13 partners collaborating on a three year, EU FP7 funded research project on Aircraft Fire Safety. The 'kick-off' meeting was in Poitiers, France, in January 2010.

On Nov 2010 Dr Guillermo Rein was interviewed by Scottish TV about a recent research paper published in Fire Safety Journal on "Forecasting Fire Growth". On the same day he was interviewed for BBC Radio and newspaper The Scotsman.

The Royal Society of Edinburgh has awarded a JM Lessells Scholarship Award to the fire group PhD student Holly Smith. She will spend two months at the Department of Civil Engineering, Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada and work on shear failure of concrete structures during fire.

We continue communicating views, news and achievements in our blog

An inexcusable omission...

2011-09-21T13:54:00.003+01:00

Dear Editors of Scientific American,

I read with great interest (and disappointment) Mark Lamster’s article “Castles in the Air” in your September 2011 issue. In presenting the changes that have occurred in the design and construction of skyscrapers in the decade since September 11th 2001, Mr Lamster (apparently along with many of the top names in the architectural and structural engineering communities) has completely missed the most important issue.

While highlighting the structural threats to skyscrapers, Mr Lamster notes three issues: aircraft impact, earthquakes, and wind. The claim is made that structural engineers are now able to design against these threats with a very high level of confidence and safety. As a structural engineer I agree completely.

Unfortunately, the Twin Towers did not collapse due to aircraft impact, earthquake, or wind; they collapsed due to fire. Nowhere in the article is the structural threat posed by fire explicitly mentioned. I agree completely with Mr Robertson's statement that the responsibility is “to keep airplanes away from the buildings and not to design the buildings for that circumstance,” but again this misses the point entirely.

On 9/11 we clearly saw, for the first time, that fires can cause entire modern highrise buildings to collapse. Indeed, in addition to the Twin Towers a steel-framed highrise (Building 7) on the WTC site also collapsed on 9/11. Building 7 was not struck by an aircraft; it collapsed due to the structural impacts of an uncontrolled office contents fire, ignited by debris from the Twin Towers.

The most important engineering lesson of the 9/11 collapses is that in order to ensure the safety of occupants (and property) in ever taller and more optimized and sustainable tall buildings, the potential impacts of uncontrolled fires need to be explicitly considered during the structural design process. These impacts need to be considered with the same care as earthquakes and wind. The engineering community has the technical knowledge to begin to do this, yet it is still not required by building codes and happens only very rarely in practice. While changes in escape stair width, firefighter communication systems, and the addition of skybridges (all noted by Mr Lamster) can only improve life safety in tall buildings, they do nothing to prevent structural collapse due to fire.

It is both sad and worrying that the structural engineering community has, with a few notable exceptions, failed to understand the full significance of the events of 9/11 for the design of tall buildings. We have vividly seen what uncontrolled fires can do to tall buildings yet we continue to design them using decades old, outdated knowledge. In addition to the measures noted in Mr Lamster's article, preventing another 9/11 requires that the structural engineering and architecture communities own up to this reality and take the necessary actions.

Perhaps Scientific American should consider publishing an article highlighting the significant and considerable technical progress in structural fire engineering being made by engineers around the world.

Kind regards,

Dr Luke Bisby
Senior Research Fellow in Structures in Fire
The University of Edinburgh

NOTE: Mark Lamster's original Scientific American article is available here

Role of Codes and Standards in FSE Education

2011-09-21T11:10:00.002+01:00

Kathleen Almand, executive director of the Fire Protection Research Foundation, recently wrote an interesting article on the role of codes and standards in education.

Kathleen was one of the participants in the LRET/UoE Global Technical Leadership Seminar in Fire Safety Engineering.

Letter to the Editor of Scientific American

2011-09-18T18:30:00.000+01:00

(Email sent on Thur 15 Sep 2011 to editors@sciam.com)

Dear Editor of Scientific American,

Your September issue included the piece "Castles in the Air" by MarkLamster where the failed prophecy that the attacks of 9/11 were to endthe age of the skyscraper is discussed.

The article highlights that 2011 will be the single greatest year forthe construction of tall buildings in history. That China is leading theskyscraper boom, yet their engineering design is dominated by Americanfirms.

The article discusses design issues on evacuation. But the World TradeCenter was designed to evacuate rapidly, and so both towers WTC1 and 2did below the impact floors on 9/11. WTC7 was alsoevacuated in time.

The article also discusses design issues on aircraft impact. But theWorld Trade Center was designed to withstand the impact of a largeaircraft, and so both towers WTC1 and 2 did on 9/11. They collapsedbecause of fire. WTC7 was not hit by an aircraft, but collapsed due to fire as well.

The article goes to imply that the design of tall buildings forprotection against terrorist attacks is mostly about aircraft impact andevacuation. It does not discuses fire. But WTC 1, 2 and 7 collapsedbecause of fire. So they only issue that is not addressed in the article is the one thatbrought World Trade Center down, and the one where design advances overthe past decade have been most marginal.

This is a thin favour to fireengineering and to the safety of tall buildings.

Sincerely,

--
*Dr Guillermo Rein*
Senior Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering
University of Edinburgh
http://www.eng.ed.ac.uk/~grein

"so easy it seemed, Once found, which yet unfounded most would have
thought, Impossible!" J Milton

UPDATE Sept 2011: This letter was followed by two more from Dr Bisby and Hilditch

UPDATE Dec 2011: The letter of Dr Bisby has been published in the December 2011 issue of Scientific American.

Introduction to Optimization course delivered by Visting Scholar

2011-09-14T02:00:00.000+01:00

Dr Jimenez starting the second day of the course

Dr Jesus Jimenez, Lecturer in Computational Mechanics at ICAI School of Engineering, Madrid, delivered in August a short course on optimization to the School of Engineering at the University of Edinburgh. The course content covered both classical and metaheuristics methods, providing an overview of most important methods and going in detail to explain simplex and genetic algorithms.

It was attended by 19 people from all engineering disciplines, mostly PhD students but also postdocs and three academics.

Dr Jimenez was a Visiting Scholar hosted by the BRE Center for Fire Safety Engineering. The course and his one-month visit were funded by the European Union.

One good book deserves another

2011-09-09T21:40:00.006+01:00

Dr Frank Rushbrook CBE visited our labs today. That's the 'Rushbrook' Fire Laboratory, which he helped establish. While he was with us, I asked him to sign a copy of his book "Fire Aboard" (3rd Edition), which he gladly did.

And then Prof Dougal Drysdale appeared and gave Dr Rushbrook a copy of the 3rd Edition of his book "An Introduction to Fire Dynamics" which he autographed for him.

[Thanks to Patricio Becerra for the photos]

Was it worth it?

2011-09-07T14:51:00.016+01:00

April had come to an end, classes were done and what was left to do was to mark exams. Final year students had handed their thesis and finally I could see the light at the end of the tunnel. This was a particularly hard term for me, my last one as Head of Institute, with both the Structural and Fire Engineering and International Masters courses running at full steam, our biggest group of Structural Fire Safety Engineering undergraduates and a very intense week of thinking about education with the LRET Seminar. My summer was saturated and very poorly planned, in less than 3 months I had to fly more than 80,000 miles (I will spare you the details) with critical commitments throughout the summer. Thus, the end of the term was the last time I had to take a deep breath before I had to sink under the water again and hold my breath until September.

It is then, the end of April, when two of my final year undergraduate students (Alex Duffy and Phil Close) approached me with what they called “a crazy but very exciting idea.” I have to say that I agreed to see them hoping that all they wanted was to have a nice chat. I had enjoyed more than one of those chats with both of them, these were all interesting and very enjoyable nevertheless way too lengthy (mostly my fault...I get carried away when students are willing to listen to me).

They showed up with drawings for “The Temple.” Alex and Phil had just got involved in supporting the fire aspects of the design of “The Temple” for “Burning Man.” They were seeking for technical support from me.

For those of you who know me and “Burning Man” you will immediately conclude that there is nothing more distant from my “life philosophy” than “Burning Man.” For those of you who know me but do not know of “Burning Man” I will suggest you Google it so that you can come to the conclusion that “Jose Torero” and “Burning Man” do not belong in the same sentence. For those of you who do not know me, just believe me, I do not engage with nature, I support repressing your feelings, I actively engage in suppressing any form of counter-culture and I am convinced that the generation of 1968 and the Hippies are the source of selfishness and greed that is the basis of the inevitable demise of the Western cultural model.

As Alex put it “this will be the biggest and most impressive Temple ever built,” it represents the “transient nature of life” and thus the way it burns has to “reflect the evolutionary nature of life.” The final statement: “It'll be intense, but it’s a once-in-a-lifetime experience!” On top of the magnitude and complexity of the task, the architectural design was already completed, the structural design was well advanced and the burn date was set to Sunday, September 4th. As you can imagine, given my commitments, my state of mind, the imminent deadline and the nature of the project this was the last thing I wanted to do.

Furthermore, undergraduates are the source of the greatest ideas but not necessarily have the experience or skills to develop them, thus the prospect of yet another unmanageable commitment was quite obvious from the onset.

I have to say that the only reason why I agreed to be involved was because I do not know how to say NO, especially to students. They are the one and only reason why I am in a University and they bring to me the energy that many times is the one thing that keeps me going. I feel I owe them, so I cannot say no. I took a deep breath and said fine...“but you have to do all the work! I can answer your questions, give you ideas but I am in no position to drive anything...” they obviously agreed, so we were ON, but... deep in my mind all I wanted to do was to run as far away as possible from this project.

As it happens, when you panic you enlist someone to help you, so I asked Luke (structural support) to come to the next meeting. I could have enlisted other people but I was truly ashamed of asking, I did not feel that I had the right to waste anyone else’s time in such insanity. Just to further overwhelm me, Luke took less than 10 seconds to fully empathise with Alex and Phil and before I could utter a word he was suggesting that the burning rates should be controlled in a manner such that the growth and decay of an individual’s life was reproduced by the rate of burning and the ultimate rate of collapse of the different components of the structure representing each stage of life. I am trying to paraphrase him, but his thoughts were so fluid and were expressed in such a natural way that I would never be able to repeat what he said! At that point I finally understood what I had got myself into...

The building design was consistent with the magnitude of the “metaphysical vision” – needless to say, seeing the first drawings was not comforting experience. First of all, it is massive (about 10 storeys high) and it is quite intricate. As can be seen from the sketch there is a main structure surrounded by 5 smaller structures all linked by cloisters and bridges. Each smaller structure represents a stage of life finally uniting in the central structure that somehow represents the union that is life itself...If you want to know more about this check Alex & Phil’s website (http://burningmen.weebly.com/index.html)...as you can imagine all this entered through one ear and left through the other so fast that it has left no trace, thus don’t believe anything I am writing, check their website, I am sure they have it right. The one thing that remained was the magnificent magnitude of the engineering challenge.

Alex and Phil were serious, it only took a couple of names from me and they did all the rest. They got money to buy cameras, they convinced the Principal of the University of Edinburgh to pay for Phil’s plane ticket (Thank you Prof. O’Shea! – At the end Phil unfortunately could not come – he was truly missed) and got started with true engineering work.

We had a couple of meetings and exchanged several e-mails concluding that the only way of controlling fire growth was to open the cavities inside the walls in a strategic manner so that the fire propagation will be managed in a manner that could be insensitive to wind (another factor – the place where the event is held (Black Rock City – Nevada) is well known for sudden and violent sand storms that can happen without warning). We will play with the connections and controlled reduction of the cross section of some of the structural elements to control the rate of collapse – I know that anyone reading this that has worked with fire in timber structures is probably already including me within the pack of lunatics self-labelled “the burners” (this is burning man lingo for those attending “the burn”) – but, for your comfort, I was as sceptical of our capability to master uncertainty as you probably are – more so when Alex told me that the person in charge of fire safety was a self-trained man who called himself Dave-X!

Well, Phil and Alex took the idea and with the help of Michal (thanks Michal!) developed a series of tests where they demonstrated how you could control the spread rate by varying the size and location of the openings. Needless to say, this was just done with a single panel under our lab hood, very far from the reality of a 10 storey temple but truly instructive.

E-mails continue to come and go. We discussed the structural details, connections, ignition sources, etc. You can see from the pictures below that there was a lot of effort and detail nevertheless the nature of the building was truly a challenge.

It was at this point (mid June) that I decided that I should attend the burning of the temple. I thought that although it will be very difficult to arrange all the logistics and “Me” being a part of the “Burning Man” was by every possible measure wrong, I was so impressed and motivated by Alex and Phil’s commitment that I decided I will give it a try. I wanted to be there with them to see the outcome of their effort.

So, to make a long story short, I had to cancel a meeting in Australia, had to change my plane ticket to come back from Australia through the USA, rearrange my arrival in Lausanne (where I was heading afterwards) and numerous other things that I will not bore you with. At each stage I was wrestling with subconscious forces that insisted that I should not go. The truth is that it did not make any sense.

In my struggle and “self-inflicted” ignorance I confused the burning of “The Man” with the burning of “The Temple” thinking that both will happen on the Saturday (“The Man” burns on Saturday, “The Temple” on the Sunday). So when I got an e-mail from Alex that opened with the following line: “Firstly...the Temple burn is the Sunday night! I truly hope that doesn't conflict with the travel plans you've arranged!” I flipped. What an understatement! I not only had to rebook all tickets with the associated hassle and cost but once again rearrange my already messed up schedule.

My subconscious did not stop playing tricks on me. Next thing I forgot was to buy the ticket....panic e-mails came from Phil and Alex indicating that “Burning Man” was sold out for the first time in history. Replies from me followed saying that I will pay “almost” whatever it takes for a ticket. This resulted in Alex finally finding a ticket for me. I am £270 poorer but the photo below did bring happiness to me when it arrived. That ticket was my ticket and now I was going to “Burning Man” – for God sake what was I thinking!

So, I left Sydney on September 2nd and after almost 20 hours of flight, two connections, a day change and 7 hours time difference I arrived in Reno. Not good, Reno and its airport are a sad example of “Casino Culture” that I find deeply unappealing, especially when I do not know what time or day it is. Got my bag and got the keys for my car rental. Things got a bit better when I saw the upgrade Avis gave...the American version of the convertible roadster...a decapitated Chrysler! Nevertheless, given the blue skies and the thirty something degrees, the gesture brought back life to my body...thank you Avis!

I decided to split the trip in two, I was afraid of falling asleep while driving and I did not want to get lost in the desert at night. So, I drove for an hour and crashed in a nondescript hotel next to Route 80. It was 7:45 pm when I arrived, I fell asleep at about 8:15 pm and was bright awake by 11:45 pm... the wonders of jet lag. A combination of reviewing a paper draft, some work on Fire Safety Journal and answering the 300 e-mails that had arrived while I was travelling brought me to 7:30 am when I went to the supermarket to buy supplies and a coffee. Supplies? Seriously... what do you bring to the desert? So I got olives, tortilla chips, baby bells and about 100 litres of water. The rules I used were, does not need to be kept cold and I do not need cutlery to eat it. In any case, it will not be the first time I survived 36 hours without eating. So with my supplies and a giant “Americano” I jumped on the headless Chrysler on my way to the “Burning Man.”

