From the SFPE Performance Based Design Conference in Singapore, we sit down with Jonathan Hodges and Mark McKinnon (UL Research Institutes) and Christian Rippe (Jensen Hughes) moments after their case study presentation to break down a modern parking garage fire engineering workflow with a huge does of performance based and probabilistic approaches.

We talk about what changes when today’s vehicle fleet makes multi-vehicle fire spread more plausible, and why picking a single car fire curve can quietly bake bias into an entire performance-based design. The team shares how they use real incident data, vehicle size distributions, ignition location categories, and percentile-based heat release rate curves to build design fires that are transparent and defensible. We also dig into EV charging as an initiating mode, what the data can and cannot support, and how a “gap analysis” mindset helps practitioners avoid false precision.

Then we get into the risk machinery: scenario binning, frequencies, sprinkler reliability assumptions, and how CFD (FDS) fits when you cannot simulate 100,000 possibilities. Finally, we go structural with concrete spalling, thermal finite element modeling in Abaqus, and a scripted workflow that iteratively removes damaged concrete to understand how exposure evolves during long-duration multi-vehicle fires.

For this episode, there is a ton of resources. From Jonathan:

1. Reference for first design fire paper: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2024.104145
2. Reference for second design fire paper: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2026.104721
3. Reference for database paper: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-025-01701-5
4. Reference for number of parking garages: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2022.103565
5. Reference for ULRI vehicle fire data: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2026.112471
6. Reference for ULRI material database: https://materials.fsri.org/
7. Reference for NERIS: http://neris.fsri.org/
8. Reference for NFPA Vehicles data: https://www.nfpa.org/education-and-research/research/nfpa-research/fire-statistical-reports/vehicle-fires

And two from myself:

1. Outcomes of the massive fire with spalling in Warsaw https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2025.104352
2. Open sided car park report by OFR https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fire-safety-open-sided-car-parks/real-fires-open-sided-car-park-fire-resistance-introduction-and-conclusion

----
The Fire Science Show is produced by the Fire Science Media in collaboration with OFR Consultants. Thank you to the podcast sponsor for their continuous support towards our mission.

Fire safety in Europe is shaped in a challenging ecosystem - each member country owns its fire safety rules, yet the construction market, standards, and technical language are increasingly shared. I’m joined by Francesca Sciarretta, Scientific Project Officer at the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC), to explain how the JRC supports EU decision-making with independent research and why that “science behind the policy” matters for every practicing fire safety engineer.

We unpack what the latest JRC work says about performance-based fire safety engineering in Europe and why prescriptive design still dominates. Francesca walks through how the same country can look “performance-based” to engineers but “not allowed” to regulators, depending on how approval pathways, deviation procedures, and legal wording work. We also talk about where performance-based methods show up most often, from smoke control and structural fire engineering to compartmentation, and why complex assets like high-rise buildings, airport terminals, and underground infrastructure frequently demand engineering judgment.

From there, we connect fire safety to the sustainable construction ecosystem: the Construction Products Regulation (CPR), the recast Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD), major renovations, and the reality that low-carbon innovation must not introduce hidden fire risk. The conversation then turns to the real engine of progress: education, training, qualification frameworks, and liability. If we expect engineers to define scenarios, design fires, safety criteria, and take responsibility, we need credible pathways to competence and continuous professional development across borders.

You can find the new JRC report here.

Information about the FIEP platform: https://efectis.com/en/fire-information-exchange-platform-fiep-2/

----
The Fire Science Show is produced by the Fire Science Media in collaboration with OFR Consultants. Thank you to the podcast sponsor for their continuous support towards our mission.

You don’t always need a furnace to end up with a fire resistance rating, but you do need to understand what kind of “proof” you’re actually creating. I’m joined again by Dr. Piotr Turkowski from ITB to unpack calculation methods for fire resistance and the real-world chain from engineering assumptions to a Declaration of Performance. We talk about when standards and European Assessment Documents (EADs) explicitly allow Eurocode-based assessment, and how different methods will lead you to your resulting class in a different way.

We spend a lot of time on the practical heart of structural fire engineering: concrete and steel. For reinforced concrete (Eurocode 2, EN 1992-1-2), we compare tabulated data, simplified calculation approaches like the zone method, and advanced global modeling that starts to look more like performance-based fire safety engineering than classification. For steel (Eurocode 3, EN 1993-1-2), we break down critical temperature, utilization, section factor, and what you can realistically expect from unprotected members under the standard fire curve.

