080 - Adaptive Fire Testing: A new foundation stone for fire safety (ERC StG Grant) with Ruben van Coile

WEBVTT

00:00:00.353 --> 00:00:00.953
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Hello everybody.

00:00:00.953 --> 00:00:02.633
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Welcome to the Fire Science Show.

00:00:03.233 --> 00:00:10.147
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Having this podcast, I really like how it allows me to react on what's happening around in the fire science world.

00:00:10.657 --> 00:00:21.097
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>And just two weeks ago, I received a very, very good news and that was the announcement of the winners of E R C starting grants in Europe.

00:00:21.548 --> 00:00:28.466
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>And this year, actually for the first time in the starting grand scheme, there was a grant about fire.

00:00:28.527 --> 00:00:32.293
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>This is huge This is amazing that it has happened.

00:00:32.713 --> 00:00:41.049
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>The grand benefactor is, uh, no other than Professor Ruben van Co Multiple guests of the podcast, a friend of the podcast.

00:00:41.049 --> 00:00:47.387
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>I'm super happy for Ruben's achievement and yeah, you may think getting a grant, that's not a big deal.

00:00:47.777 --> 00:00:53.707
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Everyone's getting a grant all the time and it's, it's just something that runs the coquilles of, of science.

00:00:53.707 --> 00:00:56.226
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>But no, this scheme is, is special.

00:00:56.737 --> 00:01:01.476
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>This is something meant to fund breakthrough research.

00:01:01.476 --> 00:01:04.447
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Research that can truly change the.

00:01:04.754 --> 00:01:10.453
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Discipline, their research represents and the project you can imagine.

00:01:10.453 --> 00:01:14.884
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>I, I've invited Ruben and we're gonna talk about it all the episode, this project.

00:01:15.554 --> 00:01:20.804
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Is something that can change fire engineering and fire science, and I'm super happy about it.

00:01:21.224 --> 00:01:25.364
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>To get a ERC grant, you get through an insane process.

00:01:25.394 --> 00:01:30.384
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>There's, I think up to 12 review as per each grant application.

00:01:30.834 --> 00:01:33.474
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>The applications must be absolutely excellent.

00:01:33.804 --> 00:01:35.513
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Good is not enough for erc.

00:01:35.513 --> 00:01:36.534
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>They must be excellent.

00:01:36.534 --> 00:01:38.093
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>They must be super well thought.

00:01:38.093 --> 00:01:39.713
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>They must be super well prepared.

00:01:40.194 --> 00:01:42.804
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>They must be extremely well laid out.

00:01:43.433 --> 00:01:53.438
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>So, even submitting a grant is already an achievement because you had to really think out what do you want to do, and, getting one is approved.

00:01:53.477 --> 00:01:58.897
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>That, that your Sound and it may change the world we live in.

00:01:59.141 --> 00:02:04.137
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>So I'm really excited that such a grant has happened, in the world of Fire.

00:02:04.677 --> 00:02:09.937
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>It used to be my dream to get an ERC founding one day, but then I started a podcast and I.

00:02:10.312 --> 00:02:14.638
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>prefer this, this pathway actually  rather than, fighting for funding schemes.

00:02:14.848 --> 00:02:20.907
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>But I'm happy that there are researchers at the absolutely highest level who do fight for these schemes and they win it.

00:02:21.328 --> 00:02:25.127
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>And today, yeah, the episode is all about Ruben, his achievement.

00:02:25.127 --> 00:02:26.057
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>He's your C grant.

00:02:26.117 --> 00:02:26.627
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Let's go.

00:02:50.287 --> 00:02:51.007
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Hello everybody.

00:02:51.097 --> 00:02:52.956
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Welcome to the Fire Science Show.

00:02:53.016 --> 00:02:55.590
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>I'm here today with, Ruben Van Coil again.

00:02:55.620 --> 00:02:56.189
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Hey, Ruben.

00:02:57.120 --> 00:02:58.009
<v Ruben van Coile>Good to see you.

00:02:58.770 --> 00:02:59.159
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>man.

00:02:59.219 --> 00:03:04.020
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>That's such a nice, uh, opportunity to meet because you just received ERC starting grant.

00:03:04.020 --> 00:03:04.560
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Yes.

00:03:04.796 --> 00:03:05.467
<v Ruben van Coile>Amazing.

00:03:05.467 --> 00:03:06.306
<v Ruben van Coile>Thank you very much.

00:03:06.722 --> 00:03:07.472
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Amazing.

00:03:07.472 --> 00:03:08.282
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Absolutely amazing.

00:03:08.282 --> 00:03:15.971
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>And, for those who don't know, this is the, um, European Research Center grants that are awarded yearly.

00:03:16.539 --> 00:03:18.215
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>are five years projects.

00:03:18.222 --> 00:03:19.914
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>probably the biggest research grants.

00:03:20.228 --> 00:03:22.717
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>single researcher can, can receive in Europe.

00:03:22.777 --> 00:03:29.384
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>And, it's very rare that the fire, I mean, it's very rare for a civil engineer to get one.

00:03:29.384 --> 00:03:37.395
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>And for fire, I think, for fire engineering only Guillermo had had, e R C funding and we actually covered that in, in a podcast in episode two.

00:03:37.693 --> 00:03:41.344
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>if you want to check out the, the, the scale of a grant towards the end.

00:03:41.990 --> 00:03:45.629
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Today we're gonna talk about the scale of a grant at the early day.

00:03:45.870 --> 00:03:54.052
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>So I'm gonna read the title and you give me, uh, your elevator pitch because you, I know you must have had, had trained that.

00:03:54.082 --> 00:03:59.836
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>So I, I read the title, you give me elevator pitch about what it is, and then we go into details.

00:04:00.407 --> 00:04:03.926
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Adaptive fire testing and new foundation Stone for Fire Safety,

00:04:04.393 --> 00:04:05.002
<v Ruben van Coile>Indeed.

00:04:05.573 --> 00:04:14.800
<v Ruben van Coile>I would say my official elevator pitch, I'll, leave that for now cause it was like, it's very, let's targeted and also for people who actually already read the proposal, right.

00:04:15.060 --> 00:04:24.338
<v Ruben van Coile>So what we want to do is we want to develop, Tools and methods to just change how we, demonstrate fire safety and buildings.

00:04:24.877 --> 00:04:26.737
<v Ruben van Coile>And there are different aspects to this.

00:04:26.767 --> 00:04:30.887
<v Ruben van Coile>So first of all, if you think about how, Demonstrating safety and buildings is done.

00:04:30.887 --> 00:04:45.872
<v Ruben van Coile>Now we have this prescriptive, uh, fire testing, which with pass fail criteria, and what we want to do is want to move towards testing, which actually teaches us or how the build the building product will behave in a real fire.

00:04:46.218 --> 00:04:48.197
<v Ruben van Coile>And, and this, there, there's lots of uncertainties there.

00:04:48.197 --> 00:04:50.398
<v Ruben van Coile>So this is definitely, it's not an easy question.

00:04:50.598 --> 00:04:54.221
<v Ruben van Coile>You want to quantify how the building, the product behaves depending on the.

00:04:54.607 --> 00:04:55.026
<v Ruben van Coile>Itself.

00:04:55.490 --> 00:05:02.396
<v Ruben van Coile>Secondly, when you have that, we also want this to be incorporated in demonstrating safety for a building.

00:05:02.673 --> 00:05:10.713
<v Ruben van Coile>So we don't want to just have prescriptive rules and saying, ah, it has to be this kind of product and we don't want to propose better classification methods.

00:05:10.923 --> 00:05:17.076
<v Ruben van Coile>No, we want to have an evaluation, a real-time evaluation of the risk profile of buildings and what.

00:05:17.504 --> 00:05:18.240
<v Ruben van Coile>allows you to do that.

00:05:18.240 --> 00:05:25.452
<v Ruben van Coile>I mean, it allows you to do many things, but what it allows you to do is, just step away from what you think of as prescriptive guidance.

00:05:25.752 --> 00:05:27.072
<v Ruben van Coile>So there are no rules anymore.

00:05:27.463 --> 00:05:31.437
<v Ruben van Coile>What you now have to have is a building, which passes safety criterion.