The road is quite remarkable. Is about 2 hours of amazing scenery and towns with strange names “Nixon,” “Empire,” etc. The highlight was Pyramid Lake. I could not avoid taking a picture from the convertible. Not very good, but makes the point of the scenery and the emptiness. Finally, I arrived and went straight to “will call,” where Alex said my ticket will be. The ticket was not there! All I had was a picture of Alex with my ticket! Despite the fact that everyone seemed to know Alex, he could not be found among the 60,000 people at the camp. So, believe it or not I resorted to Dave X, they paged him and he replied, “yes, let the Professor from Ireland in!” Isn’t it ironic?

What comes after is an experience that unfortunately I am not talented enough to describe with words. So please forgive me if I do not manage to convey the true magnitude of the place. Hopefully the photographs will do a better job. I will just point to a few landmark events.

Courtesy of Alex, I happen to be staying at “Camp Armageddon.” A collection of interesting characters that included a Stanford high power graduate reconverted into an organic blueberry farmer in Chico (California), an ex Marine now running a non profit that helps people build houses out of bales of hay and Alex’s father. My years teaching at Universities have generated a natural dislike for student parents and true disdain for “reconversion,” the term “organic” and especially sentences that mix the words “renewable” with “non-profit.” Thus I was set for a true psychological challenge.

When I thought that things could not get worse, a camp across the street started blasting heavy metal music – it was indicated to me that they had been assigned the time slot from 13:00 – 14:00. Exactly at 2:00 pm the music stopped and was replaced by Alex singing Elvis tunes with a ukulele – despite my apprehensions for “The King” and the “ukulele” it was a welcome relief.

I was taken by the hosts to the dress-up room provided with a feather head piece that would have made my Inca ancestry envious and delivered to this post apocalyptic real life recreation of the world of Mad Max.

Alex brought us to “The Temple” which looked much more impressive than in any of the diagrams I had seen. It was not only massive but it was ornamented by deeply personal messages that people had written for them to burn in some form of a cathartic gesture. In the centre some sort of “Voodoo meets Buddha” rituals were being performed supported by the rhythm of African drums. I have to say, I am generally completely indifferent to these practises, nevertheless, my self-control was tested when 3 naked men tightly hugged as they screamed a consistent message. This act was a means to break free from the emasculation that society brings on the modern man. My attitude changed from total disdain to absolute bewilderment.

The work done on “The Temple” was remarkable. Alex had managed to bring most of the ideas he and Phil had discussed with me into practise. “The Temple” had just become the first real scale test of the impact of cavity compartmentation on the growth of a fire in a timber building. This is a subject of great controversy on which rests the fire safety of timber buildings.

The night changed the flavour of the camp, nudity was substituted by flamboyant feather boas and faux-fur outfits that could be the envy of any fashion victim. The sanctity of the nudity and the prayer was substituted by loud music, screaming and fireworks leading to the burning of “The Man.” The party had begun.

A man approached me, claimed being an anthropologist and asked me what I thought about life after death. As you might suspect, my answer was not what he expected. If I would have been given some warning I would have probably given him an answer that hid the simplicity of my mind, but I had no time to reflect on my story. My candid answer rewarded me with a coin, black on the one side symbolizing death and white on the other side with a Hebrew inscription symbolizing the eternity of life. The coin was intended to be a reminder of how far I still need to travel to achieve enlightenment. Point well taken!

A further reward came as a statement: “Embrace Burning Man because you are witnessing the creation of a new social order.” By the end of that night I had concluded that “Burning Man” was a reproduction of the existing social order in a context where everyone could simply be a more radical version of themselves. The power of anonymity!

Unfortunately I was deeply unprepared. The boot of the car was full of suits and ties (highly inappropriate) and the only shirt I had was an old Berkeley T-shirt. It was pointed to me by many of the “brothers” that those were symbols of society imposed cast systems that were not welcomed at “Burning Man.” Fortunately, I did not get the message until it was too late, because otherwise I might have felt compelled to adopt the more appropriate attire that consisted of nothing. That would have probably been offensive to the rest of the “burners.” My unpreparedness was so extraordinary that I did not realize that given the 1000 m altitude the temperature drastically drops at night, so while the days are terribly hot, the nights are cold. The dress-up room provided me with some colourful fabrics that enabled me to circulate at night without being cold. Sleeping was a different story, after more than 48 hours without sleeping I finally retired to the car at 2:00 am. By 5:00 am, and after turning the car on for heating 10 times, I was up and out facing what was still a roaring party.

Alex and I left at 7:30 am, after the morning yoga session, back to “The Temple.” It is important to highlight one of the most interesting yet artificial premises of this group. There are certain “good rules” that are continuously overemphasized. Respect is one of them, I did not ask to do yoga, and thus no pressure or offer was extended to me. My space was respected. Affection is another one, brothers and sisters will greet with extreme affection in a choreographed manner that made a simple hand shake feel like a crime. Garbage control was an omnipresent one, while smoking is respected, people collected the ashes and cigarette butts as if they were precious gems. It leaves you wondering where the ashes of the first “non-Burning Man” cigarette will end ... on the floor?

At “The Temple” the worshipers were politely being driven out of the safety perimeter so that the work could commence. We went through a final analysis to attempt circumventing some of the constraints imposed by different external variables. I met some of the crew including the resident pyrotechnics expert. This individual seemed to derive way too much enjoyment from his work. I have to say that I left a bit restless. The indiscriminate used of “mild explosives” and “accelerants” could overrule any natural burning features. I came back twice again that day and my concerns continue to increase. The amount of fuel that was being added (in the form of anything that will sustain a flame) was quite overwhelming. I guess a big fire had to be guaranteed and once again, technical knowledge and a “natural” fire were secondary. It reminded me so much of the Dalmarnock tests, where we were trusted only until the critical moment. When the primordial objective is to be attained, the gut feeling of the “shaman” is more trustworthy than the knowledge of the “wise man.”

Sunday night “The Temple” looked glorious, the dust lifted by a mild breeze gave it a truly extraordinary look. People gathered around the temple with a sombre attitude. This posed a striking contrast with the party atmosphere of the previous night. Having been almost entirely deprived of sleep for almost 100 hours, the quiet and sombre nature of that evening suit me well.

The fire was simultaneously started in all five satellite buildings. From the onset you could clearly identify a sequence of growth, with the spread rates decaying in an anti-clock wise manner. Very rapidly the central tower started to burn with the flames spreading upwards at a colossal speed. In a matter of seconds the entire central tower was engulfed in flames (my feeling was that the in-house pyromaniac had given it way too much juice). The fire was so intense that at 100 m (safety perimeter) the radiative heat was close to the threshold of pain. At some point I almost stood up and started walking backwards but given that I was in the front row, it would have probably not been a wise idea to encourage others to start moving away. With great difficulty I controlled myself and managed to wait until the fire started to decay. Massive firebrands were being lofted, but in the almost absence of wind, they were falling straight back to areas were the fire was smaller. The smaller temples burned in the correct sequence (although I thought it should have been clock wise) with the collapses happening in a sequential manner as originally planned.

Unfortunately I had to leave immediately after. Believe it or not I had not had enough! It took more than three hours to get out of the camp and another three hours to drive back to the same hotel where I stayed on Friday. The time of arrival was 4:30 am, the time of departure of the first of my three flights was 9:00 am. Wake up time was 6:00 am. It is Monday now and I am sitting in planes on my 20 hour trip back to Europe hoping that at some point I will compensate for the 130 hours of sleep deprivation.

How can I summarize all this... did “Burning Man” change my life? Most definitely not! Was “Burning man” a good technical experience? Most definitely yes! Both from the physical and sociological sides. I have seen what would probably be the biggest fire I will ever see, I have explored the role of cavities, I have seen the potential consequences of a timber building fire, I have revisited the roles of the technical expert and that of the artisan, confirming once again that one of the strongest determining factors in our field is that relationship – the “shaman” vs. “the fire safety expert,” “the fire fighter” vs. “the engineer.” The technical expert always looses! Until we understand that dynamic we will have a hard time making progress!

From a personal side, I have confirmed that I have deeply engrained prejudices. Rightfully so sometimes but completely unjustified other times. Every minute of my 36 hours in “Burning Man” showed me that it requires deep thinking to purposely confront social structures, boldness and posturing are only thin masks of shallow social subversion that weakly cover conformism. Thus my prejudices in that sector are just reinvigorated. In contrast I have to say that I truly enjoyed the company of Ben, Alex’s father, he emerged as a deeply intellectual individual that had mastered the art of engaging, observing, learning and teaching in a manner such that it all simply appears natural. He made me reflect on that stage of parenting that evolves from guiding a child to delivering an adult. Like him, many of the people I met were probably more than what I expected them to be. My prejudices were truly unfounded and I am very sorry for that.

One final, but most important lesson I learnt. When asked to be involved and I did not say no, I did not realize what I was doing. I was allowing myself to enjoy my work. I was engaging with work in a manner that was consistent with the reasons why I chose this profession, thus I was deriving pleasure out of work. The big lesson... this is what I am supposed to do!

It is the students with their energy, their free spirit and their imagination that allow us to engage in remarkable activities. It has made me reflect back on the highlights of my career, that it was not me but Maria who encouraged me to save a derelict museum, it was actually Adam who first suggested that I should convince the BBC to film a documentary while we burned a skyscraper, it was Sam and Johan who instigated exploding an oxygen enriched building at 5000 metres above sea level and it was Alex and Phil who told me I should be involved in “Burning Man,” I am most grateful to all of these former students, but in this occasion especially to both of you, Thank you!

Alex promised me in his last message (before I arrived): “I'm confident you'll love it out here :)” and I did. Would I ever come back to “Burning Man” maybe ... but for different reasons, with a different objective and definitely more aware of what I am doing.

Was it worth it? ... Totally worth it!

Before the BP Blowout

2011-09-06T23:20:00.001+01:00

Just 5 months before the Deepwater Horizon oil platform caught fire and sank in April 2010, there was a frighteningly similar (although largely undocumented) incident off the coast of Western Australia. The Montara oil rig seen here (photos) suffered what is known in the oil industry as a ‘blowout’, where oil and gas flowed uncontrolled from the reservoir below, creating the worst oil spill in Australian history.

The rig operators spent 10 weeks trying to plug the leak before the escaping hydrocarbons caught fire on 2nd November 2009. No one was killed; a report published following an investigation of the incident explains why:

“No-one was injured or killed as a result of this incident. It has to be said that this is more good luck than good management and that, if the blowout had ignited immediately, the result could have been similar to the Deepwater Horizon incident which resulted in 11 fatalities and many injuries.”
Hayes, 2011.

Not exactly reassuring. The report went on to highlight a string of procedural failures that led to the eventual fire. One such failure concerned the Pressure Containing Corrosion Caps (PCCCs), which are used during the drilling process to plug the hole and prevent the oil flowing back up the drilling pipe. Even thought the design of the well included two such caps, only one was actually installed (despite the manufacturer's warnings that this would be insufficient).
Furthermore, during drilling the rig workers pump a slurry known as ‘mud’ into the well to lubricate the drill and balance the hydrostatic pressure of the rock formation (the pressure from the mud being pumped down must be greater than the pressure of the formation or there will be flow back up the pipe, causing a blowout). But perplexingly, the pressure difference was not monitored by the rig workers. The report states that:“In the case of Montara, it seems to have been assumed by everyone involved that the well was overbalanced but this was not the case.”

It would appear that various stages of mismanagement, cut-corners and poor practice eventually led to the blowout and subsequent fire on the Montara oil rig. A true example of ‘design-by-disaster’, this investigation will be used to upgrade rules and procedures and instigate necessary changes in legislation - a move that may well increase safety in the Australian oil industry.
But I fear this will not solve the problem. After all, oil companies in Australia and elsewhere are already subject to strict safety regulations and must conform to local procedures before, during and after drilling. So it would appear that lack of legislation and regulation is not the problem.
Perhaps it is the fault of the tools and systems used by the drilling contractor? This is also unlikely, as modern drilling systems contain multiple redundancies that, if used correctly, should prevent any blowout from occurring.

Just 5 months later the Deepwater Horizon suffered a similar blowout, and although the circumstances were very different, the root cause appeared to be the same: Human error. It seems that both the Montara disaster and the Deepwater Horizon could have been prevented if rules had been followed and/or people had understood what they were doing.

So if the regulations and technical systems are indeed up to standard, oil companies seeking to improve safety should seek to reduce human error. One option is to create and enforce new rules (and remove responsibility from employees) or educate employees to understand the risks and subsequent need for safety procedures.

The $250M Montara rig, after the fire

If oil companies choose to create and enforce new rules they must focus on training. Employees must be taught to conform to the new rules and learn that rule breakers will be punished with disciplinary action. There are two major issues with this approach:
1 - Employees do not need to understand why the rule is there, just that they must obey it. To break the rule is to risk being punished; the implied risk to personal safety is not necessarily understood.
2 - If employees encounter a real situation for which they have not been specifically trained, they will be unable to react. If the rules are followed this should never happen; if the rules are followed.

Alternatively a company could educate employees to understand the risks and the resulting safety procedures. This could be done first by establishing a purpose - a desirable outcome - in this case: to prevent a blowout. Initially, rig workers could be encouraged to identify ways in which a blowout could occur, familiarise themselves with the problem and offer preventative measures (including ones they construct themselves). Only after employees have established the problem and attempted to solve it using their own methods should the company train them in additional, standard procedures and tools that have been shown to achieve the same result. In this way, employees learn to use safe methods and understand the underlying reasoning.

The Montara and Deepwater Horizon blowouts demonstrate that, even with extensive safety regulations and procedures in place, the responsibility for ensuring safety still lies with the individuals involved. If safety is to be improved proactively, rather than design-by-disaster, and if the industry is to contain responsible individuals who respect safety procedures then there needs to be a system of education that promotes understanding, not just compliance.

I wonder how many more catastrophes it will take for industry to realise this.

FIRESEAT: The science of suppression

2011-09-05T12:12:00.003+01:00

Join us in Edinburgh on 9th November this year for a one day symposium on 'The Science of Suppression'. Online registration now open. Click the image above or visit www.fireseat.org for more information.

Behind the scenes at the end-of-festival fireworks

2011-09-03T14:26:00.000+01:00

On Thursday I had the chance to look at the impressive amount of work that goes on to create the firework display to mark the end of the Edinburgh International Festival. The display is set to live music (this year it's a feast of Glinka, Sibelius, Borodin, Nielsen and Tchaikovsky) using Edinburgh Castle as a backdrop.

This year, like many before, the fireworks are designed by Keith Webb from Pyrovision and he was kind enough to show us a bit of what goes on. The first thing that becomes apparent is the sheer scale of the display. There were fireworks everywhere!

Fireworks.

More fireworks.

Even more Fireworks

Some of the fireworks are mounted to create directional displays.

And this is only half - it is replicated on the other side of the castle!

We heard about how the display is planned to fit in with the music and how the use of computer firing means they can incorporate fancier sequences in the display. Surprisingly (at least for me), most of the firing is still done manually to make sure it is in time with the live music. This is what a firing board looks like:

Firing board. It has a lot of buttons.

It's a high-tech operation deserving of its own control room. This is where they plan, rehearse and manage the operation/tangle of wires.

Control room with maps of the castle, the sequence of the display.

Two fire extinguishers ought to be enough.

Unfortunately, time was limited and I have a few more questions that I would like to have asked Keith.