Then we get into the more challenging part that tables or simplified methods can’t completely capture: fire protection materials. Sprayed mortars, boards, and intumescent coatings change properties with temperature, moisture, and expansion, and their performance can hinge on stickability, cracking, and detachment during large deflections. Finally, Piotr shares a strong caution on masonry, where tabulated data can be dangerously optimistic for some concrete hollow blocks, and we close with a look at what machine learning might someday add to fire resistance prediction.

Here is a link to the paper about Masonry: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0379711226000512

ITB and Piotr have international courses on fire resistance and fire testing - keep an eye out on them!

----
The Fire Science Show is produced by the Fire Science Media in collaboration with OFR Consultants. Thank you to the podcast sponsor for their continuous support towards our mission.

In this episode of fire fundamentals with the ITB fire resistance expert Piotr Turkowski we break down what a fire resistance rating criteria, and what the letters behind ratings like “REI 60” exactly stand for. We use lab experience to explain where the standards are clear, where they are oddly traditional, and where comparisons between products can mislead.

• ISO definition of fire resistance as an ability over time
• What R E I W and M mean in fire resistance classification
• Load bearing capacity as deformation and collapse criteria
• How test loads are applied and why load choice matters
• Integrity E as flames and openings rather than smoke tightness
• Cotton pad test and why it blurs integrity versus insulation
• Insulation I temperature rise limits and prescribed thermocouple points
• Radiation W as a heat flux limit and when it matters
• Mechanical impact M and the wrecking ball style verification
• Why fire resistance time does not add up across layers
• Furnace minutes, strict thresholds, and unknown test uncertainty

If you liked this podcast episode, you will definietely enjoy:

• https://www.firescienceshow.com/070-fire-resistance-is-whatever-you-want-it-to-be-with-piotr-turkowski/ our previous conversation with Piotr about general fire resistance paradigm
• https://www.firescienceshow.com/010-seeking-the-origins-of-standardized-fire-testing-and-ancient-fire-protection-materials-with-john-gales/ another take on the origins of fire resistance

----
The Fire Science Show is produced by the Fire Science Media in collaboration with OFR Consultants. Thank you to the podcast sponsor for their continuous support towards our mission.

plume_rise_1.fds from the FDS Validation Guide (by NIST)

&HEAD CHID='plume_rise_1', TITLE='Test plume rise height in stable atmosphere' /

&MESH IJK=50,52,50, XB=-50.,50.,-52.,52.,0.,100., MULT_ID='mesh1' /
&MULT ID='mesh1', DZ=100., K_UPPER=1 /
&MESH IJK=50,52,50, XB= 50.,250.,-104.,104.,0.,200., MULT_ID='mesh2' /
&MULT ID='mesh2', DZ=200., K_UPPER=1 /
&MESH IJK=50,50,50, XB=250.,650.,-200.,200.,0.,400., MULT_ID='mesh3' /
&MULT ID='mesh3', DX=400., DZ=400., I_UPPER=3, K_UPPER=1 /

&TIME T_END=900. /

&MISC TMPA=20.36 /

&WIND SPEED=5., LAPSE_RATE=-0.0048 /

&SPEC ID='SULFUR DIOXIDE' /

&VENT MB='XMIN', SURF_ID='OPEN' /
&VENT MB='XMAX', SURF_ID='OPEN' /
&VENT MB='YMIN', SURF_ID='OPEN' /
&VENT MB='YMAX', SURF_ID='OPEN' /
&VENT MB='ZMAX', SURF_ID='OPEN' /

∂ ID='TRACERS', MASSLESS=.TRUE., SAMPLING_FACTOR=1 /

&SURF ID='TOP', TMP_FRONT=200., MASS_FLUX(1)=0.01563, SPEC_ID(1)='SULFUR DIOXIDE', MASS_FLUX(2)=18.85, SPEC_ID(2)='AIR', COLOR='BLACK', PART_ID='TRACERS' /

&OBST XB=-2.0,2.0,-2.0,2.0, 0,75, SURF_IDS='TOP','INERT','INERT' /

&SLCF PBY=0, QUANTITY='VELOCITY', VECTOR=.TRUE. /
&SLCF PBY=0, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE' /
&SLCF PBY=0, QUANTITY='DENSITY' /
&SLCF PBY=0, QUANTITY='MASS FRACTION', SPEC_ID='SULFUR DIOXIDE' /

&DEVC ID='z_CL', QUANTITY='MASS FRACTION', SPEC_ID='SULFUR DIOXIDE', XB=1800,1850,-200,200,0,800, SPATIAL_STATISTIC='MAXLOC Z' /

&TAIL /

Thank you NIST for providing an endless source of ASMR scripts on your github here: https://github.com/firemodels/fds/tree/master/Validation

I recommend everyone to go through this rich resource.