00:05:31.750 --> 00:05:33.543
<v Ruben van Coile>And we can talk about safety criteria later.

00:05:33.543 --> 00:05:38.557
<v Ruben van Coile>Cause I mean it's not an easy statement there, but fundamentally you evaluate the risk of a.

00:05:39.598 --> 00:05:41.853
<v Ruben van Coile>and if the risk is too high, you have to change something.

00:05:42.177 --> 00:05:47.637
<v Ruben van Coile>but if you think about this, say like, okay, this, uh, this all sounds very nice, but you have to change something.

00:05:47.637 --> 00:05:51.266
<v Ruben van Coile>And then how can I now possibly evaluate what to change?

00:05:51.536 --> 00:05:53.396
<v Ruben van Coile>Well, yes, it's a very difficult question.

00:05:53.607 --> 00:05:54.716
<v Ruben van Coile>You need to do medical calculation.

00:05:54.716 --> 00:05:57.177
<v Ruben van Coile>So we're also going to do surrogate modeling.

00:05:57.771 --> 00:06:04.091
<v Ruben van Coile>We're going to do, basically, you can call this machine learning, but we're going to do physics based machine learning.

00:06:04.091 --> 00:06:07.031
<v Ruben van Coile>So physical constraints, physical backgrounds to the model.

00:06:07.211 --> 00:06:15.595
<v Ruben van Coile>So getting to machine learning, which actually make, where we make sure that our results, comply with the basic physics really.

00:06:16.704 --> 00:06:18.415
<v Ruben van Coile>So that's the core of the project.

00:06:18.641 --> 00:06:21.295
<v Ruben van Coile>There is one additional point, I like very much.

00:06:22.204 --> 00:06:27.458
<v Ruben van Coile>abdo would be a challenge as well, is that there's a work package on, let's say convincing stakeholders really.

00:06:27.817 --> 00:06:39.788
<v Ruben van Coile>So we're going to do a cost benefit evaluation of compliance frameworks, the existing framework, what we propose and alternatives possibly so that then at the end, hopefully.

00:06:40.156 --> 00:06:52.293
<v Ruben van Coile>Show, or at least we, we provide a method to show that this approach, which we are proposing actually has a benefit to society compared to just sticking what we have done forever.

00:06:53.146 --> 00:06:58.312
<v Ruben van Coile>So, and that's the starting point of, of the proposal really saying like, look, We need to change this.

00:06:58.322 --> 00:07:13.831
<v Ruben van Coile>We need to have a new way of testing, and this new way of testing should not be one with pass fail criteria, but one where we test to increase our knowledge, so either it's very specifically product development.

00:07:13.831 --> 00:07:19.031
<v Ruben van Coile>We're going to increase our knowledge and reduce uncertainty in the behavior of a building product.

00:07:19.872 --> 00:07:23.461
<v Ruben van Coile>In fire or very case specific and targeted.

00:07:23.601 --> 00:07:33.661
<v Ruben van Coile>You have a specific building, could be even an existing building, and you want to perform a test so that you demonstrate that your building is safe.

00:07:34.122 --> 00:07:39.536
<v Ruben van Coile>Now, this might raise lots of questions, but we can talk about that later, of course.

00:07:40.036 --> 00:07:45.394
<v Ruben van Coile>Now, to enable all of that, you need lots of stuff you need to do.

00:07:45.394 --> 00:07:46.274
<v Ruben van Coile>Uncertainty, quant.

00:07:46.935 --> 00:07:51.704
<v Ruben van Coile>You need to, do what is actually a value of information assessment.

00:07:52.014 --> 00:08:02.144
<v Ruben van Coile>What that means is that you are going to evaluate before you do a test, what you think the test is going to give you, and that way you can compare different tests.

00:08:02.454 --> 00:08:05.841
<v Ruben van Coile>I mean, this might sound very weird when you hear first time

00:08:06.117 --> 00:08:09.165
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>We we're gonna jump into that in very details.

00:08:09.165 --> 00:08:15.154
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>So my attempt at summarizing that, are designing buildings based on.

00:08:16.444 --> 00:08:23.115
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>century assumption of what fire performance is, fragmented into elements, parts of it.

00:08:23.685 --> 00:08:24.824
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Like not a building at all.

00:08:24.824 --> 00:08:34.023
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>I just had a Cardington episode in the podcast where it was 1990s, where they, for the first time, I think, looked at the building as a whole, not as a sum of its elements.

00:08:34.023 --> 00:08:34.352
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Right.

00:08:34.783 --> 00:08:35.192
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>1990s.

00:08:35.731 --> 00:08:39.052
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>given that fire testing is a hundred something years old, right.

00:08:39.881 --> 00:08:43.158
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>so, we need, to at it in a, in a different way.

00:08:43.158 --> 00:08:52.042
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>And, and, uh, current fire testing that's based on fail pass and just, single element test is not meeting that at all.

00:08:52.047 --> 00:08:54.006
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>So, so you would rather keep the fire testing.

00:08:54.006 --> 00:09:00.456
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>I appreciate that as someone who is running a fire lab thank you, It's great that you see a future for us too.

00:09:00.922 --> 00:09:07.760
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>but you would like us to not be the judge and say, this failed this past, but you would like us to build up any information,

00:09:07.909 --> 00:09:10.289
<v Ruben van Coile>Yes, we can maybe even be a bit more targeted there.

00:09:10.289 --> 00:09:15.274
<v Ruben van Coile>So you had the, the episode of On Fire Resistance, some, say, weeks ago.

00:09:15.734 --> 00:09:18.793
<v Ruben van Coile>And at, at some point in that episode, if I remember correct, you.

00:09:19.024 --> 00:09:32.350
<v Ruben van Coile>You're talking about, okay, you can do testing and you can do numerical evaluations, and uh, if I remember that correctly, it's like, well, numerical evaluations are the alternative and we, we know this is not the way to go.

00:09:32.350 --> 00:09:33.870
<v Ruben van Coile>There cannot be an alternative to testing.

00:09:34.253 --> 00:09:38.263
<v Ruben van Coile>I would say, look, let's not split those things fully.

00:09:38.893 --> 00:09:39.013
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Hmm

00:09:39.062 --> 00:09:44.663
<v Ruben van Coile>Actually, you integrate them and it is your numerical evaluation, which defines which test you should.

00:09:44.999 --> 00:09:48.595
<v Ruben van Coile>And it is your test, which then informs your numerical evaluation.

00:09:48.595 --> 00:09:57.168
<v Ruben van Coile>I mean, it's, it's logical, but, and this is the, the core of the proposal as an, okay, it's easy to say that, but how are we actually going to do it?

00:09:57.438 --> 00:09:58.308
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Yeah, yeah, yeah.

00:09:58.346 --> 00:10:11.157
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>you got me at the pass file criteria, like, uh, I, I really see no point if I'm doing a fire test for a, a person and, they have a 60 minute wall and, uh, the test stands at 59 minutes and they haven't passed it.

00:10:11.246 --> 00:10:12.616
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>And, uh, then they have.

00:10:12.716 --> 00:10:17.006
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>To come again, the same wall, 58 minutes, then again the same wall.

00:10:17.006 --> 00:10:17.726
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>62 minutes.

00:10:17.726 --> 00:10:17.996
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Yes.

00:10:17.996 --> 00:10:22.884
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Now this wall is good And, and that's, uh, that, that's ridiculous.

00:10:23.357 --> 00:10:26.057
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>that's a system that existed for Century.

00:10:26.272 --> 00:10:33.321
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>And has led to, whole industry focused on passing the tests that that's what we have today.

00:10:33.445 --> 00:10:36.717
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>it doesn't mean that it doesn't work, our buildings are safe.

00:10:36.740 --> 00:10:53.340
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>. But then again, we, we did, uh, with my friend Grzegorz um, he was also on the podcast a very unformal survey with, Building managers, uh, construction managers in Poland who were doing, uh, large investments like shopping malls, airports, like very large building skyscrapers.

00:10:54.090 --> 00:11:04.950
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>we were very informally asking them like, do you think, how, how much of the whole building cost that you are building, how, how much of that would be like fire safety, like, or everything fire safety related.