How do you get the cross/heart shaped fireworks?
What is the biggest firework in the show?
How do you time the actual firework explosion to the music?

Keith, if you are out there, please leave a comment.

The fireworks display is this Sunday evening at 9pm.

A short history of the Dalmarnock building

2011-08-29T10:51:00.006+01:00

In 2006, the BRE Centre for Fire Safety Engineering were involved in a series of large fire tests in a tower block in the Dalmarnock area of Glasgow. For details click here.

Did you know…?

A short history of the Dalmarnock building block before and after the Fire Tests.

The area of Dalmarnock was once heavily industrialised¹. Sir William Arrol & Co. had its extensive engineering works there from 1873. From its beginnings in boiler making, the firm later became renowned for its achievements in the field of Structural engineering. Amongst the many bridges constructed throughout Britain by this firm, were the Forth Railway Bridge and Forth Road Bridge, the Humber Bridge and London's Tower Bridge. The company was eventually taken over by Clarke Chapman in 1969 and the Dalmarnock Works closed in 1986.

During the Second World War, the east side of Summerfield Street was bombed. Consequently, as part of the GEAR (Glasgow East Area Renewal) which took place during the '60s and '70s, most of the Victorian red-sandstone tenements from the neighbouring area were demolished, some were renovated, and a new housing scheme was built. The latter consisted of four 23 storey tower blocks and ‘H-block’ maisonettes.

The quartet of 23 storey tower blocks on the Millerfield estate in the south eastern corner of Dalmarnock, Glasgow, was formed by: 4², 40³ and 50⁴ Millerfield Road together with 131⁵ Allan Street. Approved in Phase 1 of the Summerfield project in 1962, construction was carried out by Laidlaw using the Prometo method. The design was by local architects, Parry & Hughes. The buildings were completed in 1964 and contained 132 flats each. Although initially popular with residents for being a vast improvement on the slums that predated post war development, lack of investment and maintenance made the block unpopular and the building housed fewer and fewer tenants.

In a massive regeneration effort to turn Dalmarnock into a potential Commonwealth 2014 Games village, the 4 tower blocks together with twelve maisonettes were demolished in different phases. On Sunday the 3rd of February 2002 at 11 AM, both 40 and 50 Millerfield Road blocks were demolished. They were the first high-rise demolition since a woman was tragically killed in 1993 as she watched the ill-planned implosion of Queen Elizabeth Square. The operation cost Glasgow City Council £1.2m to hire Yorkshire-based Controlled Demolition Group Ltd. Despite doing their best to keep the blow down secret, a small crowd had gathered to watch, but this time none of them were injured.

In January 2005, the decision was made by the Glasgow Housing Association to demolish 131 Allan Street. This came after the two other blocks in the scheme had been demolished 3 years before. All residents were rehoused by August 2006, with East End Community Homes doing their best to accommodate them all within the Dalmarnock/Bridgeton area, although the building was well below capacity. After almost a year preparation, the tower block was blown down in just 5 seconds by Safedem of Dundee and John F. Hunt using 85kg of explosives on the 5th of July 2005.

4 Millerfield Place was the one used for the Dalmarnock Fire Tests⁵ and the last to be demolished. Complications with preparing the building for demolition prevented it from being imploded in late-February 2007 as planned. There’s a version saying that “this was possibly as a result of an experiment into high rise fires conducted by the University of Edinburgh in 2006 affecting the structure's stability”. At 11 AM on the 9th of September 2007, this last block was finally demolished, leaving the entire Millerfield estate empty and awaiting new development which is ongoing by now.

The following is an interesting comment from a former tenant of one of these flats⁶: “I was there when the third multi-story was demolished, same as I was there when the first two came down, it was so sad for all of our families who have moved out of the area and the ones who still live in Dalmarnock as most of them spent their childhood days going to Springfield School in Allen St, if they didn't live in the flats they had friends and family who did. Dalmarnock was always a great place to live, I raised my family in the 70/80s. What a community we were in those days, I am always proud to say my son's came from Sunnybank St. Dalmarnock, getting back to the high flats, I remember in the winter months taking my lads to primary school in Allen St and taking the shortcut through the Millerfield flats, the wind was so strong it would blow us off our feet. I know Dalmarnock is going to be a brilliant place for the Commonwealth village, fingers crossed, let all the athletes come here and see what friendship is all about.”

So as we can see after this short story, there’s a curious succession of events specifically related to the high-rise used for the tests: the area was originally part of a structural engineering firm – notably the one that built both Forth Bridges – then came the very well known Dalmarnock Fire Tests, and finally ending its days being demolished on a 9/11. Recapitulating: structural engineering + Forth Bridge (there’s a photo of the beautiful railway bridge decorating Prof. Torero’s office) + fire tests + 9/11… strange coincidence...? J

By Agustin Majdalani

Demolition videos (131 Allan Street and 4 Millerfield Place):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=-HzNwoWwEfQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeObBJjB8Xs&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HzNwoWwEfQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BteoagqYYFI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VunUSR5znd8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jB4g5rZtL4c&feature=related

Demolition photos:

http://www.gha.org.uk/content/mediaassets/Millerfieldgallery/millerfield/index.htm

Holly Smith receives JM Lessells Travel Scholarships from Royal Society of Edinburgh

2011-08-26T10:34:00.010+01:00

The Royal Society of Edinburgh has awarded a JM Lessells Scholarship to the fire group PhD student Holly Smith.

Holly will spend two months at the Department of Civil Engineering, Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada. She will be examining methods of using digital image correlation in support of her PhD work on shear failure of concrete structures during fire, which is supervised by Dr Tim Stratford. This technique has only recently been applied in structural engineering by Dr Andy Take of Queen’s University and as a consequence there are a number of challenges in its use. Her visit to Queen’s University will allow her to gain expertise from Dr Andy Take and Dr Neil Hoult, who have been extending Take’s digital image analysis methods to structural measurements and work on a post-processing technique to interpret the initial results that she has obtained from her first set of experiments. Queen’s University also has concrete structures in fire research activity, led by Dr Mark Green, and working with this group will also be very beneficial for Holly’s research.

The Endemic of the Academics

2011-08-16T14:56:00.004+01:00

IAFSS Symposium 2011 recap - personal reflections by a postgraduate student.

As a newcomer to the fire science scene (and a new member of IAFSS) I was disappointed and downhearted by the recent 2011 IAFSS symposium in Maryland. It is not to say that there weren’t some good aspects, the location and conference buildings (barring the marginal on-site student accommodation), the catering, and the welcome team were all excellent, but in general I wonder where I fit in to the field of fire safety engineering, and more importantly why I should want to.

The conference started on the Sunday with a student networking event and workshops session. Both of these I missed due to a delayed flight but if these workshops were similar to the one I attended on the following Friday morning they would have been useful and added value to the conference. This cannot be said for the reaction to the student session that I have enquired about. The student session was apparently organised as a networking opportunity for the students. There was no formal structure to the session and students were left to their own devises and allowed to mingle. This lead to the anticipated reaction of the students interacting only with the people they knew, and therefore there was little networking.

In my opinion, while the students clearly play a role in a successful networking event, a better scenario for a student session is not to network solely with other students but rather with the academics and industry professionals who are present at the conference so that enthusiasm for the sector and for scientific research could be instilled. This could have been achieved by having a student workshop where a few of the well-regarded academic/industry individuals could pose a few issues and then workshop it with the students. This would promote interaction and discussion on fire science but would also allow for people to participate as much or as little as they feel able. A session like this would add value to any conference.

The rest of Sunday was good: the welcome team were very welcoming and registration was accomplished with speed and ease. The symposium welcome reception that evening, being the first official event that I attended, was well attended and had a buzz of excitement and anticipation, as there should be at the start of any major conference, and which I easily got swept up in; this buzz, however, was emphatically swept away by the symposium’s opening keynote.

The opening keynote was, in my opinion, disjointed and virtually impossible to follow. To open a Fire Safety Science symposium by showing a six minute video of a tsunami decimating a town seems inappropriate, unless the keynote was on the dangers of tsunamis for fire safety, which it was in part and was also on risk based design. While I agree that it is good and right to honour those academics and researchers who have contributed to the field, I feel that this should not be done to the detriment of the Association or its symposia. Neither topic was covered properly, nor did either pose clear and important questions to lead to a lively and informative debate.

The opening plenary was not the only one to disappoint, but there were, in my opinion, two strong keynotes worthy of mention. The first of these was by Margaret Simonson McNamee, of SP, with her presentation on “Estimating the Impact of Fire on the Environment”. This presentation raised issues not only relevant to fire safety science but also to a major driver for many endeavours in today’s world, the environment. This issue was apparently lost on the symposium caterers, as an appalling amount of waste was produced during the symposium in terms of plastic plates, cutlery and mugs. Future symposia should demand better environmental controls from the conference venue and catering services.

The second interesting plenary was Charles Fleischmann’s keynote “Is Prescription the Future of Performance Based Design?” This lecture, although with an (intentionally?) oxymoronic title, stimulated debate, especially amongst the structural fire engineers, and generated a genuine scientific and philosophical talking point at meal times. This is one highly desirable outcome of a good plenary or keynote lecture.

Disappointing talks were not limited to keynotes. Many of the presentations did not specify the relevance of the work undertaken and had no obvious conclusions; simply summarising what had already been discussed. In several presentations the use of videos detracted from the information being presented (and in one case the presenter was silent for 2 and a half minutes because of a video). It seemed that some research was undertaken just for the sake of doing some research and the value of it was not clearly communicated to the audience.

I feel that there were also problems with the rigour of work presented, and in the research methods used, particularly in the area of evacuation modelling and analysis, which felt marginal in some cases (although I stress here that I am by no means an expert in this area). The poor-quality feel of work presented at the conference is clearly not solely the fault of the authors and presenters, but also of the scientific committee. The fact that about 50% of the papers submitted were accepted, according to the President’s presentation during the “business” meeting, seemed to be driven largely by the finances of the conference rather than the quality of the work. While this is speculation on my part, I feel that a peer reviewed conference should strive, first and foremost, to increase the quality of the work, however in this case the finances of the conference may have nullified this scientific quality control measure. I am all in favour of peer reviewed conferences; this promotes excellence. But the ambition of running three parallel sessions seems to have muddied the waters and diluted quality. I understand that sufficient funds are needed to cover certain costs, but as a charitable organisation the IAFSS must ask if the costs (and profits) of conferences should be rationalized so that financial drivers do not detract from the scientific quality of the symposia.

The above being said, the parallel sessions were run effectively and efficiently, along with the poster sessions, and so congratulations are due to the chairs of the sessions and the organising committee. There was, however, an issue with the final day of the symposium. The first four days all started at 9.00am with a keynote lecture. The last day, on the morning after the conference banquet, had only 9 talks scheduled. Unfortunately, these started at 8.30am, so it was no surprise that at 8.30am in the morning in the session in which I was presenting (which I am admittedly, slightly bitter about) there were two chairs (one of whom was drafted in last minute), the three presenters and only one other audience member. This scheduling was unfair to those who were asked to present or chair these final sessions. Future symposia should take this into account.

After I left the 2011 IAFSS Symposium, I was left wondering whether it had met the objectives of the association, as presented in the rules of the association given to every member:

“The object of the Association is to promote research into the science of preventing and mitigating the adverse effects of fires and the dissemination of the results of such research. In furtherance of this object the association will organise and support symposia and other educational activities in the field of fire safety science, publish the proceedings of such symposia (provided it shall not undertake any permanent trading activities), seek to co-operate with other organisations concerned with the application of fire safety science and do all such other lawful things as may further the objects of the Association”.

The IAFSS does focus on issues of fire safety science on the international scene, but it is the association aspect of this community that I feel is struggling somewhat. The definition of association, according to Dictionary.com is:

1. an organization of people with a common purpose and having a formal structure.

2. the act of associating or state of being associated.

3. friendship; companionship

On the first two aspects of the word, the conference delivered to some extent, and on the third aspect the working friendships and associations were well represented, but are these professional friendships actually helping or hurting the association – is the association too close? It seemed to me that we accepted the presenters’ statements and ideas, rather than being convinced by them, we did not question enough what people were saying or why they were saying it, and we did not discuss or debate enough the further implications of the work presented. Are we scared of losing our status and no longer being pioneers in the field, let alone the wider world? Do we strive to be noticed and liked rather than producing excellence in our work which might ruffle a few feathers? Are our associations with one another too polite and self-edifying? Do we need to rethink what the association is about, or are we happy with the way things stand?

Food for thought....

By David Rush

Defining the Future of Fire Safety Engineering Education

2011-08-09T15:05:00.037+01:00

The 2011 LRET/UoE Global Technical Leadership Seminar in Fire Safety Engineering

Last year, BRE Centre for Fire Safety Engineering at the University of Edinburgh secured a major grant from The Lloyd's Register Educational Trust (LRET), to hold a series of three annual week-long intensive seminars ("think tanks") in areas related to Fire Safety Engineering.

This series of seminars was motivated by the need to have a new generation of leaders in Fire Safety Engineering that can drive the field through the drastic transition it is currently experiencing. An ever evolving construction industry, drastic changes in regulatory environment, multi-disciplinary drivers for innovation, and ever increasing demands for the fire service require a new face of leadership. The seminars are intended to bring together selected leaders of today with the leaders of the future to define a coherent path for different areas of critical importance to the field.

The globally unique initiative was launched this year with The 1st Annual LRET/UoE Global Technical Leadership Seminar in Fire Safety Engineering. The seminar had the theme of "Education for the Future of Fire Safety Engineering," and was held in Scotland between 30 May and 3 June 2011. Participants were selected as key players in defining the future of advanced fire safety engineering as a professional/academic discipline.

The seminar was run as a five day retreat, delivered by the BRE Centre for Fire Safety Engineering at a residential venue close to Edinburgh. Each session began with a presentation to be given by one of the participants (see below). This initiated discussions on the relevant issues. A small group of undergraduate and graduate students, some of whose stuudies are also financially supported by The LRET, were also competitively selected to join the seminar, bringing the total number of participants to approximately 20.

The University of Edinburgh further funded a dedicated PhD student (Michael Woodrow) to support the seminar. Along with Edinburgh staff and the seminar participants, Michael will compile the outcomes of the seminar and disseminate these (with the approval of the participants) to the relevant stakeholders. Dissemination activities will include the publication of a "white paper" based on the seminar's discussions and outcomes.

All of the participants felt that the event was a great success and will lead to a number of important changes, actions, and significant progress for fire safety engineering education globally. Feedback icipants has been very positive thus far, and several participants have formulated specific personal action items within their own organizations.