----
The Fire Science Show is produced by the Fire Science Media in collaboration with OFR Consultants. Thank you to the podcast sponsor for their continuous support towards our mission.

When one takes a decision to evacuate and starts moving, this is not the end of their decision-making process.

Which route to take? Who to contact? How to arrange a place of shelter? Where to go first? Have I forgotten anything?

I previously discussed the decision-making with Erica Kuligowski from RMIT, and today we're meeting again to follow up on decision-making for large-scale evacuations. We focus on choices and uncertainties that make many of the evacuees take additional trips, and those trips become background traffic that interferes with your escape. In this episode, we dive deep into the decision making in this stage, the sources of data, and hypothesise how this knowledge could be used in practice.

And of course, Erica being one of the leaders of the Human Behaviour in Fire community gives us a high level overview how this part of science looks like, and what is currently being researched.

The HBiF conference we mentioned in the episode can be found here: https://humanbehaviourinfires.se/

----
The Fire Science Show is produced by the Fire Science Media in collaboration with OFR Consultants. Thank you to the podcast sponsor for their continuous support towards our mission.

A fire in an informal settlement is not just another small building fire. It can be the first domino in a fast-moving neighborhood event, and the little details like the wall material, roof material, door location, even a light breeze, can decide what happens next. I’m joined by Dr. Sam Stevens from Kindling to unpack a massive FSRI funded experimental program carried out in South Africa that burned twenty different informal and humanitarian shelter types to measure real heat flux, flame extension, and fire spread potential.

We start repeating the uncomfortable gap: humanitarian guidance often relies on rules of thumb like a universal separation distance and vague advice to “use fire-resistant materials,” with little experimental evidence behind it. Sam explains how Kindling built a global database of shelter designs and materials, then narrowed it down to common typologies spanning sheet metal, mud, timber, bamboo mats, split bamboo, thatch, and tarpaulin tents. We dig into the field-scale test setup, why wood cribs were chosen, and how external instrumentation like thin skin calorimeters helps quantify the heat transfer that drives structure-to-structure ignition.

Then we get into what the burns actually show. Non-combustible shelters often behave like classic compartment fires where openings dominate, but even modest wind can push flames meters outward. Add combustible walls or roofs and the hazard shifts dramatically: some materials produce short, intense exposure windows while others sustain burning long enough to threaten neighbors at greater distances. The fully thatched shelter stands out for extreme radiant heat and duration, and our discussion on tarpaulin tents reveals why common fire test methods can produce reassuring ratings that still miss real-world behavior.

If you care about informal settlement fire safety, humanitarian shelter design, fire engineering guidance, or modeling large outdoor fires in dense communities, this conversation gives you a data-driven foundation and a clear sense of what questions still need answering.

Learn more about the project and watch their educational videos here: https://kindlingsafety.org/projects/large-scale-fire-experiments-for-humanitarian-shelters/

----
The Fire Science Show is produced by the Fire Science Media in collaboration with OFR Consultants. Thank you to the podcast sponsor for their continuous support towards our mission.

Being a part of broader civil engineering and built environment sciences, we have the unique opportunity to learn from other "sister" disciplines, rather than coming up with everything on our own. Especially, when those disciplines have 100+ years of experience in investigating stuff that has recently emerged as one of the leading challenges in our field.

The other discipline is Earthquake Engineering.

The interesting stuff - community resilience and managing safety across tens of thousands of buildings exposed to the same hazard.

Our field of application - Fire Safety of WUI communitites.

And most importantly, my diligent guests: Negar Elhami-Khorasani from University at Buffalo, and Justin Moresco from Applied Technology Council.

In this episode we discuss how earthquake engineering deals with hazards through four steps:

1. Hazard assessment,
2. System response (exposure)
3. Damage assessment (vulnerability)
4. Level of loss (consequences)

You will learn what are fragility functions and how they are applied. We will also discuss building archetypes and how we can use them to increase or decrease the level of detail in our analysis.

If you want more:

• Conceptualizing a probabilistic risk and loss assessment framework for wildfires
• Toward Probabilistic Risk Assessment of Wildland–Urban Interface Communities for Wildfires

Recommended follow-up podcast episodes:

• 156 - Trigger Boundaries with Harry Mitchell and Nick Kalogeropoulos
• 215 - Lessons from the 2018 Camp Fire with Eric D. Link
• 222 - Integrating WUI risk management and fire safety engineering with Pascale Vacca

----
The Fire Science Show is produced by the Fire Science Media in collaboration with OFR Consultants. Thank you to the podcast sponsor for their continuous support towards our mission.