00:11:05.370 --> 00:11:07.799
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>The, the passive active fire protection, everything design.

00:11:08.220 --> 00:11:12.370
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>And the, the answer was very consistent between 10 to 15% of the building.

00:11:13.169 --> 00:11:16.995
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>So we are actually spending quite a lot on fire safety.

00:11:16.995 --> 00:11:24.467
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>If you think that 10 or 15% of the building industry, which is one of the biggest industries on the planet is related to fire safety.

00:11:24.798 --> 00:11:30.557
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>So that's a tremendous amount of, of resources, global scale that we may be using in.

00:11:31.307 --> 00:11:37.918
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>In a stupid way, to be honest, because, what's the difference between two and a four hour wall in a skyscraper?

00:11:37.918 --> 00:11:40.138
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Like really for the, the love of God?

00:11:40.437 --> 00:11:47.957
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>If the fire lasts, seven or eight hours to destroy a four hour wall, the fire resistance of that wall is the least of your problems.

00:11:47.957 --> 00:11:48.768
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>To be honest.

00:11:49.658 --> 00:11:56.313
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>so, I guess your, your grant is also looking in into that because, you want to change the paradigm like completely right.

00:11:56.563 --> 00:11:58.974
<v Ruben van Coile>Yeah, so you, you raised an important point there.

00:11:58.974 --> 00:12:00.573
<v Ruben van Coile>So when, when we talk about.

00:12:00.913 --> 00:12:04.620
<v Ruben van Coile>our prescriptive, regulation, but regulation can also be guidance.

00:12:05.004 --> 00:12:08.134
<v Ruben van Coile>That terminology there doesn't matter too much for now.

00:12:08.541 --> 00:12:10.581
<v Ruben van Coile>we are not so clear on what we want to achieve.

00:12:10.610 --> 00:12:11.740
<v Ruben van Coile>That's, that's one.

00:12:11.740 --> 00:12:30.264
<v Ruben van Coile>And very importantly, if we think about how innovation is moving so fast, and this is subjective, I admit, but I'd see no way how a government body or any other institution can just keep up with it and keep on, improving or adapting their prescriptive guidance.

00:12:30.894 --> 00:12:31.413
<v Ruben van Coile>Right.

00:12:31.413 --> 00:12:32.533
<v Ruben van Coile>So something has to give.

00:12:32.783 --> 00:12:36.494
<v Ruben van Coile>So either your prescriptive guidance just lags behind.

00:12:36.614 --> 00:12:42.173
<v Ruben van Coile>Maybe that's the traditional way where you wait for failure to happen and then we'll, we'll try to sort things out.

00:12:42.663 --> 00:12:46.624
<v Ruben van Coile>Or either you are hampering innovation, right?

00:12:46.624 --> 00:12:49.264
<v Ruben van Coile>You, you just say, ah, this is not allowed, and why not?

00:12:49.264 --> 00:12:53.880
<v Ruben van Coile>Well, because it doesn't meet this requirements, although it doesn't make sense.

00:12:54.250 --> 00:13:11.484
<v Ruben van Coile>So what we also want to do within this proposal, is use this adaptive fire testing we talked about earlier where will now get a much better view on the behavior of a building product to get a risk-based evaluation of the fire performance of a building.

00:13:11.774 --> 00:13:20.071
<v Ruben van Coile>So if you do this in a proper way, and this so conceptually, make it it simple, but it'll be very difficult to achieve.

00:13:20.447 --> 00:13:21.597
<v Ruben van Coile>an architect.

00:13:21.738 --> 00:13:32.663
<v Ruben van Coile>Design the building, submits the plans electronically to the building authorities, and then their computer system was probably a surrogate model.

00:13:32.663 --> 00:13:42.057
<v Ruben van Coile>Then evaluates the risk of this building, taking into account all of the information it has on building products, previous designs, and.

00:13:42.979 --> 00:13:47.778
<v Ruben van Coile>so, and then you get a evaluation of the risk of this building, and this is what has to be accepted.

00:13:47.849 --> 00:13:50.058
<v Ruben van Coile>I mean, this is the only thing that really matters

00:13:51.057 --> 00:13:52.278
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>You, you, you've brought something new now.

00:13:52.563 --> 00:13:54.514
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>there we, we talked about the, the product.

00:13:54.514 --> 00:14:02.313
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>So I guess it would be the, um, manufacturer of the product in interested in this, uh, approach or, or, or one of the stakeholders involved.

00:14:02.734 --> 00:14:10.380
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>There's an building designer and now, now we've mentioned building author, like, what is their place in your.

00:14:11.135 --> 00:14:13.566
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Like today and, and within the adaptive framework.

00:14:13.566 --> 00:14:20.765
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>So you said that  the goal would be to provide them some sort of automated tool metric, uh, system.

00:14:21.091 --> 00:14:21.510
<v Ruben van Coile>Yes.

00:14:22.150 --> 00:14:29.260
<v Ruben van Coile>Although we have to, make a distinction maybe for the, for this project between, so the, the vision, right?

00:14:29.600 --> 00:14:38.380
<v Ruben van Coile>And I can imagine many people have this kind of vision where vision, where of a instantaneous evaluation of fire risk for buildings.

00:14:38.876 --> 00:14:44.144
<v Ruben van Coile>, which means that the authorities do not have to prescribe things anymore because you have the risk evaluation.

00:14:44.203 --> 00:14:46.663
<v Ruben van Coile>The prescription is just some kind of substitute, right?

00:14:46.953 --> 00:14:49.583
<v Ruben van Coile>So what you actually care about is fire performance.

00:14:49.658 --> 00:14:51.168
<v Ruben van Coile>So this is what we want.

00:14:51.168 --> 00:14:51.768
<v Ruben van Coile>That's the vision.

00:14:52.347 --> 00:14:53.607
<v Ruben van Coile>Now, how do we get there?

00:14:53.918 --> 00:14:56.528
<v Ruben van Coile>Well, therefore you need some tools.

00:14:56.528 --> 00:14:59.956
<v Ruben van Coile>You need methodologies within the proposal.

00:14:59.956 --> 00:15:09.328
<v Ruben van Coile>Different work packages, we are developing some of those methods, some of those tools, but you should not think them as, uh, a finished product.

00:15:09.798 --> 00:15:23.523
<v Ruben van Coile>It's more like, okay, if we manage to do this prove of concept, then hopefully we can convince other people, institutions, researchers, government, and so on industry to invest in this and.

00:15:24.715 --> 00:15:29.552
<v Ruben van Coile>With our, uh, proof of concept, build this new way for, uh, demonstrating fire safety.

00:15:29.926 --> 00:15:30.495
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Fantastic.

00:15:30.495 --> 00:15:31.066
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Fantastic.

00:15:31.341 --> 00:15:31.581
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>okay.

00:15:31.725 --> 00:15:39.496
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>let's talk the case study because I, you, you picked an interesting case study, which is, glazing and, um, and Lord burying glazing.

00:15:39.947 --> 00:15:41.986
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>What, what, um, made you.

00:15:43.081 --> 00:15:44.522
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Pursued this path.

00:15:44.522 --> 00:15:48.751
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Like why, why, why glazing as your case study to demonstrate this new methodology?

00:15:48.821 --> 00:15:51.870
<v Ruben van Coile>Well, that's .that's a funny question.

00:15:52.216 --> 00:15:53.326
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>I find it intriguing.

00:15:53.385 --> 00:15:54.796
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>It wouldn't be my first choice.

00:15:54.961 --> 00:15:56.591
<v Ruben van Coile>so writing the C proposal.

00:15:56.797 --> 00:15:59.606
<v Ruben van Coile>I go through different stages, right?

00:15:59.616 --> 00:16:05.346
<v Ruben van Coile>So almost a year in advance, uh, some preliminary ideas, but don't go into depth.

00:16:05.346 --> 00:16:15.226
<v Ruben van Coile>And then I, I think in, in the summer before, submission really going into detail and went to different versions of it, the glazing was not there in the first version.

00:16:15.785 --> 00:16:17.442
<v Ruben van Coile>And then you ask feedback.