Participants pose for a group photo outside the Seminar venue, Archerfield House Estate, near Gullane, Scotland. From left to right: Sarah Higginson, Michael Franklin, Ieuan Rickard, Eduardo Maciel, Michael Woodrow, David Crowder, Bjorn Karlsson, Jose Torero, Luke Bisby, Peter Johnson, David Mallin, Kathleen Almand, Chris Lawless, Thouria Istephan, Peter Sunderland, Angus Law, Agustin Majdalani, Paul Jenkins, Cristian Maluk (not shown: Neal Butterworth, Maria Garlock)

PROGRAMME AND PARTICIPANTS

The venue for the 2011 seminar was Archerfield House Estate, in Gullane, Scotland. The participants are listed in the table below, in alphabetical order:

The programme for the seminar was built around presentations on issues around fire safety, delivered by selected seminar participants. A list of the presentations is provided below:

“Why The LRET Funded this Programme”
Michael Franklin (Director, The LRET)

“The State of Fire Safety Education”
Jose L. Torero (Director, BRE Centre for Fire Safety Engineering)

“The Current Needs of Industry/Consultancy”
Peter Johnson (Arup Fire, Australia)

“The Current Needs of Architects”
Thouria Istephan (Foster + Partners, UK)

“The Swedish Model - How Sweden Implemented Change”
Bjorn Karlsson (Director, Iceland Construction Authority)

“Societal Barriers to Technological Knowledge Transfer”
Chris Lawless (Institute for the Study of Science, Technology and Innovation, University of Edinburgh)

“The Evolution of Codes and Standards”
Kathleen Almand (Director, Fire Protection Research Foundation, USA)

“Introduction to the Scottish Fire Services College and Firefighter Training in Scotland”
Gary Stewart (Programme Manager – Practical Skills, Scottish Fire Services College)

“How do we train people in the fire service today?”
David Mallin (Lothian and Borders Fire Brigade)

“Tomorrow's Needs of the Fire Service given Current Evolution in Building Design and Regulatory Processes (Knowledge, Training, and Changes in Practice)”
Paul Jenkins (London Fire Brigade)

“Structural Engineering/Architecture/Fire Safety –How are People Educated at Princeton?”
Maria Garlock (Princeton University)

“Fire Protection Engineering Education in the USA”
Peter Sunderland (University of Maryland)

“Learning Lessons from Fire Incidents”
David Crowder (BRE Fire & Security)

“Proposals for the Way Forward”
The LRET Scholars (University of Edinburgh students)

“Conclusions and Discussions on White Paper”
Michael Woodrow (PhD Candidate, University of Edinburgh) and Luke Bisby (Reader, University of Edinburgh)

HANDS-ON EXPERIENCE

Seminar participants were exposed to one full day of training and presentations at the Scottish Fire Services College, in Gullane, Scotland. Activities included introductory breathing apparatus training, hands-on flashover and flame cooling training, and a smoke movement demonstration and training exercise. This unique, practical experience was the first time that most of the participants had participated in such activities, despite most being global leaders within the fire safety community, and was a real eye-opener for everyone involved. On the back of this collaboration between the BRE Centre and the Scottish Fire Services College, discussions are underway to launch additional collaborative and joint training programmes. The most recent issue of the Scottish Fire Services College Newsletter highlights this (see link).

Seminar participants get first-hand experience at tackling real fires in buildings (training activities and photograph graciously provided by Gary Stewart of the Scottish Fire Services Training College, Gullane, Scotland)

INITIAL OUTCOMES

The discussion and ideas generated during the Seminar are being distilled and summarized in a “white paper” on fire safety engineering education. This work is being led by PhD student Michael Woodrow, in collaboration with Dr Bisby and Prof Torero, and it is expected that this will lead to the publication of an archival journal paper. Once published, this work will be circulated widely both within and outwith the fire safety engineering community. It is expected that this will catalyze further discussion on the important issue of education within the broader fire safety community.

Feedback from the applicants has been uniformly positive (see below), and in general there is a clear consensus that the Seminar provided a unique and productive opportunity to think deeply about the significant issues facing the Fire Safety Engineering discipline generally, and about the education of Fire Safety Engineers specifically.

Spontaneous correspondence and communication has occurred between several of the Seminar participants, and independent dialogue is now occurring around the issue of fire safety engineering education. The intangible benefits and possible outcomes of such ongoing communications are difficult to quantify but can only cause positive change within the fire safety community.

The International Association of Fire Safety Sciences has recently reinvigorated its Education Committee under the part leadership of 2011 Seminar participant Prof Björn Karlsson, and it is expected that the seminar outcomes will influence the actions of this committee.

PARTICIPANT FEEDBACK

“I want to say how stimulating the week at Archerfield was to me, and how beneficial it will be to the entire community of Fire Safety Engineering. It is a rare pleasure to have people from such diverse professions come together for a common cause. I learned more than I ever could have imagined. Thanks for including me in this week of stimulating discussions. I have never experienced anything like this before. It was a great experience for me and everyone there. Our entire field will be the beneficiary.”
- Dr Peter Sunderland, University of Maryland

“It was a fantastic week. Very valuable time. I think we are all very grateful to Michael (Franklin) and The LRET for the opportunity. And of course we all loved the fire training, for which we are most grateful to David (Mallin)... I think we all started to learn about the real challenges of fire fighting. Many thanks to you Luke, Jose, and all from the University of Edinburgh for all the organization. An excellent time.”
- Peter Johnson, Arup

“I want to thank you for everything you did during and before this week, I am so glad that you included me in this event. I had a great time, and I had the chance to meet great people. I want to do something in Mexico about (creating) fire engineering courses after I spend a few years learning and getting more experience in Europe, but I think this week helped me to have an idea at least on where to start and where to look for information.”
- Jorge Eduardo Maciel Franco, LRET MSc Scholar

“Thanks again so much for the opportunity to be a part of this workshop. I found it very valuable!”
- Maria Garlock, Princeton University

“Very thought provoking, the process turned my ideas on education around quite a few times and I feel more informed on the subject as a result. The company was wonderful and the surroundings too.”
- Prof Björn Karlsson, Iceland Construction Authority

THANKS

The BRE Centre for Fire Safety Engineering would like to extend our deepest thanks and appreciation to The Lloyd’s Register Educational Trust for making this unique event possible, and to its Director, Mr Michael Franklin, for his enthusiastic and active participation in the week’s activities and discussions; it is indeed rare to find a patron with such a demonstrated interest in The BRE Centre’s work.

Many thanks to all those who attended!!

Planning is already underway for the 2012 LRET/UoE Global Technical Leadership Seminar... more information will follow... stay tuned...

Dr Belcher takes Earth System Science position at University of Exeter

2011-07-25T08:00:00.001+01:00

Congratulation to Dr Claire Belcher who has got an academic position at the University of Exeter as a Senior Lecturer in Earth System Science.

She will join the College of Life and Environmental Sciences there in January 2012 to continue research on the flammable history of the Earth and plans to maintain strong links with us.

She is sorry to be leaving the FireLab but is looking forward to living in the warmer south and setting up her own research group.

NOTE: Yes, you are right. Claire has promoted directly from Research Fellow to Senior Lecturer without resting at the Lecturership level. That I see as the take off of a stellar career indeed.

PhD defense of Jamie Stern-Gottfried on Travelling Fires for Structural Design

2011-07-18T11:56:00.000+01:00

Dear All,

I’m very happy to convey the news that Jamie Stern-Gottfried has successfully defended (with flying colours) his PhD viva, “Travelling Fires for Structural Design (pdf)” this morning in Manchester.

The viva was instructive and educational for all (candidate, supervisor (Guillermo Rein), internal examiner (Luke Bisby), and even external examiner (Colin Bailey)), and Jamie has only very minor corrections to make before he can insist (as I'm sure he will!) on being called Doctor.

In the words of Prof Bailey, all of the questions were “extremely well answered” and the thesis was beautifully defended.

Congratulations to Jamie (and to Guillermo) for this novel and important piece of work!! I can only hope that Jamie’s penchant for collaboration with structural engineers continues in the future...

Luke Bisby
Internal Examiner

(sent on Fri, 15 Jul 2011)

Call for papers: Fire Technology special issue on WTC Collapse

2011-07-08T14:00:00.002+01:00

Fire Technology, the journal of the National Fire Protection Association published by Springer, is preparing an issue on the 2001 fire and collapse of World Trade Center.

The purpose is to collect research, forensic and engineering output of the highest scholarly standards synthesized in the 10 years passed since the event.

Multidisciplinary and international contributions are especially encouraged. Topics of interests include: WTC 1, 2, 5 and 7, the crash, fires, structural response, collapse, forensic conclusions, experiments, modelling, Fire and Rescue intervention, human behaviour, building design, post-collapse fires and recovery, previous attacks on WTC and related subjects.

Submissions will be accepted until 11th Nov 2011 at: http://fire.edmgr.com (choose article type "World Trace Center") .

The call for papers flyer can do downloaded here. Please spread the word, we are looking for a wide range of high quality submissions.

For further information, contact the Associate Editor of this special issue: G.Rein@ed.ac.uk, Dr Guillermo Rein, The University of Edinburgh.

A New York City fireman calls for 10 more rescue workers to make their way into the rubble of the World Trade Center. Photo form Wikipedia, United States Navy ID 010914-N-3995K-01

Ove Arup Foundation supports groundbreaking Fire Safety Initiative

2011-07-01T10:19:00.007+01:00

The Ove Arup Foundation have made a major investment to tackle the obdurate problems surrounding fire safety. Working with Edinburgh Fire Safety Engineers at the BRE Centre for Fire Safety Engineering and Architects at the University of Edinburgh, The Institute for the Study of Science, Technology and Innovation (ISSTI) will explore how to ensure the effective adoption of technical advances in the built environment.

The Ove Arup Foundation has agreed to invest £200,000 over the next 5 years in a major interdisciplinary research and knowledge transfer initiative aimed at Integrating Technical and Social Aspects of Fire Safety Engineering Expertise (ITSAFE).

"We are excited to explore new approaches to reducing risks from fire, which still kills too many people. While there have been significant technical advances in fire safety, further progress will be limited without changes in policy and regulation and in the practices and responses of professions and organisations involved and the wider public."

--Sir Duncan Michael, Ove Arup Foundation trustee and former chairman

What are the barriers to adopting the latest improvements in Fire Safety Engineering? Do existing fire safety regulations and systems inhibit the adoption of new and safer materials and techniques? Can we integrate fire safety with other goals such as building aesthetics, security and environmental sustainability? These and other pressing issues will be addressed by the ITSAFE project, which builds on an earlier Arup Foundation award which has helped to establish the world class Centre for Fire Safety Engineering at the University of Edinburgh.

The ITSAFE team – comprising Robin Williams, Stewart Russell, Donald MacKenzie, and Steve Yearley from ISSTI, Luke Bisby and Jose Torero from the BRE Centre, and Remo Pedreschi and Liam Ross from the Edinburgh School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture – will examine how changes in policy and professional practice can improve current fire safety.

ISSTI Director Robin Williams welcomed the Ove Arup Foundation's generous support:

"This reflects our success in putting together an interdisciplinary consortium, bringing together social science, fire safety engineering and architectural design, equipped to examine these complex questions".

In the coming year ITSAFE will be recruiting an ambitious scholar to lead this research programme and a PhD student to build expertise in this area. Anyone interested should contact Robin Williams at R.Williams@ed.ac.uk.

Writing a good journal paper introduction

2011-06-27T12:00:00.010+01:00

I have been serving as an Associate Editor of an international journal for over two years now. In that time I have seen over 400 papers submitted to the journal and have been responsible for ushering a percentage of them through to publication. What follows is a personal opinion and is not the opinion of any journal or publishing house.

We (the reviewers and editors) frequently guide the authors through one or more revisions to their papers before they are deemed ready for publication. For a number of papers, particularly when they were written by non-English speakers, there is a need for considerable editing of the manuscript to bring it to an acceptable standard in terms of language. I don't mind this. For many papers we require that more explanation or analysis is included in the main content of the paper. This is fine by me.

But one aspect of many papers continues to annoy me. And that is poorly constructed an uninformative introductions.

An unreasonably high number of journal paper introductions contain a section similar to this:

The [topic of interest] was first identified by Researcher et al. (year). Someone & Other (year) studied the problem in more detail. The issue was studied using computer modelling by Modeller & Geek (year). Navier & Stokes (year) compared different modelling techniques within this area. More recently Experimentalist et al. (year) confirmed the existence of the issue in a series of laboratory scale tests.

And so on. Imagine that padded out to a whole page of text. Basically just a list of names and references. The problem I have with this is all it really tells me is which papers the authors have heard of. It doesn't even tell me that the authors have read these papers. It rarely tells me what Someone & Other actually did or what their conclusions were. While these details are actually what I need to know.

This is my plea. If you are writing a journal paper, please do not write introductions like this! A good introduction only needs three elements:

A short section explaining to the non-expert reader why the topic under consideration is relevant and worthy of study, and
A section summarising the conclusions of past research into the topic. This should not be a list of names, but rather a brief discussion of facts or theories.
A very short section which explains why the methodology used in the present study was chosen and why it will provide new insights.

If you intend to work in one field for a significant period of time (e.g. you are doing a PhD) and are likely to publish several papers on related topics, then a great idea is to publish a review paper and simply refer to that in the introductions to all your other papers.

Finally, I would recommend that when you are writing a scientific paper, that you write the main content first, and then go back and write the introduction. You only need to cite papers in your introduction that are actually relevant to your study within the topic. Your introduction only needs to provide the reader with two things:

Enough information regarding previous work so that they can understand your work, in context. And,
Sufficient references to relevant publications so that the reader can tell that you know enough about the subject that your research / opinion is worthy of consideration.

So, in summary, please keep introductions short and full of content, not names. Thank you.

Water mist in tunnels - First hand experience

2011-06-24T13:43:00.011+01:00

What follows are some personal reflections on my attendance at the SOLIT2 project workshop in Gijon, Spain, on 22nd & 23rd June 2011. But first, some context.

As might be expected for somebody who has worked in Fire Safety research for over a decade, I have seen quite a few experimental fires. We regularly fire test things in our lab and I've seen plenty of fires with heat release rates in the range of 300-500 kW. I have also seen fires in our lab as big as 700-800 kW and have seen the reactions of people to fires on this scale. They generally start backing away slowly and start feeling uncomfortable, both with the level of radiant heat they start experiencing and the 'what would happen if...' thoughts that start going through their minds.

Those fires are the limit of what our lab can handle (we can go transiently to 1000 kW - that is, 1 MW - but we rarely go that big). For various reasons, I've also been witness to some larger fire tests in the burn hall at BRE, for example, I've seen a pool fire that was a little over 2 MW and a solid plastic fire that was also about 2 MW. I've stood a few metres away from such fires and know what the radiant heat feels like. 2 MW is a big fire. When we did the Dalmarnock Fire Tests a few years ago, the peak heat release rate (for an entire living room / home office on fire) was around about 5 MW. 5 MW is a big fire.

But when we start talking about design fires for tunnels, we start hearing numbers like 30 MW or 100 MW and its hard to grasp just how big a fire that means.

So when I got the opportunity to witness an alleged '100 MW pool fire' in the San Pedro de Anes test tunnel, well, how could I refuse?

The SOLIT2 workshop was held in a nice hotel in Gijon, Spain, and featured not one but two visits to the nearby TST test tunnel to witness fire tests with water mist. These were allegedly not demonstration tests, but were part of the SOLIT2 test programme, investigating the abilities of a water mist suppression system to mitigate the effects of a fire in a tunnel.

The workshop started at the hotel on Wednesday 22nd June 2011. The first presentation, by Stefan Kratzmeir of IFAB, gave the context of the SOLIT2 project - the aim is to develop and test water mist technology to either:

Achieve the same same level of safety in a tunnel with a water mist system at a reduced cost compared to other common tunnel safety systems (i.e. by installing water mist, you can 'trade-off' and reduce the specifications of other safety systems, such as structural fire protection, or ventilation systems, etc.), or
Achieve a greater level of safety in a tunnel with a water mist system at the same cost as would be spent on other systems (i.e. still trading off systems).

So it was clear from the outset, the objective of this project was to reduce costs without increasing risk. But enough on the presentations, we were rapidly shipped off to the test site to witness a large pool fire test.

The fire was not 100 MW as advertised. It was probably about 50-60 MW, which is still [insert adjective or expletive of your choice] big! The 700 l of diesel fuel was distributed across 7 large rectangular fuel pans (each at least 2 m.sq). Once lit, the fire grew rapidly in severity (as pool fires do) and soon we (the observers, standing about 45m upstream of the fire) found ourselves looking up at a layer of smoke billowing across the ceiling above us. This is the dreaded phenomenon of 'backlayering' - even though there was a longitudinal flow of about 2 m/s, it wasn't sufficient to drive the smoke away from us.

It became clear that this hadn't been an intentional part of the demonstration. Some of the Fogtec and IFAB people started looking worried. But the water mist system (spanning a stretch of 50m of tunnel straddling the fire location) was started about 90 s after ignition (I think the intention had been to start it after 60 s) and soon the backlayering began to shrink back and ultimately vanish into the mist.

What rapidly became clear was that the water mist was not extinguishing the fire. It was hard to tell from an observer's point of view, but it appeared that the water mist was also not suppressing the fire, at least, not using the dictionary definition of suppressing (which involves concepts like halting growth and reducing size). The fire appeared to burn at about the same level of severity while the water mist operated. However, what the mist achieved was a reduction in backlayering, possibly due to a reduction in smoke production, or possibly due to a reduction in the buoyancy of the smoke. The mist also provided thermal protection for the tunnel structure and (had there been anyone there) from the people in the vicinity of the fire.

After the pool fire test we were returned to the hotel for an odd lunch of nibbles and finger food and an afternoon of fairly uninteresting presentations (in which the same point was made over and over again - you can trade off other systems against water mist. OK. I get it). Apologies to the speakers, if they're reading this, it wasn't that they were all boring, it was just that I'd heard most of it before, and there was a lot of repetition.

Day 2 of the workshop featured another presentation on the findings of the SOLIT2 project and then another coach trip to the test tunnel. This time, the fire test was to involve a 'simulated truckload' - that is, lots and lots of wooden pallets, arranged in the basic shape of a HGV trailer, covered by a tarpaulin and held in place by a steel frame. The fire was lit, the fire was allowed to grow for about 4 minutes, and the water mist system was activated.

Once again, the mist did not extinguish the fire. Indeed, the fire grew from about 3-5 MW at the point of activation of the mist to about 20-25 MW while the mist was active. But in this test, we (the observers) got the chance to put on waterproofs and approach the fire location.

Here's where the context above comes in. I know what it feels like to stand about 2 m away from a 1-2 MW fire. I now know what it feels like to stand about 2 m away from a 15 MW fire (the size when I approached the fire) in water mist. It feels more or less the same. That is, the radiant heat from a 15 MW fire is attenuated by the mist to such a degree that its similar to the heat flux from a fire a tenth of the size without mist.

And I also know just how wet you get in water mist.

And how good the visibility was. That surprised me. Standing beside the wall on one side of the tunnel, I could clearly see the way-finding lights on the opposite wall. In other words, visibility was still of the order of 10 m.

After about half an hour of burning, the fire brigade were sent in to extinguish the fire. This they could do easily. After this we saw another demonstration of a portable mist system on a burning car (in the open air) and were returned to the hotel for another odd lunch of nibbles and a final summing up session.

So I now have first hand experience of what water mist systems can do for fires in tunnels. They can block heat and reduce smoke production / backlayering.

I have published quite a lot on the subject of the limitations of water mist in the past. Has this experience changed my mind? Well, yes and no.

Yes, in that I now consider heat release rate to be a largely irrelevant parameter when assessing the life safety situation in a tunnel with an active water mist system.

No, in that the workshop still has not addressed some of my other questions, the primary one being 'are water mists systems better than conventional sprinkler systems for fires in tunnels?'

But I've got more to think about and more research to do. This won't be the last thing I publish on the subject of water mists.

Rory Hadden PhD defence

2011-05-28T10:08:00.002+01:00

Dear all

It is my pleasure to inform you that Rory Hadden has successfully defended his PhD thesis in the viva exam today, subject to minor editorial corrections.  His studies were supervised by Guillermo Rein and the thesis title was:

Smouldering and self-sustaining reactions in solids: an experimental approach

The external examiner was Dr.-Ing. Martin Schmidt, Head of working group on Flammable Bulk Materials and Dusts, Solid Fuels at BAM (Federal Institute for Materials Research and Testing); I was the internal.

Rory had done a great job exploring the diverse topics of smouldering combustion, from fertiliser fires and fire brand ignitions to the pervasive problems of (unwanted) underground coal and peat fires.  So there was no need to haul him over the coals ;)

Well done Rory!

Stephen

-------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Welch

Lecturer in Computational Methods for Fire Safety Engineering
SAFE MSc Course Director
IMFSE Director of Studies

100 Years Ago... The Empire Theatre Fire

2011-05-26T17:10:00.012+01:00

“On 9 May 1911 there was a disastrous fire on stage during a performance by The Great Lafayette. The theatre was full to its 3000 seat capacity for the performance by the popular illusionist. Disaster struck during the finale of his act, the “Lion’s Bride”, which involved the use of tapestries, cushions, tents and curtains to create an oriental setting.

As The Great Lafayette took his bow a stage lamp fell and ignited a st age-drape. The audience was a bit slow to recognise the danger, b eing used to Lafayette’s illusions, and only evacuat ed the auditorium after the safety curtain was rapi dly lowered, and the band struck up the National Anthem.

All 3000 members of the audience walked to safety. The fire on stage took three hours to get under control however and eleven people died, including The Great Lafayette. To add to the mystery days before Lafayette’s death he buried his much loved dog Beauty in Edinburgh. This was only allowed on the condition that he was buried alongside.

Unfortunately for Lafayette, the body of his “double”, who was used in his stage show to aid with the illusions, was buried in his place for a while before his body was found in the theatre and laid to rest with his dog. It is rumoured that his ghost still haunts the auditorium and the Scottish Power Gallery…

After the fire, the stage was rebuilt in three months, and the stars returned, but by 1927 the Empire decided to brace itself for the threat of the talkies by equipping itself for bigger shows.”

Source:

http://www.fctt.org.uk/media/pdfs/festHistory.pdf

http://www.chrishobbs.com/sheffield/greatlafayette.htm

PhD in Robust Upscaling of Smouldering Processes at University of Strathclyde

2011-05-11T14:14:00.001+01:00

A PhD studentship is available in Robust Upscaling of Smouldering Processes, with a specific focus on linking results from in situ smouldering remediation (Self-sustaining Treatment for Active Remediation or STAR) experiments in the laboratory (0.003 m^3) to field scale (3 m^3 to 300 m^3 and larger) activities. We are most interested in engineers, physicists, chemists and applied mathematicians with experience or at least a strong interest in combustion and fire sciences. This studentship is offered in partnership between the University of Strathclyde, the University of Edinburgh and the company SiREM.

Supervisor: Dr. Christine Switzer

Co-supervisors: Prof. Jose Torero, Dr. Guillermo Rein and Dr. Gavin Grant

The development of in situ smouldering combustion as a remediation technology (STAR) has emphasized small scale experimentation as a vehicle to understand the different processes involved and to optimize the relevant variables such as ignition protocol and flow rates. These tests have served as the basis under which larger scale tests have been conducted. Larger scale tests have been performed with overall success but with different levels of trial and error that has proven not only costly but having some negative effect in the overall performance. The optimized utilization of STAR in real sites needs to have a clear protocol that will help define the conditions that will best allow scaling-up of laboratory data.

Preliminary assessment of the viability of a site will always be done on the basis of small scale experiments. Definition of the details of the large scale implementation requires the inevitable scaling-up of the information obtained. This can be done via modelling but this requires a detailed understanding of the different phenomena involved. This understanding is currently not complete. An excellent source of information that can allow better understanding of the parameters differentiating small from large scale experiments is the thorough a posteriori assessment of the different large scale tests that have been conducted. While some assessment has been done, it has been mostly qualitative and it has never been directly correlated to small scale behaviour.

The proposal for this studentship is based on the need to develop the scale-up understanding from existing (and future) large scale experiments. The analysis of temperature/emissions/igniter/flow data together with the structure of excavation data will allow better understanding of the large scale tests. This information can be fed into existing (analytic and numerical) models to develop up-scaling tools. Furthermore, this information has to be linked to the wide database of small scale experimental data to try to establish an ideal protocol to use bench scale experimentation for the purpose of assessing site viability.

There is one studentship associated with this advertisement and this student will be based at the University of Strathclyde, UK. The studentship is open to individuals within the EEA only and provides a stipend of £13,590 per year. For further information, please contact Dr. Christine Switzer [mailto:christine.switzer@strath.ac.uk]

We are number 1!

2011-05-09T11:14:00.002+01:00

FireScienceDegree.com has just posted a list of the 45 best fire science blogs. And we are number 1!

Thanks!

PhD funding on subsurface fires. Earth and Natural Sciences

2011-04-20T13:34:00.001+01:00

A PhD studentship to study peat fires between University College Dublin and University of Edinburgh is available to a student of any nationality. We are most interested in engineers, physicists and chemists with a background on thermal sciences, some experience in laboratory work and an interest on Earth sciences. See below a brief description. For information and application, see PhD Programme in Earth and Natural Sciences at UCS.

Project BIO 3: Characterising the dynamics and environmental impact of subsurface
peat fires by controlled experiments

Principal Investigator: Dr Jon Yearsley (UCD) – jon.yearsley@ucd.ie
Collaborators: Claire Belcher (University of Edinburg); Guillermo Rein (University of Edinburg)

Fire is an increasing global threat to the carbon store and ecosystem services provided by peatlands (they contain 1/3 of terrestrial carbon). Peatland wildfires are extreme events that are becoming more frequent both in Ireland and internationally. Smouldering peat produces 5‐40% of annual global carbon emissions, but these are presently not accounted for by the IPCC7. They threaten the environment (e.g. habitat destruction and greenhouse gas emissions) and human health (e.g. air quality), but our understanding of these smouldering fires is poor compared to flaming fires. The core of the project will study sub‐surface peatland fire behaviour by performing experimental peat burns for a range environmental conditions. The student will develop the experimental protocol at the Centre for Fire Safety Engineering (University of Edinburgh) and then installed at UCD for the majority of the experimental manipulations. This project combines fire dynamics and Earth systems research and builds upon an existing collaboration between UCD and University of Edinburgh. The work has relevance to climate change mitigation/adaptation, managing peatland carbon stores against the risk of sub‐surface fires and the fundamental science of smouldering fire. We are looking for an outstanding student with interest in undertaking experimental research on the interface between fire dynamics, Earth systems and ecological modelling.
There is one PhD Studentship associated with this Project and will be based at UCD

Combustion technology for the remediation of soil contaminants

2011-04-19T11:16:00.001+01:00

The next IIE Seminar is on Thursday April 21 at 1 pm, AGB seminar room 3rd floor. Pizza will be served at 12.45pm.

"Self-Sustaining Smouldering Combustion for the Remediation of Organic Industrial Liquids in Soil"

by

Jason I. Gerhard (jgerhard@uwo.ca)
University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada

Abstract
Self-sustaining smoldering combustion is an innovative approach for clean-up of sites contaminated with liquid waste from industrial processes. This approach offers significant potential for the destruction of highly recalcitrant compounds, such as coal tar and petroleum hydrocarbons, for which clean-up options are currently limited and very costly.

Smoldering is the flameless combustion of a liquid or solid fuel that derives heat from surface oxidation reactions; smoldering of charcoal in a barbeque is a typical example. This research, pioneered at University of Edinburgh, was the first to demonstrate that liquid tar in soil may be effectively destroyed via smoldering. Further research has revealed that the process has the unique properties of being self-sustaining, self-targeting, and self-terminating, all of which may make it uniquely cost efficient and technically effective.

This presentation will illustrate the scientific principles behind this remediation concept, and summarize the six years of research that has been conducted to date. The results of experiments from proof-of-concept to the first in situ field pilot study will be presented. This research represents an ongoing collaboration between University of Edinburgh, University of Strathclyde, and University of Western Ontario. The technology has been licensed to SiREM, who is developing the technology under the name Self-Sustaining Treatment for Active Remediation (STAR).

Short Bio
Dr. Jason Gerhard has over 15 years of experience leading experiments and modelling for investigating organic industrial contaminants in the subsurface and their remediation. He graduated with an honours B.Sc. (Eng.) in Geological Engineering in 1993 and an M.Sc. (1995) and Ph.D. (2002) in Civil and Environmental Engineering from Queen’s University (Kingston, Ontario, Canada). From 2002, he was a Lecturer in Environmental Engineering at University of Edinburgh. Since 2007, Dr. Gerhard holds the Canada Research Chair in Geoenvironmental Restoration at The University of Western Ontario (London, Canada) in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. At Western, Dr. Gerhard is co-director of the RESTORE Group (Research for Subsurface Transport and Remediation) with more than 20 graduate students and postdoctoral fellows, 4 laboratories, and 3 field research programs.

The Twin Towers: 10 years – 10 Lessons on Sustainable Infrastructure

2011-03-14T11:58:00.017Z

On Monday 14 March 2011, Prof Jose Torero (University of Edinburgh) delivered the public lecture:

The Twin Towers: 10 years – 10 Lessons on Sustainable Infrastructure

Joint event of The Royal Society of Edinburgh and The Royal Academy of Engineering.

The collapse of the World Trade Center towers represents one of the most dramatic failures of modern structural engineering. One of the most exhaustive and expensive failure analyses in history was conducted in the midst of speculation, controversy and conspiracy theories. In parallel, the world has seen an extraordinary evolution of the super-tall building. Seven of the ten tallest buildings in the world have been built after 9/11. These not only include the tallest four, but eight of these buildings are outside the USA. Furthermore, a strong drive towards sustainability has driven tall building design to levels of innovation never seen before. This presentation will extract, from a decade of questioning and innovation, ten lessons on what is sustainable infrastructure.

A summary of the lecture and the 10 lessons can be read here

Seminars on Flame generated species, and on Amazonian Wildland fires

2011-03-04T11:40:00.001Z

The Fire Group is hosting 2 seminars next week - see details below

ALL WELCOME

--
Tuesday 8 March, at 1pm
Sanderson Classroom 3
Pizza at 12.45 in Sanderson Foyer

Speaker: Dr Johannes Kiefer, Lecturer in Chemical Engineering, University of Aberdeen

Innovative approaches for the detection of flame generated species

The detection of combustion generated species is an important task from many viewpoints. Firstly, it is essential in the field of combustion research where a major aim is to obtain information about the distribution of the fuel and oxidiser, the products, as well as transient intermediates with high spatial and temporal resolution. This allows the complex phenomena of combustion chemistry, turbulence, heat and mass transfer, and their interactions with each other to be studied. Secondly, combustion species detection is important for environmental and safety reasons, in particular in view of toxic and corrosive products that can cause severe problems when human beings or structures are exposed to them. The presentation will give an overview of recent developments in the field of optical combustion diagnostics using innovative light sources. This includes the use of novel ultraviolet light emitting diodes (LEDs) for the quantitative detection of sulphur dioxide at trace level, and the use of alexandrite lasers, which are actually well known for applications in cosmetic surgery, for imaging of flame radicals.