00:16:17.511 --> 00:16:22.731
<v Ruben van Coile>And feedback is because I was working with concrete, which is the typical thing which we do in our lab.

00:16:22.905 --> 00:16:26.759
<v Ruben van Coile>and some Gibson burst, as well and said like, why concrete?

00:16:27.086 --> 00:16:33.158
<v Ruben van Coile>Like, oh, cause it makes me feel comfortable,, and then in, right.

00:16:33.369 --> 00:16:40.626
<v Ruben van Coile>So what, and, and say, well, Highlight that within the E R C, it's about high risk, high gain.

00:16:40.626 --> 00:16:41.900
<v Ruben van Coile>What is challenging?

00:16:41.900 --> 00:16:44.037
<v Ruben van Coile>What is, a breakthrough and swamp?

00:16:44.726 --> 00:16:45.086
<v Ruben van Coile>. Okay.

00:16:45.086 --> 00:16:47.663
<v Ruben van Coile>That's tricky what we have now.

00:16:47.663 --> 00:16:50.384
<v Ruben van Coile>And so there are different arguments than in favor of the glazing.

00:16:50.384 --> 00:16:55.984
<v Ruben van Coile>What we have now on the structural engineering side is that there is a new euro code coming for glazing.

00:16:55.984 --> 00:16:59.504
<v Ruben van Coile>This will not have a fire part yet, so this fire part has to be developed.

00:16:59.504 --> 00:17:02.264
<v Ruben van Coile>There's a lot, lot of research which is needed there.

00:17:02.264 --> 00:17:02.703
<v Ruben van Coile>So, okay.

00:17:02.943 --> 00:17:07.933
<v Ruben van Coile>That's, one reason why glazing is, is relevant on the fire part then.

00:17:08.689 --> 00:17:14.662
<v Ruben van Coile>Our glazing in buildings, not load bearing glazing, but just, genital glazing, defines how our fires develop.

00:17:15.086 --> 00:17:16.165
<v Ruben van Coile>Glass breakage.

00:17:16.215 --> 00:17:28.945
<v Ruben van Coile>So from that perspective, although there has been a lot of research on glass breakage, there is still a lot which can be done, to just improve how we, how we do fire dynamics calculations, really.

00:17:29.155 --> 00:17:30.346
<v Ruben van Coile>So provide input there.

00:17:30.405 --> 00:17:30.796
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Mm-hmm.

00:17:30.852 --> 00:17:34.342
<v Ruben van Coile>this, uh, these are two arguments in favor of the glazing.

00:17:34.808 --> 00:17:35.929
<v Ruben van Coile>Actually, there is also a third.

00:17:36.223 --> 00:17:37.703
<v Ruben van Coile>Just being complete here.

00:17:37.703 --> 00:17:40.080
<v Ruben van Coile>Is that within, the department?

00:17:40.080 --> 00:17:43.641
<v Ruben van Coile>One colleague of mine is, uh, let's say expert in glazing.

00:17:43.641 --> 00:17:45.280
<v Ruben van Coile>So that's also really nice and convenient.

00:17:45.391 --> 00:17:45.750
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>That's

00:17:46.060 --> 00:17:46.550
<v Ruben van Coile>Yeah.

00:17:47.022 --> 00:17:49.461
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>I'm not surprised that glazing is interesting.

00:17:49.465 --> 00:18:01.211
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>I, I had a podcast episode with  Yu Wang and that, uh, was, fascinating, like to learn the complexities of glazing and, also have been testing multiple types of, of, of glazing.

00:18:01.260 --> 00:18:03.625
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>So glazing is interesting as hell.

00:18:04.316 --> 00:18:06.145
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>just hard it's really tough.

00:18:06.151 --> 00:18:10.945
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>But I imagine for e r c, you're, uh, not, uh, like concrete as a safe path.

00:18:11.230 --> 00:18:12.111
<v Ruben van Coile>Yeah, it depends.

00:18:12.111 --> 00:18:14.431
<v Ruben van Coile>So indeed that was then the motivation.

00:18:14.750 --> 00:18:26.671
<v Ruben van Coile>Although I do admit that within the set of reviewers, cause there are many reviewers for the E R C that there is at least one reviewer who said, well maybe you should have taken concrete, but.

00:18:27.621 --> 00:18:27.711
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Yeah.

00:18:27.891 --> 00:18:28.580
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>And you replied.

00:18:28.580 --> 00:18:29.631
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Yeah, that's what I told them.

00:18:29.631 --> 00:18:30.030
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Right.

00:18:30.510 --> 00:18:33.381
<v Ruben van Coile>No, no, there is no reply, which you actually have.

00:18:33.381 --> 00:18:34.580
<v Ruben van Coile>You don't have this opportunity.

00:18:34.951 --> 00:18:40.901
<v Ruben van Coile>Uh, you, I only got the comments after everything was closed, so after even getting the award.

00:18:41.615 --> 00:18:41.915
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Okay.

00:18:42.036 --> 00:18:51.112
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>so talk about, um, the pathways that, that you've, drawn for your, for your project, with the structure of work packages, how you want to.

00:18:51.797 --> 00:18:56.656
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>End up in this new paradigm for a fire's design acceptance in the 21st century.

00:18:57.156 --> 00:19:02.463
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>and you start with, with work package that, that's related to, to the information value of fire tests.

00:19:02.794 --> 00:19:09.951
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>So let's go back to the value of information theory and what, what do you really mean by, by value of information?

00:19:10.161 --> 00:19:15.080
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>How, how do you when an information is valuable and, what, what is.

00:19:17.641 --> 00:19:21.211
<v Ruben van Coile>Okay, so I'll, I'll try a sh uh, shorter answer first.

00:19:21.211 --> 00:19:23.570
<v Ruben van Coile>We can go into more depth necessary.

00:19:24.121 --> 00:19:24.611
<v Ruben van Coile>Yeah.

00:19:25.020 --> 00:19:28.371
<v Ruben van Coile>Uh, that's one also, but, and I'm already expanding now.

00:19:28.421 --> 00:19:37.134
<v Ruben van Coile>Uh, one of the things I've learned, or I'm trying to learn following the e c is, which I should, answer more, concisely.

00:19:35.544 --> 00:19:37.134
<v Ruben van Coile>uh, so value of information.

00:19:37.794 --> 00:19:39.733
<v Ruben van Coile>the point being when you do a.

00:19:40.362 --> 00:19:42.561
<v Ruben van Coile>and in our field a fire test.

00:19:42.981 --> 00:19:47.556
<v Ruben van Coile>You would want to know beforehand, which test gives you the most value?

00:19:47.976 --> 00:19:53.288
<v Ruben van Coile>Are you going to do as now with an example, a 60 minute fire test?

00:19:53.766 --> 00:19:54.326
<v Ruben van Coile>standard fire?

00:19:54.425 --> 00:19:56.885
<v Ruben van Coile>Are you going to do a fire with a cooling face?

00:19:57.155 --> 00:19:58.526
<v Ruben van Coile>What fire do you want?

00:19:58.874 --> 00:20:02.826
<v Ruben van Coile>Because yeah, you are not going to have infinite number of fire tests.

00:20:02.826 --> 00:20:07.346
<v Ruben van Coile>You can do test costs, money tests, have environmental impact and so on.

00:20:07.546 --> 00:20:09.491
<v Ruben van Coile>Which one should choose?

00:20:09.673 --> 00:20:13.358
<v Ruben van Coile>And I would argue that for the moment, at least in our field, this is not obvious.

00:20:13.579 --> 00:20:17.292
<v Ruben van Coile>So within value of information, we will actually quantify.

00:20:17.642 --> 00:20:17.761
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Hmm.

00:20:17.936 --> 00:20:21.834
<v Ruben van Coile>and have an an answer to that question about which test you should do.

00:20:21.968 --> 00:20:30.919
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>And here you use, examples of, risk metrics that are used related, into the value of information like FN, curves, all arp.

00:20:31.510 --> 00:20:37.861
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>How, how does display, is this like, done in the further steps or already like the test?

00:20:37.865 --> 00:20:42.881
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>The purpose of test is only to give the, the information and inform the fir the rest of the process.