-
Friday 11 March, at 1pm
AGB Seminar Room

Speaker: Dr Saulo Freitas, INPE Brazil, Centro de Previsão de Tempo e Estudos Climáticos

Wildland fires in Amazonia as seen from the atmosphere

Biomass burning in Amazonia recurrently releases large amounts of trace gases and aerosol particles to the atmosphere. The consequent change from low to very high atmospheric concentrations of oxidants and aerosols therefore affects the radiative, cloud microphysical and chemical properties of the atmosphere over Amazonia. This seminar aims to summarize current studies and numerical regional modeling at INPE of the biomass burning process and its impacts on weather, climate, and air quality. We will also describe the model developments associated with the estimation of biomass burning emissions, the plume rise mechanism and the fully coupled atmospheric chemistry transport model developed to study and forecast smoke aerosol and trace gas concentrations, weather and air quality.

Dr Rushbrook meets the Fire Tornado

2011-02-28T17:00:00.003Z

Dr Frank Rushbrook, former firemaster of Edinburgh & Lothians Fire Brigade, and one of the leading players in establishing the fire research group in the 1970s, and the 'Rushbrook' fire laboratory in the early 2000s, visited the lab this afternoon. Here is his introduction to the fire tornado experiment.

Princeton - A Learning Experience

2011-02-18T19:25:00.007Z

I'm typing this post while having coffee at the Woodrow Wilson school on Princeton University's campus. I've been in Princeton over 3 weeks now and I'm absolutely loving it. I get up each morning, eat my breakfast in a ridiculous Hogwarts-esque dining hall then head off to class. I choose what classes I want to sit in on (and I usually try and pack in as many as I can). Last week for example, I attended lectures on Stochastic Calculus of Brownian Motion, Economics of Crime, Democracy in Architecture, Bridge Design and Entrepreneurship. This broad range of classes wouldn't appear unusual to any student studying here - they have a very general view of ‘education’ that I haven't experienced anywhere else.

But, I'm getting ahead of myself. Perhaps I should explain why I'm here in the first place.

I'm studying a PhD in ‘Education in Fire Safety Engineering’. As most of you are aware, Edinburgh already has a very well established fire safety program, but it's not perfect so it can be improved. The question is how? I could spend years trying and testing a range of different teaching styles, or I could just ask a world-class university how they do it.

I chose the latter.

Now, when I sit in on a class I observe student-teacher interactions and take notes on the effects of different teaching styles. Sometimes the students are engaged, other times they're asleep. After studying a diverse range of teachers, I'm beginning to see patterns emerge. It appears there are some fundamental things that if you do/don't do you'll lose your audience, no matter how good you think you are. I'll share some of these with you now.

Probably the most significant observation I've made so far, and from what I can see is the biggest motivator for the students, is choice. In every aspect of what they do here, students are given choice - they choose what classes they do, what subject to specialise in, what topics to present, what groups to work in. This seems to result in a lot less admin which is a bonus, but the real value of this is the positive impact it has on student's self-motivation.

The logic behind it is this: If you want people to be responsible, self-directed individuals, treat them like responsible, self-directed individuals. Having to make choices every day not only promotes accountability and responsibility, but it gives people the opportunity to improve their judgement. And in engineering, particularly in fire safety engineering where reliable data is hard to come by, good judgement is essential.

The second thing that has a huge impact on classroom learning is divergent questioning. From what I've seen/read in my research, most teachers ask convergent questions (i.e. the opposite of what they should be doing). A convergent question is better known as a ‘guess-what-I'm-thinking’ question. The lecturer/tutor may ask something like “what is the main purpose of a roof”. The question is trying to force students towards one answer, so understandably students are reluctant to answer. They realise that there is only one answer and every single other answer they could give...is wrong. So in response to the roof question above, there'll be an awkward silence with students desperately trying to avoid eye-contact, followed by the lecturer answering his/her own question. “It's to keep the water out, obviously. Come on I asked you this question in the test last week remember? I asked, what is the purpose of a raincoat.” There is not really any point in asking convergent questions because asking someone to repeat something is not proof that they have understood it (as almost any teacher will tell you).

My suggestion is that if you want them to memorise a fact, just tell them the fact. Don't ask leading questions.

If you want them to think about something and really understand it, ask them to think. This is where divergent questioning comes in. If you want people to think, ask a question they can't get wrong, one that asks for their opinion. Such a question is phrased like this: “What do you think a roof does?” The students can come up with a range of ideas, and they're all correct. If they don't say what you want them to say, then it tells you something as an educator - namely that the students don't think the information is relevant. At least not yet.

This brings me to my third and final point, purpose. The purpose is the reason why your students are putting in so much of their time and effort to understand new ideas. Every rule in our society, every course in university, every word that's ever been spoken in a lecture has an underlying purpose - a “need-to-know”. Too often lecturers jump into complex methods before creating that “need-to-know”. It's like showing someone a path, without saying where they're going. No two people think the same way, so it's unlikely anyone else apart from you will choose the same path, it just won't make sense to anyone else.

It is often difficult to identify the purpose of a course, despite the fact that many lecturers think they've already done so. There is actually a straightforward test one can use to find a purpose - a reason - for everything. The test was developed by a five year-old - actually, every five year-old - and it consists of asking “Why?”…repeatedly. It's simple, they won't stop until you give them a valid reason, a purpose.

Just yesterday, I had the opportunity to test these ideas, or rather to ask someone else to test these ideas. One of the tutors here was running a tutorial where he was going to ask the students to discuss a lab they'd done the previous week. His idea was to choose a ‘volunteer’ to come up to the board and describe their lab to the rest of the students while he fired convergent questions at them (to make sure they covered all the material). The purpose was to make sure they said everything that might be asked in the exam.

See anything wrong with this picture?

I spent about 10mins explaining the theories above and he left enthusiastic about his upcoming class. Later on I joined him in his tutorial and listened to a full blown discussion going on amongst the students, each one eager to question and challenge each other's point of view. The class finished early, the students said it felt very “comfortable” and the tutor just looked shell-shocked. “That was so much better than last year!” he kept saying. “Thank you!”

I smiled and left. I felt good. After all, I had just improved teaching at Princeton University, even if it was only one small part of it.

How Uncertainty Transforms the Way we Quantify Fire

2011-02-18T16:25:00.000Z

Posted in the name of Prof Jose Torero.
(related to the previous blog entry "Study or Gamble, but not both - 2nd annual Christmas tree fire test")

It is common practise to use experimental data for many purposes in the analysis of Fire Safety. It can be used as direct input (HRR, flame spread rates, ignition times, etc.) to models (analytical, semi empirical and CFD) as well as to obtain parameters that then can be used as input to other more fundamental models (heat of combustion, thermal properties, etc.). In many cases, due to the complexity of the tests, we rely of single data points to infer the values that we need. We can conduct a detailed analysis of the data and provide output values. In this particular case, the output values were the pHRR and the burn time of the tree. If I was to use this data for modelling, both parameters will be of critical importance and I could define a Q_dot=alpha x t^2 fire on the basis of both parameters. Furthermore, I could divide the HRR curve by the burning rate and obtain a heat of combustion that together with a flame spread model I could convert into another form of Q_dot. I could even use this data as part of a fundamental model that will attempt to predict all processes involved. Much of the research work we do tries to do two things, develop better models and try to make best use of the data we have. Thus this test is a fun example of what we are all about!

So, given the interest that this particular test has created I thought that it will be important to do a little exercise of uncertainty, not to question the winner, or to question the methodology used in defining this winner, simply to establish how important it is to look at these tests with caution and how difficult it is to use them in a manner that is truly representative of the event we are trying to describe via our engineering techniques. Furthermore, it is important to do this analysis to establish one of the key values of apriori estimations coupled with aposteriori explanations.

Apriori estimations have the distinct value of providing predictions that are only biased by the user’s knowledge or experience and not by the knowledge inferred through the observation of the test. Aposteriori estimations always carry the bias associated to having the knowledge of the results of the test. The aposteriori analysis of the apriori predictions reveals the effectiveness of the thought process associated to the apriori predictions. This analysis is extremely valuable in the sense that it can allow to separate the logic that is “user robust” from that that is purely a “guess.” It is also important because it allows establishing which of these “user robust” criteria have large experimental variability. Finally, it allows to identify common errors that can lead you to a “bad guess” but most important to a “good guess.” “User robust” logic with known “variability” is what we want to use to interpret test data and extract this information to introduce into our Fire Safety calculations.

I will do an aposteriori analysis of my estimates not to over-emphasize/or counteract the ridicule of being among the furthest away from the answer or to incontestably establish how my brain seems to have deteriorated with years doing fire research. The objective of this analysis is to encourage you to retrospect on how you achieve your estimate, post it, and let’s see what are the “user robust” criteria, which criteria is not robust, what were purely “guesses” and of these which ones are good or bad.

I know I am taking the risk of taking the joy out of a fun event, but given my role as an educator I find myself compelled to do this. The effort put on the tests and Guillermo’s fantastic statistical analysis encouraged me to do this. In any case, if you do not feel it is important, you will not participate and that is the end of the story!

900 kW and 20 seconds – How did I get there?

The way I reached my estimates, which I tried to qualify, but was told I could not (fair enough), was based on my experience of similar data published in the literature and the previous test conducted in Edinburgh.
When estimating the pHRR I made the following assumptions:

• The variability between tress in the literature was small.
• The pHRR was dominated by upward flame spread (VS) and time to burn out (tBO) of the leaves. Lateral flame spread is negligible compared to upward flame spread of a fuel of such low density, thus the effect of radial spread will happen after the pHRR.
• The base of the fuel burning (A) will be dominated by buoyancy not lateral spread, thus it should be the same for all tests.
• The tBO is very small and the base of the tree tends to have a higher density than the top, thus the pHRR will be generally attained before the flames reach the top of the tree.
• The HRR (given that this is a low density porous medium) will be proportional to the burning volume, so given a constant value of “A” it will be proportional to the height, thus to H=VS.t_b.
• The available data generally estimates a pHRR that ranges between 900 kW and 1100 kW.

So, given that the real height of the tree should not matter, then the pHRR should be similar to that of the literature. Because the tree was small, it was not so dry and it did not seem that dense I decided to opt for the lower bound value and estimate 900 kW.

Now, that being said, generally, literature values tend to be corrected by the time delay of the calorimeter. Our calorimeter has a time delay of about 10 seconds. What does that mean? Basically, it means that oxygen consumption measurements lag by 10 seconds the mass burning rate measurements. This generally makes no difference for events where things do not change within that period. If the event time scale is of the same order of magnitude of the time delay, then the measured value is somewhere between the measurement and that 10 seconds later. So, if I was to take the HRR curve measured by the calorimeter, then the value will be somewhere between what was measured 697 +/- 25 kW and 1000 kW.

An important lesson to learn is that the pHRR of a fast event (actually, even a slow event, but for different reasons) is a very difficult quantity to estimate precisely, thus the +/-25 kW stated as the error is truly only the direct measurement error. The true error will have to include the variability associated to the burn out time, the buoyantly driven upward spread, the global density and the comprehensive experimental error which is a parameter that is relevant in this case because the times are so short. So, any estimates within +/- 200 kW will probably have exactly the same value if the variable used is the pHRR. Thus 11/28 of you truly guessed the same answer.

If a different variable, such as the average HRR, or the Heat of Combustion was to be used as the “estimate,” then once all corrections due to time delay were made, would have probably delivered a smaller error bar.

The second variable to be estimated was the burning time. My estimate was 20 seconds and was based on a simple calculation of a typical upward flame spread rate of 10 cm a second. This had nothing to do with trees but with a fuel I know better (polyurethane foam). I estimated that the global value of “krhoC” is dominated by the density and I assumed that the density was more or less the same for both fuels. Thus I took that number. The tree was about 1.5 m, this gave about 15 seconds, time to burnout is so short that once the flame spread to the top, I could assume the fire was over.

Now, here is where I tried (unsuccessfully) to introduce a qualifier, I could not engage to estimate the initiation time (from the moment of ignition to the moment when the fire truly takes off). Furthermore, after the pHRR, what is left is lateral spread, then the branches and finally the trunk. The trunk will extinguish as soon as the branches die (bulk wood does not burn unless assisted!), but the lateral spread (being dominated by the shape of the tree) and the branches (being dominated by their individual shape and size) are impossible to predict. So at the end I gave up and simply estimated the time that it will take to achieve the pHRR from the moment the fire truly takes off. I reluctantly added a 5 second buffer for the slow initiation. While not a good estimate for what I was being asked, there is something to be said for the accuracy of the estimate! From the HRR curve we can establish that the primary burning will be somewhere between 10-20 sec (considering the instrument delay).

Now, what have I learnt, buoyancy is such a strong driving force that the estimate of the upward flame spread is a very robust one. The estimate of total burning time is one that carries a massive error bar, thus I will be reluctant to dismiss any of your estimates. From my perspective 28/28 gave estimates that I will consider within the expected error bars. Needless to say, last year’s Christmas tree was the proof to this point; the initial time could have been infinite if I did not decide to push the candle towards the denser part of the tree!

A final point, did I think of all of this in the 2 minutes that passed between the moment I learnt of the bet and the moment I provided my estimates? Obviously not! Most of this knowledge resides within your experience, and the estimate is an “educated guess.” Nevertheless, for the estimate to be adequate we need to carefully assess the question being asked (which I unfortunately decided to ignore) and the question needs to be posed correctly (meaning that what is being asked needs to have error bars that are smaller than the discrimination we are seeking). Otherwise, our guess will not be educated, nor it will be an estimate, it will just be a guess. If the error bars are small your chances of being the closest answer are very small (the educated estimate will have a much greater chance), but if the error bars are large you have as much of a chance to get it right as the most educated of estimates.

So citing Guillermo Rein: “while many stories can be told aposteriori,” and 3 hours of rationalizing my estimates can lead to this story, the stories need to be told and the discussion needs to follow. It is within the aposteriori 3 hours of introspection that I have truly managed to gain some insight into what happened not within the 2 minutes it took me to “guess.”

Congratulations to the winner!

Prof Jose Torero.

Study or Gamble, but not both - 2nd annual Christmas tree fire test

2011-02-12T23:16:00.010Z

An esteemed colleague had generously donated a Christmas tree to the scientific cause for the 2nd annual Christmas tree fire test. It had been used in the living room during the winter celebrations.

The tree was a Nordmann Fir of conical shape, 1.5 m tall and 0.9 m diameter at the bottom. It weighted 4.74 kg and was in dry conditions (measured in the oven at ~8% moisture content in dry base) after having spent one month not watered inside a warm living room.

Before conducting the experiment, fire experts were asked to bet on the peak heat release rate (pHRR) and the burning time (t_b). We recorded 28 guesses (£1 was collected per guess). A person with no research experience and no previous knowledge on fire dynamics (an international lawyer) was asked to provide a guess and act as control. NOTE: This required explaining the concept of HRR in layman terms, after which the control quantified the pHRR in terms of the equivalent number of burning matches.

Significant spread was recorded in the guesses. pHHR guesses ranged from 400 and 2300 kW, with average at 1173 kW. Guesses for t_b ranged from 15 to 377 s, with an average of 120 s. Two people provided guesses for pHRR but not for t_b, so they were assigned the average t_b value from the other participants.

Figure 1. Sequence of images, from left to right: The first day (early December 2010) when it was brought to the living room. Just seconds before ignition when the tree was inside the medium scale calorimeter. Fire spread over the tree about 40 s after ignition. Remains left after the test.

The tree was ignited putting a small household candle next to the tree trunk at 1/3 of the height from the base. The HRR was measured using oxygen consumption calorimetry (corrected for CO and CO2 production). Figure 2 shows the HRR as a function of time. The growth of the fire is very fast, reaching a peak near 700 kW, 45 s after candle ignition. The decay is also fast, and reduces the fire to 50 kW 60 s after the peak. The peak value (pHRR) was 697 kW ± 25 kW. And the burning time t_b was 146 s ± 24 s. This was measured by visual observation using the video of the test and defined as the period going from first observed ignition of a tree element (between 0 and 24 s after candle ignition) to the end of significant flaming (between 146 s and 170 s).

Figure 2. Evolution of the HRR (power) as a function of time measured by oxygen consumption calorimetry.The ranges of observed times for the ignition of first tree element and end of flaming are indicated.

A short video of the test can be seen below (NOTE: it starts 30 s after ignition and lasts for 55 s):

Measurements and guesses are plotted in Figure 3. There was only one guess falling within the measured result range. This person won the bet. For the quantification of how close a guess was to the measurements, the Euclidean distance was calculated, nondimensionalizing each guess by the measurement. The resulting average distance is 0.97, with minimum 0.1 and maximum 2.12. The control was at a distance of 0.26, well below the average and closer to the result than 89% of the participants.

Figure 3. Scatter plot of the guesses for the Peak HRR and the burning time. Measurements and experimental uncertainty are in blue. Histograms of guesses for each quantity are included.

The participants were grouped in three sets: Academics, Postdocs and Students. The years each participant has been researching fire was estimated and plotted against the distance of each guess (see Figure 4). There is a positive correlation of distance with experience. Students and postdocs show a similar large slope, but Academics are a distinct group from the rest and have a smaller slope.

Figure 4. Non-dimensional Euclidean distance from guess to measurements vs. years in fire research of each participants. Blue line is the trend of the Student and Postdoc populations.

Upon seeing this data, one could conclude that the longer you stay in research, the less you earn. And, study or gamble, but not both!

EU Project on Aircraft Fire Safety starts

2011-02-09T15:59:00.003Z

The University is one of 13 partners collaborating on a three year, EU funded research project in Aircraft Fire Safety. Below is a photo of the delegates who attended the 'kick-off' meeting in Poitiers, France, in January this year.

Wilde, mask and peer review

2011-01-31T03:23:00.000Z

I just read that once Oscar Wilde wrote:

"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth".

This might describe part of the rational on which the blind peer-review system stands? :)

Forecasting Fire on Scottish TV News

2010-12-26T09:06:00.003Z

On 29 Nov 2010 Dr Guillermo Rein was interviewed by Scottish TV about a recent research paper published about "Forecasting Fire Growth".

On the same day he was interviewed for BBC Radio Scotland and The Scotsman.

Fertilizer fire aboard cargo ship

2010-12-20T15:50:00.003Z

A recent journal paper titled "Small-scale experiments of self-sustaining decomposition of NPK fertilizer and application to the events aboard the Ostedijk in 2007" has published in Journal of Hazardous Materials. Its content is presented here.

The global fertilizer industry produces 170 million tonnes of fertilizer annually. As the global population increases and countries develop, this is expected to rise. Production sites are limited to locations with good availability of key raw materials. Therefore, large quantities are required to be shipped to the point of use.

Fertilizers contain three main ingredients essential for plant growth: nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium (NPK). These are present in various forms, however it is the presence of ammonium nitrate that constitutes the biggest risk. Ammonium nitrate is classified as a Dangerous Good by the UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods. This is because in the presence of an initiating event, ammonium nitrate will undergo self-sustaining decomposition. This is a chain reaction that occurs when a molecule of ammonium nitrate breaks down and releases heat which allows the decomposition of further molecules. In the presence of organic material this may result in explosion as in Texas City (1947) in which 581 people were killed.

Figure: The Ostedijk on 21st February (the 5th day) after the hold was opened and before specialized fire-fighting activities had commenced. Derived from photograph courtesy of Agencia EFE.

The research presented here gives an experimental insight into the decomposition of NPK fertilizers, highlights some of the limitations of the current UN Recommendations and applies the results to the events aboard the cargo ship Ostedijk in 2007.

The Ostedijk was carrying a cargo on NPK fertilizer from Norway to Spain when an accidental decomposition reaction occurred. The decomposition continued for seven days before it was stopped by partial flooding of the cargo hold as previous attempts to cool the cargo had been unsuccessful. During this time, a large plume of toxic gases formed and the crew had to be evacuated from the ship.

This unique set of experiments was performed in the laboratory using NPK 16.16.16, an industrially available fertilizer, and three different apparatus. The propagation behaviour was studied in an apparatus similar to that proposed by the UN test. Thermo-gravimetric analysis was performed to identify the reactions occurring and investigate the reaction mechanism. Finally, the state of the art for testing reactive materials, the Fire Propagation Apparatus, was used to find the conditions under which the reaction would become self-sustaining and to measure the heat of reaction.

The experiments showed beyond doubt that NPK 16.16.16 can undergo a self-sustaining decomposition reaction. This results in temperatures up to 350°C and releases heat at a rate of 1.8 MJ/kg of reacting fertilizer. This is in contradiction to the UN classification that the material is free from the hazard of self-sustaining decomposition. The paper allows us to understand and quantify some of the observations during the accidental event aboard the Ostedijk.

Figure: (a) Unreacted fertilizer granules and (b) cross section showing partially reacted sample with 4 phases visible.

These experiments are important as there is very little research in the open literature regarding decomposition of ammonium nitrate containing fertilizers and this is the first time such measurements have been applied to a real scenario. They also provide an insight into this complex risk and the controlling mechanisms. The data and experimental methods can be used to further investigations into other incidents which may help in identifying causes of, and reduce losses from, this phenomenon.

Prof Jose Torero's Christmas Lecture

2010-12-11T08:38:00.003Z

Fire: A story of fascination, familiarity and fear
University of Edinburgh Christmas Lecture 2010
Presented by Prof Jose Torero
Recorded Wednesday 8th December 2010

Prof Jose Torero with the Tam Dalyell medal.

FireGrid: An e-infrastructure for next-generation emergency response support

2010-12-08T14:37:00.003Z

by Dr Sung-Han Koo

A recent journal paper titled "FireGrid: An e-infrastructure for next-generation emergency response support" has been published in the Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing. Its content is presented here.

The costs of fire are great, commonly estimated in the range of 1-2% of GDP. Despite this, emergency service intervention at fires is often reliant upon very basic information (i.e. fire alarm panel information) or simple “gut instinct” of experienced fire officers. This need not be the case in the modern era, when a range of technologies are available which, if effectively harnessed, could transform the way in which fire emergencies are tackled, thereby significantly impacting the costs associated with failures. Here we describe development and demonstration of a novel concept which integrates sensor technologies, fire simulation, High Performance Computing (HPC) and knowledge-based reasoning, to provide an “intelligent” emergency response system known as FireGrid.

The heart of the system is the sensor-linked fire model (described in more detail in reference 17). While fire simulation has found wide application historically for design purposes, the uncertainties of fire development defeat any attempt to provide a true predictive capability of hazard evolution, generally precluding real-time use. We bypass these uncertainties by continually updating our model with a flow of sensor-derived information regarding conditions in the building. The modelling strategy exploits Monte-Carlo techniques in combination with Bayesian inference for “steering”; being “embarrassingly parallel” in nature it is ideal for implementation on multiprocessor HPC systems. The output contains embedded probabilistic information about the likelihoods of various future hazard conditions, encompassing both threat to humans (i.e. escaping occupants, and incoming fire and rescue personnel) and to the building itself (in terms of structural weaknesses, or collapse potential). The interpreted information is conveyed rapidly to the end user, i.e. the “incident commander”, to provide decision support information that can effectively assist their intervention strategies.

Initial application of a system such as FireGrid would be most relevant to high-risk and critical infrastructures, including tall buildings. It is readily apparent that better information to incident commanders could be vital in avoiding scenarios comparable to the World Trade Center tragedies, where emergency responders continued intervention operations totally oblivious to the impending
collapse of the towers. FireGrid is an ambitious vision, and its success also depends upon an effective partnership and engagement with potential end users. Our initial project was undertaken in conjunction with various members of the UK fire and rescue services, culminating in a live fullscale demonstration test attended by a broad audience including a senior fire officer. The complex evolution of the fire, with unexpected behaviours and ultimate transition to “flashover”, was an ideal test of the sensor-linked model running on the grid, and the system capabilities were effectively demonstrated. Further development of such systems extends a genuine hope that some of the chronic and long-standing problems associated with accidental fires might be eventually be overcome, with wide–ranging benefits to all relevant stakeholders.

Editor note: A related paper is discussed in "Towards the forecast of fire dynamics to assist the emergency response"

Lloyd’s Science of Risk Prize goes to Fire Technology

2010-11-25T16:54:00.008Z

Congratulations to Dr Francesco Colella for winning the Lloyd’s Science of Risk Prize in the Technology Category.

The prize was for his research paper "A Novel Multiscale Methodology for Simulating Tunnel Ventilation Flows During Fires" (published in Fire Technology). He led this work as a Research Associate at The School of Engineering from 2007 to 2010.

Dr Richard Ward, CEO of Lloyds told Francesco "The judging panel, comprising experts from academia and insurance felt your paper illustrated how novel computational methods can be used to reduce fire risk in the future. The panel were particularly impressed with how you reduced model run-time by concentrating on what is critical and by coupling fast and slower models".

This is Lloyd’s research prize for academics and aims at keeping the world’s leading specialist insurance market with the pace of academic knowledge and cutting edge thinking.

On top of this winning paper, The University of Edinburgh had three more papers short-listed as the top of each category (two of them from the fire group as well):

* Mr Craig Poland, short-listed in Technology Risk (best runner up), from the School of Medicine for his paper "Carbon nanotubes introduced into the abdominal cavity of mice show asbestos-like pathogenicity" (published in Nature Nanotechnology).

* Dr Wolfran Jahn, short-listed in Technology Risk, from the School of Engineering for his paper "Forecasting Fire Growth using an Inverse Zone Modelling Approach" (published in Fire Safety Journal).

* Dr Claire Belcher, short-listed in Climate Change Risk, from the School of Geosciences for her paper "Increased fire activity at the Triassic/Jurassic boundary in Greenland due to climate-driven floral change" (published in Nature Geoscience).

See related article Hot talent in risk research in the Staff Bulletin of the University of Edinburgh.
See press release by Springer.

The domesticated animals sometimes turn back into wild beasts…

2010-11-23T12:12:00.005Z

As somebody very wisely defined, fire is like a wild animal domesticated by humans: we not only learned how to use it push our vehicles, to do industrial hot work, or to produce glass, but also we taught and trained the pet to help in our daily housework with the cooking or the heating of our homes. Certainly, nobody can deny its usefulness, but the domesticated animal is always waiting for the opportunity to turn back into a wild beast… And, once this animal is on his runaway escape, it tends to climb like a primate, growling as a wild dog, searching for food in this desperate rush trying to satisfy its appetite for transformation which, far from the wild environment, mutates into an appetite for destruction instead…

In a dwelling, we typically have a few small domesticated fires; for example, those from the hobs in the kitchen, that from the boiler, and those from candles or even lighters. Very basically, these fires are kept small and dominated by controlling their supply of fuel and –sometimes– air; i.e. their basic menu. But just let these apparently harmless pets taste the flavor of the combustibles surrounding them, to see them –like vampires once they taste blood for the first time– switch into wild in an attempt to keep feeding and growing drastically powerful. Following this line, residential high-rise buildings with tens or even hundreds of apartments and figuratively countless combustibles are an awfully-high risky combination and “temptation” for these domesticated fires to break free and initiate a drastically fatal outcome eating everything in their reach.

Inevitable? Let’s say we can’t avoid the pet to turn wild every now and then, but we can definitely stop it from its fugitive run, keeping it fenced in its room of origin. Lately with the sighted rampaging beasts consuming all in front of them, can we conclude that the will to control the beast is all but extinguished, or will the human learn to capture the beast within science and engineered fields?

Christmas Lecture

2010-11-18T10:44:00.007Z

This years University of Edinburgh Christmas Lecture will be given by the winner of the Tam Dalyell Prize 2010 - Professor Jose Torero.

The lecture is entitled: Fire: A story of fascination, fear and familiarity. Prof Torero will examine how fire can provide welcome warmth in everyday life but, on a bigger scale, the unpredictability of fire can be terrifying.

More information on the talk and the prize here.

Wednesday, December 08, 2010 from 6:00 PM - 7:15 PM
at George Square Lecture Theatre, EH8 9LK
http://www.ed.ac.uk/maps/buildings/george-square-lecture-theatre

Book free tickets online at: http://www.ed.ac.uk/news/all-news/dalyell-171110
Note that tickets have run out fast for this event in previous years.

Fire Scholarships from The Lloyd’s Register Educational Trust

2010-11-08T14:56:00.003Z

New Fire Safety Engineering scholarships from The Lloyd’s Register Educational Trust aim to make buildings safer from fire.

Modern buildings and the people who live and work in them will be better protected from the risk and consequences of fire, thanks to new education and research initiatives within the BRE Centre for Fire Safety Engineering at the University of Edinburgh.

Researchers at the University of Edinburgh are aiming for a better understanding of how contemporary building features – such as lighter construction materials and open-plan interiors – can influence how fires take hold and how fast they spread.

More than £200K in new student scholarships supported by The Lloyd’s Register Educational Trust will help to create a core of leaders who will use new understanding to bring change to the field.

Research and teaching programmes will seek to influence safety planning and design such as building evacuation procedures, fire-safe construction, and guidance for firefighters.

Top-flight undergraduate and postgraduate scholarship students will be recruited to create a cohort of fire safety specialists with expertise in all aspects of modern fire safety techniques.

Three LRET international MSc scholars will be sponsored through a new two-year International MSc in Fire Safety Engineering (IMFSE). The degree, the first multi-institution course of its kind globally, is operated by the Universities of Edinburgh, Lund and Ghent and funded by the European Commission’s Erasmus Mundus programme.

A further six LRET International MEng scholars will be supported in their final two years of the existing degree in Structural and Fire Safety Engineering at the University of Edinburgh.

Dr Luke Bisby, a researcher at the University of Edinburgh’s BRE Centre for Fire Safety Engineering, said: “Building design has changed radically in recent decades – we need a pioneering approach to developing fire safety solutions. We have to ensure that the chances of fire are as low as possible and that if a fire should occur, it will have little chance to spread, everyone inside can be evacuated safely, and economic and environmental losses can be minimised. Only through research linked to innovative educational programs can new approaches to fire safety take hold.”

Michael Franklin, Director of The LRET commented: “The Lloyd’s Register Educational Trust funds exceptional students studying science, engineering and technology throughout the world. We want to encourage and help them to become the future leaders in their chosen field. We hope The LRET scholarships at the University of Edinburgh will help to increase fire safety significantly in the years to come.”