00:20:43.343 --> 00:20:44.847
<v Ruben van Coile>that's next level, right?

00:20:44.978 --> 00:20:49.768
<v Ruben van Coile>So, I'll, I'll park the, the risk parts for a second, let's say.

00:20:49.768 --> 00:20:53.788
<v Ruben van Coile>Okay, so if, I hope this is make sense to, to the listener.

00:20:53.798 --> 00:20:57.730
<v Ruben van Coile>So if you say, okay, I want to, know which test, is the most valuable to do.

00:20:57.730 --> 00:20:58.691
<v Ruben van Coile>Okay, great.

00:20:58.691 --> 00:21:01.330
<v Ruben van Coile>Then of course you need to have a, a metric.

00:21:01.563 --> 00:21:04.046
<v Ruben van Coile>Which you're trying to, let's say optimize.

00:21:04.506 --> 00:21:22.097
<v Ruben van Coile>And if you are a manufacturer within the current paradigm with standard fire resistance testing, and I'm just using structural, uh, examples here, but I mean, can change to anything else, then this could be, an evaluation of the uncertainty on your, uh, just justify resistance time.

00:21:22.397 --> 00:21:22.958
<v Ruben van Coile>Right?

00:21:22.958 --> 00:21:23.678
<v Ruben van Coile>And you want.

00:21:23.929 --> 00:21:30.298
<v Ruben van Coile>Make sure that you are on the safe sides, that you have your fire resistance time is definitely more than 60 minutes.

00:21:30.479 --> 00:21:33.538
<v Ruben van Coile>The average is 65 standard deviation and so on.

00:21:33.538 --> 00:21:37.453
<v Ruben van Coile>So you could target something like that within the current paradigm.

00:21:37.965 --> 00:21:39.192
<v Ruben van Coile>within product development.

00:21:39.192 --> 00:21:47.152
<v Ruben van Coile>So if you're not even testing for compliance within product development, you could just test your specimen to reduce the uncertainty on its perform.

00:21:47.856 --> 00:21:52.978
<v Ruben van Coile>because you're in a, you're a developer and you just want to know if, how the product is actually behaving.

00:21:53.637 --> 00:22:03.842
<v Ruben van Coile>Now, next level is, okay, we are now within a approach of evaluating the fire performance of buildings, really quantifying that.

00:22:04.195 --> 00:22:09.962
<v Ruben van Coile>That means that we are evaluating, for example, the risk, high risk of a building.

00:22:10.609 --> 00:22:16.744
<v Ruben van Coile>Because of the uncertainties we have, our building does not first comply with our target.

00:22:16.790 --> 00:22:17.309
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Mm-hmm.

00:22:17.345 --> 00:22:26.603
<v Ruben van Coile>Which test should we do so that we think that we will switch or move our risk assessment so that now it'll comply.

00:22:27.682 --> 00:22:29.113
<v Ruben van Coile>So you have an existing building.

00:22:29.403 --> 00:22:33.913
<v Ruben van Coile>It has maybe an existing masonry wall or an existing timber column.

00:22:34.442 --> 00:22:38.270
<v Ruben van Coile>Um, it does not comply with, our risk target.

00:22:38.550 --> 00:22:47.134
<v Ruben van Coile>Which tests are we now going to do, which gives us a better assessment of the risk and hopefully if the test outcome is positive, but okay.

00:22:47.134 --> 00:22:49.374
<v Ruben van Coile>Shows that uh, our building is safe.

00:22:49.709 --> 00:23:04.843
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>And, and that is, through understanding, performance of a completely new untested, previously material composition setting of materials, building element, or through reducing us uncertainties of something that we already knew maybe right.

00:23:05.269 --> 00:23:05.925
<v Ruben van Coile>Exactly.

00:23:06.135 --> 00:23:23.035
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>So here's the feedback loop that, that you first want to understand the full building performance as proposed and find out, okay, what I'm missing here to, to get a better information of this risk or get the risk profile that is acceptable because I received unacceptable risk profile, right?

00:23:23.178 --> 00:23:23.648
<v Ruben van Coile>Yeah.

00:23:23.800 --> 00:23:25.351
<v Ruben van Coile>So there, there is always uncertainty.

00:23:25.480 --> 00:23:30.996
<v Ruben van Coile>So uh, you have a small building, low rise, nothing special, not nothing fancy on it.

00:23:31.175 --> 00:23:35.115
<v Ruben van Coile>And then there's quite some uncertainty on the fire resistance of some slap.

00:23:35.787 --> 00:23:45.067
<v Ruben van Coile>But you, within the risk evaluation, it is quite possible that you don't need more information on the fire performance of the slap.

00:23:45.163 --> 00:23:55.784
<v Ruben van Coile>That within the mean, there is uncertainty on it, it's taking into account, but actually having a better assessment of the SLAP fire performance doesn't teach you anything regarding the building.

00:23:56.344 --> 00:23:57.183
<v Ruben van Coile>While maybe.

00:23:57.390 --> 00:24:02.980
<v Ruben van Coile>Again, structurally, but maybe there is a column which actually this thing is the thing you should be testing,

00:24:03.131 --> 00:24:03.740
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Mm-hmm.

00:24:03.901 --> 00:24:10.820
<v Ruben van Coile>So, and this is, I would say, not taken into account really in the, in the current approach and within the risk-based approach.

00:24:10.820 --> 00:24:11.661
<v Ruben van Coile>You could do that.

00:24:11.851 --> 00:24:12.651
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Fantastic.

00:24:12.943 --> 00:24:18.284
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>I always thought that, that there's a space for performance to base engineering in fire lab.

00:24:18.523 --> 00:24:26.128
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>That, that it could, give, than just index and, you are actually showing, a realistic pathway to, to achieve that.

00:24:26.128 --> 00:24:32.398
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>That that's, I mean, everyone could say, okay, we could test the things in different way and then receive other things.

00:24:32.578 --> 00:24:42.766
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>The, the framework is necessary here to make it useful for the industry because if there's no framework, then we, we cannot, now to enable the adaptive fire testing.

00:24:42.766 --> 00:24:47.026
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>You also have work package too, which is surrogate modeling.

00:24:47.501 --> 00:24:51.726
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>I guess this is what you said in the beginning of the interview, that we shouldn't, treat them sub barely.

00:24:51.730 --> 00:24:56.796
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>They, their simulations and, and testing could be used all the way together.

00:24:57.006 --> 00:24:59.705
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Is this circuit modeling also a part of, of this thinking?

00:25:00.175 --> 00:25:00.596
<v Ruben van Coile>yes.

00:25:00.596 --> 00:25:02.858
<v Ruben van Coile>So model modeling definitely is a part of it.

00:25:03.219 --> 00:25:11.439
<v Ruben van Coile>the point there being that if you have advanced modeling, then just the, the computational expense quickly becomes very big, right?

00:25:11.679 --> 00:25:22.010
<v Ruben van Coile>And if you do the value of information approach, What you need to do is evaluate before doing the test, what a specific test results will teach you.

00:25:22.730 --> 00:25:29.681
<v Ruben van Coile>So you need to actually update your model in many different ways to then find out which test you actually want to perform.

00:25:29.990 --> 00:25:33.810
<v Ruben van Coile>And you could think of this as confirming, um, which model to choose.

00:25:33.810 --> 00:25:34.211
<v Ruben van Coile>Yeah.

00:25:34.663 --> 00:25:37.393
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Almost like a sensitivity study before you do the test.

00:25:37.393 --> 00:25:38.962
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Like which test would matter the most?

00:25:39.104 --> 00:25:39.523
<v Ruben van Coile>yes.

00:25:39.523 --> 00:25:41.243
<v Ruben van Coile>This is, you could put it that way.

00:25:41.243 --> 00:25:41.763
<v Ruben van Coile>Definitely.

00:25:42.064 --> 00:25:47.891
<v Ruben van Coile>but it means in that way that you would have to evaluate your model lots of times.

00:25:48.260 --> 00:25:49.451
<v Ruben van Coile>So it becomes computation.

00:25:49.451 --> 00:25:51.090
<v Ruben van Coile>Very expensive, very, very quickly.

00:25:51.404 --> 00:25:57.221
<v Ruben van Coile>So the obvious approach, would be to use circle modeling and called machine learning.

00:25:57.606 --> 00:25:58.086
<v Ruben van Coile>either way.

00:25:58.297 --> 00:26:07.007
<v Ruben van Coile>So a, a model which is computationally very efficient and which approximates very well, a more advanced model.

00:26:07.444 --> 00:26:08.423
<v Ruben van Coile>Okay, that's great.

00:26:08.884 --> 00:26:13.641
<v Ruben van Coile>Now I have subjectively some concerns with black box.

00:26:14.019 --> 00:26:32.402
<v Ruben van Coile>surrogate models, and just as an example, When you ask somebody to do a, to use a machine learning methods on a fire engineering problem, then very often you will find non-physical results, as in they've trained their model and the the results are excellent and whatever, whatever you, where all the metrics.

00:26:32.701 --> 00:26:43.011
<v Ruben van Coile>And then when you go into detail and you, you push the model a little bit, you find out that there are combinations where, for example, there is a fire and everything cools down.

00:26:43.344 --> 00:26:55.365
<v Ruben van Coile>Just because the surrogate model has interpolated and, has been trained in a way that it gives non-physical results work package two gray surrogate modeling is the same approach.

00:26:55.816 --> 00:27:01.826
<v Ruben van Coile>So it's, still these methods of surrogate modeling machine learning, but with physical co.

00:27:02.471 --> 00:27:07.141
<v Ruben van Coile>So physical constraints in both within the model itself, within the cost function.

00:27:07.141 --> 00:27:10.820
<v Ruben van Coile>So when you do machine learning, you have a cost function, which you're trying to, to minimize.

00:27:11.105 --> 00:27:13.010
<v Ruben van Coile>and also as putting those constraints.

00:27:13.010 --> 00:27:14.250
<v Ruben van Coile>So we're going to explore that.

00:27:14.510 --> 00:27:26.020
<v Ruben van Coile>Can we develop again, proof of concept, ways of making machine learning tools, which actually comply with what we know about how fire behaves, how structures behave.

00:27:27.060 --> 00:27:29.030
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Man, this is, uh, it's like a dream.

00:27:29.361 --> 00:27:29.990
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>It's so funny.

00:27:29.990 --> 00:27:33.085
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>You're gonna get to do this now, another question.

00:27:33.711 --> 00:27:36.780
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>you were kind enough to send me the short proposal for e r c.

00:27:36.780 --> 00:27:39.060
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>You're sending the short one and the, the long one.

00:27:39.510 --> 00:27:42.480
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>So maybe this is covered in, in the long version.

00:27:42.855 --> 00:27:45.515
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>but I couldn't find it anywhere in the short one.

00:27:45.694 --> 00:27:53.506
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>I, however, however, I spotted in on a figure, so, on the pathway between the designer and architect towards the authorities.

00:27:53.955 --> 00:27:59.316
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>You said that they submit um, digital blueprints and, on the framework it's, it's b i m model.

00:27:59.526 --> 00:28:05.865
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>So I wondered like, how critical is b i m technology for your project and, how do you intend to work with that?

00:28:06.261 --> 00:28:08.321
<v Ruben van Coile>The easy answer is it's not included,

00:28:08.670 --> 00:28:09.480
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>It's not included.

00:28:09.609 --> 00:28:11.700
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Oh, no, Okay.

00:28:11.700 --> 00:28:15.492
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>There's a space for the second E R C grant, you take it as this.

00:28:15.796 --> 00:28:16.736
<v Ruben van Coile>not even that.

00:28:17.076 --> 00:28:17.976
<v Ruben van Coile>Not even that.

00:28:18.385 --> 00:28:24.531
<v Ruben van Coile>So, this is a bit of a, a different perspective maybe on, on the, proposal or on the, the E r C.

00:28:24.862 --> 00:28:26.316
<v Ruben van Coile>So I, I was struggl.

00:28:26.711 --> 00:28:34.984
<v Ruben van Coile>in the beginning to have a, let's say, a compelling story, then showing that this is research worth supporting.

00:28:35.236 --> 00:28:45.031
<v Ruben van Coile>So I have, wrote down this, let's say, Vision where you have inin instantaneous evaluation of the risk profile of buildings.

00:28:45.038 --> 00:28:47.019
<v Ruben van Coile>and how would that be possible?

00:28:47.019 --> 00:28:54.672
<v Ruben van Coile>Feasible in a right would be, for example, with, as far as I understand, BIM models, being evaluated by a surrogate model.

00:28:55.071 --> 00:28:55.632
<v Ruben van Coile>Right?

00:28:56.185 --> 00:28:58.182
<v Ruben van Coile>So that's the storyline.

00:28:58.654 --> 00:28:59.265
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Hmmhmm.

00:28:59.342 --> 00:29:04.838
<v Ruben van Coile>I say, well, if we want this, we need to develop these kinds of tools or proof of concept tools.

00:29:05.659 --> 00:29:08.375
<v Ruben van Coile>And then those are, different work packages.

00:29:08.796 --> 00:29:15.556
<v Ruben van Coile>so the actual, how are we going to extract data from the bim and which specific, Things do we need and so on.

00:29:15.556 --> 00:29:39.486
<v Ruben van Coile>This is not part of this proposal and actually, um, now jumping forward to some, maybe some other work package, actually, I do recognize that within the proposal in sense that I highlight a lot that, there, if this will move forward, there will be large follow up investments needed and which is why there's an entire work package really targeting, if stake call.

00:29:39.881 --> 00:29:40.540
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Very good.

00:29:40.717 --> 00:29:42.244
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>that's, that's a smart move.

00:29:42.250 --> 00:29:48.647
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>And, uh, I think there's a lot of, uh, movement in BI and fire, uh, mainly in, um, Code compliance.

00:29:48.998 --> 00:29:57.355
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>this is a path for BIM for sure where, prescriptive code compliance could be assessed through the BIM model almost automatically.

00:29:58.075 --> 00:30:06.601
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>I think that would be a very compelling, uh, thing to see, such an assessment done in parallel with, estimation of the risk profile of the building.

00:30:06.601 --> 00:30:11.371
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>You know, the, the fundamental question that that lies, uh, is.

00:30:11.521 --> 00:30:19.769
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>According to Low Safe and how safe it is, uh, which we don't have a good answer for that in, in your framework.

00:30:19.769 --> 00:30:27.240
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>I, I don't think that, uh, that's, that important is safe enough, uh, with pro because you, like, you are not interested in the prescriptive.

00:30:27.244 --> 00:30:30.440
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>You want to break this, uh, You want to shift it completely

00:30:31.101 --> 00:30:36.111
<v Ruben van Coile>Well, I still call it prescriptive, what I call it, uh, let's say the 21st century prescriptive.

00:30:36.111 --> 00:30:36.510
<v Ruben van Coile>Right.

00:30:36.512 --> 00:30:36.752
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>okay.

00:30:36.752 --> 00:30:36.992
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Okay.

00:30:37.000 --> 00:30:37.351
<v Ruben van Coile>So,

00:30:37.512 --> 00:30:43.303
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>you replace just a set of rules with, uh, risk profiles and inform the metrics and, surrogate

00:30:43.411 --> 00:30:44.080
<v Ruben van Coile>exactly.

00:30:44.391 --> 00:30:44.881
<v Ruben van Coile>Yeah.

00:30:45.101 --> 00:30:52.112
<v Ruben van Coile>And then if, Somebody who hears this is things, well, this is definitely not possible for every sit single situation and so on.

00:30:52.132 --> 00:30:53.471
<v Ruben van Coile>Yes, fully acknowledged.

00:30:53.761 --> 00:30:59.412
<v Ruben van Coile>So within this called vision again, 21st century prescriptive risk evaluation.

00:31:00.001 --> 00:31:03.122
<v Ruben van Coile>then you still have your performance based design approach.

00:31:03.453 --> 00:31:06.594
<v Ruben van Coile>But now with better data and better input.

00:31:06.624 --> 00:31:18.530
<v Ruben van Coile>Also the adaptive fire testing approach, where if something is not working out all within your performance based design that you can know or at least assess which test you should do to get a better assessment.