The 2010 winners of the LRET Scholarships are (from left in the photo below):

• Ieuan Rickard, LRET MEng Scholar in Fire Safety Engineering
• Sarah Higginson, LRET MEng Scholar in Fire Safety Engineering
• Eduardo Maciel, LRET International MSc Scholar in Fire Safety Engineering

Congratulations to all three of the winners!

For further information, please contact:
Dr Luke Bisby, School of Engineering, tel 0131 650 5710; email Luke.Bisby@ed.ac.uk.

Notes:

The Lloyd’s Register Educational Trust is an independent charity that was established in 2004. Its principal purpose is to support advances in transportation, science, engineering and technology education, training and research worldwide for the benefit of all. It also funds work that enhances the safety of life and property at sea, on land and in the air.

A Note on the Philosophy of Engineering Research

2010-11-07T17:09:00.002Z

Foreword to the PhD Thesis of Dr Cecilia Abecassis Empis.

A Note on the Philosophy of Engineering Research

With the arrival of the computer era came a desperate frenzy of research in all fields with an ever increasing urge to quantify, discretise and explicitly pick apart nature enabling its eloquent description using the languages of mathematics and physics.

This very urge appears to be our largest limitation in attaining a precise representation of nature. Nature is, by nature, a continuum with an infinity that can not be quantified as much in the infinite immensity of the universe’s expanse as in the infinite minuteness into which things can be dissected and in the natural continuum of anything in between, exemplified by the naturally recurring but non-recurrent irrational numbers of Pi, Euler and Fibonacci.

Nevertheless intrinsic to human nature is a desire to group things, categorise, to box knowledge into entities we can comprehend and computers have allowed us to do this more quickly. Part of this process requires an evaluation of what is to be done and what it is to be used for. Be it an equation that represents the physics of electricity, the theories that describe types of intelligence or music that depicts the dance of the bees, the limits of its “accuracy” always lie within the bounds of the assumed scale, an agreement of the axioms of compliance.

Engineering is precisely the art and craft of deciphering such problems. The skill lies in evaluating the scope of the conundrum and identifying the critical players. In outlining the discrete pieces of this puzzle, engineers have to untangle the fundamentals from the peripheral fillers. They then stand back and reason the rules of the game using them to discard unnecessary detail and weave back together the key pieces creating an optimal solution. Engineering is a mere translation tool that allows for the interpretation of nature in a way we can fathom.

It is important however to distinguish a “solution” from “natural reality”. With the computing world fast-appealing to more and more of our senses, it is often tempting to indulge in smaller and smaller dissections of our problems. As we become increasingly obsessed with intricate dependencies we run the risk of creating a solution that is self-fulfilling without realising it has departed so far from its application that it has become a mere representation of the human ego with little or no use beyond the amusement of a select few curious minds. Detail can lead to a false sense of proximity to nature whereas the very nature of engineering is to accept that any attempt to model nature will always fall short of perfect. Instead engineering embraces the asymptotic nature of complex solutions and opts for providing simple and effective shortcuts that are perfect if they solve the particular problem at hand within the scope of its axioms. Hence an engineer must be humble and not lose sight of the problem objectives, the initial assumptions and the scale delineating the limitations and applications of engineering work.

Engineering research aims to provide rational solutions that make daily life just a little bit easier in order to make time for sitting back, relaxing and to enjoy the awesomeness of the irrational, chaotic magnificence of nature.

In this light it is hoped this work will make a useful contribution.

by Cecilia Abecassis Empis

Towards the forecast of fire dynamics to assist the emergency response

2010-11-01T12:32:00.004Z

A recent journal paper titled "Forecasting Fire Growth using an Inverse Zone Modelling Approach" has published in Fire Safety Journal. We are happy that the work has been widely featured in the media and many people is being exposed to the novel idea:

Interview for Scottish TV News (go to minute 19 here). Aired on 29 Nov 2010.
Interview for BBC Radio Scotland (or go minute 42.20 here). Aired on 29 Nov 2010.
Articles in The Scotsman, CORDIS-EU and Xinhuanet (in Chinese).

Effective control of a compartment fire saves lives and money. When fire fighters manage to put out a fire before it grows out of proportions, live safety is greatly increased and significant damage can be avoided. Moreover, the affected building can be re-occupied without major investment of resources. But when a fire passes a certain size, the building might collapses as a consequence of the fire damage to the structure (eg, 2001 WTC or 2005 Windsor Tower) or might have to be demolished due to irreversible damages.

Due to a lack of the required technology to support emergency response, fire fighters often have to follow their intuition when it comes to attacking the fire instead of basing their decisions on knowledge of the actual fire. This lack of information can lead to lost opportunities or unnecessary risks.

Prediction of the ongoing fire development ahead of time under different possible conditions based on the current events taking place would give fire fighters insight into the dynamics of the particular fire being flighted. With this extra knowledge, they could weight other options and feed more information into the emergency management. However, fire dynamics follow complex physical processes closely coupled to one another, which makes current tools not able to accurately forecast fire development in real time.

Figure: Conceptual representation of the data assimilation process and the sensor
steering of model predictions even when critical events take place in an evolving fire scenario.

This emerging technology has been called Sensor Assisted Fire Fighting. The FireGrid project, to which this paper belongs together with the recent PhD thesis of the lead author, aims at providing physics-based forecasts of fire development by combining measurements from sensors in the fire compartment with a range of computational modelling tools. The sensor measurements can provide essential lacking information and compensate the accuracy lost, and thus overcome the shortcomings of current modelling tools and speed them up. The proposed methodology is to collect measurements in the fire compartment, and to assimilate this data into the computational model.

When enough measurements are available to characterize the current fire, a forecast is made. This forecast is then constantly updated with new incoming data. If, for example, a door is opened or glazing breaks, and the ventilation conditions change drastically, the sensor measurements will steer the computational model towards capturing the new conditions. With this technology, fire fighters could act upon forecast behaviour.

This paper presents one of the first steps in this direction. Data is assimilated into a simple zone model, and forecasts of the fire development are made. Positive lead times are reported here for the first time. These results are an important step towards the forecast of fire dynamics to assist the emergency response. Together with the application to CFD within the same PhD thesis, the previous thesis of Cowlard on flame spread predictions and the most recent paper by Koo et al. on probabilistic zone models, these establish the basis for technology for sensor assisted fire fighting. The envisioned system is not yet fit for operational purposes and further research is needed. The investigation of the effects of adding further realism in the fire scenarios will be the focus of future studies.

The paper can now be read at the website of Fire Safety Journal.

Note: A related paper is discussed in "FireGrid: An e-infrastructure for next-generation emergency response support"

10 January 2011 is the Application Deadline for the International Master of Science in Fire Safety Engineering Program

2010-10-26T09:23:00.000+01:00

The blog of the SFPE remind us that 10 January 2011 is the application deadline for the International Master of Science in Fire Safety Engineering Program (IMFSE).

The IMFSE is commonly organized by the universities of Ghent (Belgium - coordinator), Edinburgh (UK) and Lund (Sweden). This two-year educational program in the Erasmus Mundus framework provides the required knowledge for a professional fire safety engineer in a Performance Based Design environment.

The application forms, basic requirements and all other information are found on the website: http://www.imfse.ugent.be.

A novel methodology for simulating tunnel fires

2010-10-18T07:11:00.034+01:00

A recent journal paper titled "A Novel Multiscale Methodology for Simulating Tunnel Ventilation Flows During Fires" has recently been published in the journal Fire Technology. Its content is presented here. This is a joint research effort between Politecnico di Torino and University of Edinburgh.

PD NOTE: This paper won this year’s Lloyd’s Science of Risk Prize in the Technology Category. The prize is awarded to academics and aims to keep the world’s leading specialist insurance market abreast of the latest academic knowledge and cutting-edge thinking. See press release by Springer.

In the past decade over four hundred people worldwide have died as a result of fires in road, rail and metro tunnels. In Europe alone, fires in tunnels have destroyed over a hundred vehicles, brought vital parts of the road network to a standstill - in some instances for years - and have cost the European economy billions of euros. Disasters like the Mont Blanc tunnel fire (1999) and the three Channel Tunnel fires (2008, 2006 and 1996) show that fire poses a serious threat.

Comprehensive risk assessments for tunnel fires are not easy to conduct. The development of the possible emergency scenarios is dependent on the combined influence of fire detection technologies, ventilation system, tunnel layout, atmospheric conditions at the portals and the presence of vehicles. Nowadays, the analysis of such complex phenomena is performed using numerical computational fluid-dynamics (CFD) tools. But CFD has a significant drawback: its requires very large computational resources (e.g., weeks or months of computing time). This limitation affects the completeness of the risk analyses because they can only be based on a limited number of possible scenarios but do not explore the wide range of possible events.

This recent paper proposes a novel multiscale modelling approach generated by coupling a three dimensional CFD model with a simple one-dimensional model. This allows for a more rational use of the computational resources. The methodology has been applied to a modern tunnel of 7 m diameter section and 1.2 km in length (similar layout to the Dartford Tunnels in London). Different ventilation scenarios are investigated involving fire sizes ranging from 10MW to 100MW.

The multiscale model is proved to be as accurate as the traditional time consuming CFD techniques but provides a reduction of two orders of magnitude in the computational time. This greatly widens the number of scenarios that can be efficiently explored. The much lower computational cost is of great engineering value, especially when conducting comprehensive risk analyses, parametric, sensitivity and redundancy studies, required in the design or assessment of ventilation and fire safety systems.

The multiscale methodology is the latest contribution to the state-of-the-art in computational methods for tunnel flow simulations. The model has been validated against experimental data of cold flow ventilation and shown to be accurate. This work was published in Building and Environment in 2009. It has also been used to provide the tunnel operator with a comprehensive assessment of the ventilation in the Dartford Tunnels, located under the River Thames about 15 miles east of London. This work was published in Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology in 2010 (open access version).

Heron Tower and the begining of the concept of travelling fires in design

2010-10-14T14:25:00.004+01:00

A recent article about Arup's fire design of Heron Tower (among the tallest buildings in London) appeared in Info4fire.com. The Heron Tower project won the Fire Safety Engineering design category at the Fire Excellence Awards in May 2009.

Case Study - Multi Storey Open Spaces

14 September 2009, Info4fire.com

Heron Tower is a landmark in our collaboration with Arup since it led to a joint PhD thesis and a series of papers. Since 2007 we are working together to define novel design fires in similar large spaces to that in Heron Tower. We came up with the concept of "travelling fires". The initial work was presented at Interflam 2007.

Figure: Snapshot from the fire model using FDS published here. Temperature map for a 500 kW/m2 well-distributed fire on the bottom floor with top and bottom floor ventilation. The atrium acts as a chimney, linking the bottom and the top floors.

Since then, the research has advanced significantly and led to several other papers and case studies. We recently published an overview and a building survey in the magazine Fire Risk Management. The key element behind this research is the need to provide design solutions to the large parts of modern buildings that fall outside the limits set out in the Eurocodes.

The two articles published in Fire Risk Management led to an unusual number of Letters to the Editor. Letters from Mike Wood, Pilkington Group, and from Dr Kirby, Sirius Fire Safety Consultants, were received. This and this were our respective replies (our reply to Dr Kirby is also attached below).

NOTE: Thanks to Chris for mentioning the article.

---
On Fire Risk Management Feb 2010, Dr Kirby from Sirius Fire Safety Consultants commented on our article "Out of Range".

Our reply, Beyond Limits, in Fire Risk Management March 2010 read:
We are pleased to read the letter that Dr Kirby, from Sirius Fire Safety Consultants, wrote in response to our December cover article, "Out of range". In our article, we reported a survey of 3,080 compartments on the campus of the University of Edinburgh buildings underlining the compartment volume that falls inside of the design fire specifications of current Eurocode 1 (66 % of the older buildings, but only 8% of the most modern one). Instead of volume, Dr Kirby prefers to quote our results as % of the number of compartments (95 % of the older buildings, but only 63% of the most modern one), assuming perhaps that all compartments are equally important regardless of the very large differences in size (e.g., atria vs. single desk office). But the main conclusion of our article, that the modern building contains a very large portion of built environment outside the limits of the Eurocode, stands true no matter what survey quantity is quoted.
Dr Kirby also refers to the UK National Application Document which extends beyond the Eurocode 1 range and without limit, the use of these post-flashover design fires. We consulted this document while investigating the technical origins of the Eurocode, but after two years of searching and requests, we have not been able to find a copy of the validation work it cites. If Dr Kirby or any reader of the FRM magazine could kindly send us a copy of the validation work, we would be grateful. We hope that full details of these studies are made available to the fire research community at large for the benefit of all.
We agree that Eurocode 1 is a good document and a first step putting fire engineering into a codified form. We appreciate Dr Kirby's kind words of support for research in alternative design fires. His comments on fuel-control fires in large compartments resonate very well with our previous article in this publication ("Travel guide", November 2009, pp.12-16 by J Stern-Gottfried, G Rein and J Torero). In that article, we highlight that in large compartments, a post flashover fire is not likely to occur, but that a travelling fire spreading across the floor plate should be considered instead. We think that in the future travelling fires should also be considered as design fires and compliment the current Eurocode. Work conducted to date is available and easily accessible to the fire research community at large for the benefit of all.
Dr Guillermo Rein, BRE Centre for Fire Safety Engineering, The University of Edinburgh

Flashover Training

2010-09-28T12:41:00.012+01:00

And yet again the Lothian & Borders Fire & Rescue Service has played host to a couple of University of Edinburgh ‘boffins’. This time however, they would be crawling into a steel shipping container to watch an indoor bonfire…

I somehow managed to video the event, however some parts I couldn't film properly without my camera melting.

For example, at one point you hear the instructor shouting “close the vent!” at which point the chimney above us shuts and flames shoot overhead, just about cooking me and my camera. I hit the deck and accidentally hit the zoom button. When I recover there is a firefighter ready to “knock back” the fire with a hose. Good thing someone knew what they were doing!

Shortly after I ditched the camera out the back of the unit and shuffled forward towards the flames. When I got there the instructor called me forward and handed me the hose. “Close the vent!” (Flames immediately start shooting overhead) “Wait...” he says. “Let it get going…Now!”

I started spraying water around. Too much. The atmosphere immediately filled with steam, the temperature increased, the smoke layer dropped and the pressurise in the compartment squeezed my head. Oops. Guess I should've listened to the briefing a bit more carefully. ‘Use as little water as possible’…Got it.

I was lucky I got to shuffle to the back again and ‘cool’ off. The temperature inside the compartment was about 750C at head height and a mere 250C down where we were crouching. I don't know how else to say this, but it was hot. (I mean, just imagine sitting inside an oven on full heat, while wearing a ski-suit).

The day was meant as a trial run for November, where I plan to

organise a repeat of the demonstration/experience with a larger group from UoE. Whether this goes ahead or not will depend largely on whether LBFRS will be willing to commit any more of their time and resources. Although from what I gather they are more than happy to demonstrate their knowledge of compartment fire dynamics!

I believe these days have been very effective in strengthening the links between academia and firefighters, and in breaking (and confirming :) stereotypes from both sides. Many thanks again to Kenny, John and Des from the SIFTC. Cheers guys.

Watch the full video on YouTube.

Mike.