00:31:18.901 --> 00:31:25.050
<v Ruben van Coile>So definitely I am not saying that there is no space there for fire engineers.

00:31:25.050 --> 00:31:27.290
<v Ruben van Coile>On the contrary, I think within.

00:31:28.017 --> 00:31:35.358
<v Ruben van Coile>Framework, I concept fire engineering is much more engineering than maybe sometimes it is today.

00:31:35.587 --> 00:31:43.994
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>I had a discussion with Xinyan Huang at some point, and, We were talking about machine learning in, in general, and, he, said something that really.

00:31:44.496 --> 00:31:49.803
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Resonated with me that, you know, we can describe nature with, an equation or a set of equations.

00:31:49.803 --> 00:31:53.992
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>We can describe nature with, with a three-dimensional CFD model or something.

00:31:53.992 --> 00:32:00.476
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>And, And, there's a neural network that describes the, the, the reality or, you know, some phenomenon in a way we don't completely understand.

00:32:00.476 --> 00:32:02.640
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>But it's a different language of, describing.

00:32:02.640 --> 00:32:03.753
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>If you can, build that.

00:32:04.268 --> 00:32:04.837
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>It works.

00:32:05.349 --> 00:32:06.224
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>it's not the same thing.

00:32:06.224 --> 00:32:08.894
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>And in here again, you can describe your building with.

00:32:09.018 --> 00:32:16.637
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>you know, requirement that walls shall be R 60 and the windows shall be R 30 or EI30 30, and the doors shall be this.

00:32:16.637 --> 00:32:20.508
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>And you can have 40 meters of your path and, and stuff like that.

00:32:20.928 --> 00:32:27.948
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>And you can describe the building with a completely different, uh, language that you would like the risk profile to look not worse than this.

00:32:27.948 --> 00:32:31.055
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>And, when assessed in, in this particular way.

00:32:31.055 --> 00:32:33.221
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>And, also giving a, a tool how.

00:32:33.925 --> 00:32:35.365
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Adjusted risk profile.

00:32:35.365 --> 00:32:43.276
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>So if you want to adjust this risk profile, you don't, change the fire resistance of your wall from 60 to 90 minutes as you could do today.

00:32:43.276 --> 00:32:50.256
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Like today, if I want to, uh, I don't know, reduce the, the fire resistance of my walls, I have to put sprinklers in it.

00:32:50.256 --> 00:32:52.955
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>And that's my cost benefit analysis.

00:32:52.955 --> 00:32:54.965
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>The world cost this, the sprinklers cost.

00:32:54.965 --> 00:32:58.715
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>This I benefit by, by making the building cheaper, not, not.

00:32:59.550 --> 00:33:11.785
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Probably safer, but I, I don't know that in, in reality, in your approach, if you succeed with that, you, you get, a full package of tools, to know the risk and then based on the, on the risk That's, that's beautiful.

00:33:12.017 --> 00:33:17.416
<v Ruben van Coile>Maybe one thing to, to highlight is that, well, I think that the, the paradigm, how we.

00:33:17.473 --> 00:33:20.429
<v Ruben van Coile>Demonstrative building a safe that should move.

00:33:20.979 --> 00:33:28.853
<v Ruben van Coile>I am not saying at any point, let's throw away all of our existing products and, and the, the results we already have.

00:33:29.006 --> 00:33:38.192
<v Ruben van Coile>because, so it's as if you gave an example earlier about high rise structure and fire resistance on, it's as if you, if you, you have this Okay.

00:33:38.251 --> 00:33:42.432
<v Ruben van Coile>BIM model of this high rise structure, the risk profile is evaluated.

00:33:43.276 --> 00:33:45.131
<v Ruben van Coile>It comes out very good.

00:33:45.211 --> 00:33:55.760
<v Ruben van Coile>Maybe even you can reduce the classification of your, of some structural elements automatically or not, and find out that this does not influence your risk profile.

00:33:56.776 --> 00:34:12.686
<v Ruben van Coile>. Or on the contrary, if the risk is too high because there is this low probability, high consequence event, you might find out that okay, but in using our existing classifications, the assessment of the model is now that, okay, you have now adequately reduced, this event.

00:34:12.802 --> 00:34:12.963
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Hmm.

00:34:13.096 --> 00:34:21.996
<v Ruben van Coile>So if a, if it's too much of a revolution, as in throw everything away and we start from scratch, this is just not, not reasonable, as in it's not going to happen.

00:34:22.389 --> 00:34:22.840
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>And.

00:34:23.617 --> 00:34:26.748
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>how do you feel like about blind spots of this approach?

00:34:26.748 --> 00:34:35.304
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Like, if you are measuring based on, on a set of, assumptions, even, even if you try to do it holistically, and, okay.

00:34:35.304 --> 00:34:40.974
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>The current paradigm is not very innovation friendly as well, but something might escape the, the set of rules.

00:34:40.974 --> 00:34:43.914
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>So you, you hope this will be continuously evolving?

00:34:43.974 --> 00:34:53.748
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Uh, we will be building these, measures to, to incorporate new, new challenges because if, if you base, the safety and the risk profile, you really narrow down the safety margins.

00:34:53.748 --> 00:34:58.518
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>You know, in, in prescriptive fire engineering, the safety margins are, are enormous in most of the things.

00:34:58.907 --> 00:35:08.355
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>So, There are chances that if something like comes, beyond the radar uh, safety mar margins would cover that and, and we are still protected.

00:35:08.355 --> 00:35:16.574
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Maybe that's the trick why the current paradigm worked for a hundred years because we, we were not aware, uh, about the safety margins in your approach.

00:35:16.945 --> 00:35:17.726
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>By data mining.

00:35:17.766 --> 00:35:21.222
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>The, let's say true fire safety of your building.

00:35:21.606 --> 00:35:24.155
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>you are very devoid of this safety margins.

00:35:24.155 --> 00:35:28.596
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>This, this one, the ones that we don't know about because you want to understand the performance completely.

00:35:28.596 --> 00:35:33.365
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>So there's less, let's say, uh, for a mistake.

00:35:33.385 --> 00:35:34.806
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>How, how do you feel about that?

00:35:35.344 --> 00:35:37.548
<v Ruben van Coile>That we need to be, careful in what we do.

00:35:37.548 --> 00:35:45.838
<v Ruben van Coile>And this might, this, it's a bit of a, a kinda liberal statement maybe, but the less, I would almost say, government intervention, the better.

00:35:45.938 --> 00:35:50.039
<v Ruben van Coile>And, and what I, what I mean with that if you prescri, Wojciech Wegrzynski: that.

00:35:50.641 --> 00:35:55.849
<v Ruben van Coile>if, if you prescribe specific target, You are a hundred percent, you're, you are right.

00:35:55.849 --> 00:35:56.248
<v Ruben van Coile>Right.

00:35:56.248 --> 00:35:57.768
<v Ruben van Coile>You prescribe a specific value.

00:35:58.231 --> 00:36:03.610
<v Ruben van Coile>and yeah, then it, what is the cheapest way to just pass again?

00:36:03.699 --> 00:36:08.759
<v Ruben van Coile>But what I hope and which we will is automatically enabled if we.

00:36:09.311 --> 00:36:11.422
<v Ruben van Coile>Do what we are trying to do.

00:36:11.811 --> 00:36:23.972
<v Ruben van Coile>What I hope will be, uh, will happen is that you do a la evaluation and, or you can use any other words, whether you want, but you look at the costs and benefits of fire investments, right?

00:36:24.512 --> 00:36:25.862
<v Ruben van Coile>in, in the best case.

00:36:26.626 --> 00:36:27.067
<v Ruben van Coile>Right.

00:36:27.067 --> 00:36:31.827
<v Ruben van Coile>And which I actually also believe it actually fulfills the promise of performance-based design much more.

00:36:31.867 --> 00:36:32.427
<v Ruben van Coile>Right?

00:36:32.427 --> 00:36:42.766
<v Ruben van Coile>So you will have, you could have cheaper buildings because you will remove things which are actually not helping, which have better performance because you're going to add things which actually do improve safety.

00:36:43.257 --> 00:36:45.286
<v Ruben van Coile>So, and, and safety, both for people.

00:36:45.456 --> 00:36:49.007
<v Ruben van Coile>It could be for the environment, it could be for property protection, whatever you want.

00:36:49.456 --> 00:36:53.052
<v Ruben van Coile>So,  if you set a target, okay, this is always tricky.

00:36:53.052 --> 00:36:54.612
<v Ruben van Coile>Which, what should the target be?

00:36:55.335 --> 00:36:59.016
<v Ruben van Coile>actually, I like those targets for thinking purposes.

00:36:59.016 --> 00:37:07.088
<v Ruben van Coile>Cause it helps reasoning, but what you should do is always think about, okay, but in normal situations you always end up into alarm.

00:37:07.561 --> 00:37:12.106
<v Ruben van Coile>and you invest to the level, which is, the risk is as low as reasonably practic.

00:37:12.737 --> 00:37:16.123
<v Ruben van Coile>So, yeah, you, you should not be close to that target anyway.

00:37:16.161 --> 00:37:16.922
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Fantastic.

00:37:17.394 --> 00:37:29.117
<v Ruben van Coile>I'm also just being a bit cautious because it's, it's one thing to, to put a vision out there, which I can imagine many people have, could have similar visions and then say, okay, these are the things which we need to develop.

00:37:29.460 --> 00:37:32.280
<v Ruben van Coile>am I sure that we are going to develop some nice things?

00:37:32.541 --> 00:37:32.960
<v Ruben van Coile>Yes.

00:37:32.960 --> 00:37:36.081
<v Ruben van Coile>There, I mean, there's risk mitigation the project like in every project.

00:37:36.130 --> 00:37:37.880
<v Ruben van Coile>So yeah, we are some things.

00:37:38.516 --> 00:37:39.036
<v Ruben van Coile>Happen.

00:37:39.596 --> 00:37:42.186
<v Ruben van Coile>do I know now where we're going to end in five years?

00:37:42.195 --> 00:37:43.425
<v Ruben van Coile>No, of course not.

00:37:44.211 --> 00:37:58.443
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Now this is the, this is the ERC projects that high risk, high gain, by saying multiple people might have Similar ideas of course, because it's evident that our approach is not perfect.

00:37:59.273 --> 00:38:01.492
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>I guess Kunio Kawagoe I had similar ideas.

00:38:01.492 --> 00:38:05.362
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>I, I guess a lot of people on the road had similar ideas.

00:38:05.362 --> 00:38:18.177
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>There's a big difference between having an idea, to having, Well thought out pathway, how to go from idea to a solution, which is where you are now.

00:38:18.177 --> 00:38:22.148
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>And I hope in five years you are at the, at the solution.

00:38:22.152 --> 00:38:32.505
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Demonstrate for one case study at least place, and maybe, maybe somewhere where you are, um, where you have something very general that that can just work with the whole industry.

00:38:32.684 --> 00:38:34.244
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>And I think it's a, it's a very good shot.

00:38:34.612 --> 00:38:34.911
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Okay.

00:38:34.911 --> 00:38:38.335
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>I guess, we've covered project, quite well.

00:38:38.574 --> 00:38:44.094
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>I mean, it's, it's a little chaotic because the projects in e r c, they are very not linear.

00:38:44.458 --> 00:38:53.097
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>to the listeners, it's not that Ruben is proposing I will do this test, which will give me this coefficient, which then I will use in this model and I'll receive it.

00:38:53.222 --> 00:39:09.128
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>But yeah, I hope you guys got a really good Where this is heading, or more importantly, why and how Now, I, I would love to ask you, because it's an opportunity for the, for the fire, for you as a, as CRC grand recipient.

00:39:09.134 --> 00:39:12.744
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>This is obviously a, i, I guess a career changing, moment.

00:39:12.775 --> 00:39:18.534
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>But you also need, need people to work with, so, let, let's talk about pragmatic stuff.

00:39:18.534 --> 00:39:22.666
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>There's a lot of, future potential postdocs, uh, listening to the show.

00:39:22.996 --> 00:39:27.458
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>So, so let's talk about the resources you're gonna need to, to fulfill that.

00:39:28.074 --> 00:39:31.585
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>how, how do you plan out this part of the project managing all, all of this.

00:39:32.085 --> 00:39:37.157
<v Ruben van Coile>Well, I had to, um, write down a proposal, as part of the RC application.

00:39:37.827 --> 00:39:42.077
<v Ruben van Coile>It's currently foreseen that there are five people working on the project.

00:39:42.637 --> 00:39:44.483
<v Ruben van Coile>Those are, three PhDs.

00:39:45.378 --> 00:39:50.987
<v Ruben van Coile>Four years each, and then two posts, three years each now.

00:39:50.987 --> 00:39:52.387
<v Ruben van Coile>But there is flexibility there.

00:39:52.717 --> 00:39:59.702
<v Ruben van Coile>So if in the end it turns into three posts, two PhDs, I mean, there is nothing stopping us from doing that.

00:40:00.106 --> 00:40:00.226
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Hmm.

00:40:00.233 --> 00:40:02.382
<v Ruben van Coile>Uh, one thing, which I mean, if we are talking.

00:40:03.197 --> 00:40:04.978
<v Ruben van Coile>Pragmatical realistic here.

00:40:05.197 --> 00:40:14.498
<v Ruben van Coile>One thing which is quite specific for, for Belgium maybe and some other countries as well obviously is we have, so the u c is 1.5 million euros, so that's a lot of money.

00:40:14.902 --> 00:40:23.829
<v Ruben van Coile>part of it goes into just general overhead, but then we have the rest of the money is basically all of it is for people because we, um, we already.

00:40:24.519 --> 00:40:27.159
<v Ruben van Coile>test equipment and, and we'll manage on, on other aspects.

00:40:27.860 --> 00:40:39.541
<v Ruben van Coile>But in Belgium, it's, Belgium is probably one of the best countries in the world to do your PhD as in the, it's, the wages, are very high, notably for, for PhDs.

00:40:40.041 --> 00:40:46.699
<v Ruben van Coile>And, think this is why , we have a place for, for five people within the project and, and.

00:40:48.052 --> 00:40:48.652
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Okay.

00:40:49.461 --> 00:40:52.762
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>If you did in Poland, you could afford like 10 sure.

00:40:53.121 --> 00:40:54.771
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Uh, that's an opportunity.

00:40:54.771 --> 00:40:59.422
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>It can open and oversee, uh, department of of the project if you

00:40:59.510 --> 00:41:00.820
<v Ruben van Coile>So if the

00:41:01.012 --> 00:41:01.371
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>just kidding.

00:41:02.592 --> 00:41:08.543
<v , Ruben van Coile>as long as we stay in Europe, there are some things, uh, no joking there, but um,

00:41:08.775 --> 00:41:09.554
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>No, we're not leaving.

00:41:09.554 --> 00:41:10.034
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>No worries.

00:41:11.608 --> 00:41:12.427
<v Ruben van Coile>The good points.

00:41:12.588 --> 00:41:24.121
<v Ruben van Coile>So with within the projects place foreseen now is that in, let's say September two PhD students would start, but as I said, if, uh, if that would be a postdoc and a PhD would be happy as well.

00:41:24.351 --> 00:41:28.849
<v Ruben van Coile>It's of course crucial to have, good people for the job at hand.

00:41:29.139 --> 00:41:33.929
<v Ruben van Coile>So, and actually this is maybe very specific, but it's indeed it's an opportunity for me as well.

00:41:34.514 --> 00:41:39.554
<v Ruben van Coile>The research project I'm seeing here, if I have my timeline nicely.

00:41:40.128 --> 00:41:45.237
<v Ruben van Coile>so the first PhD would be working on this value of information aspect,

00:41:45.284 --> 00:41:45.894
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Mm-hmm.

00:41:46.621 --> 00:41:49.713
<v Ruben van Coile>actually working towards it throughout a PhD.

00:41:50.193 --> 00:41:51.306
<v Ruben van Coile>making a model.

00:41:51.878 --> 00:42:03.760
<v Ruben van Coile>Glazing, collecting data, so input, uncertainty, quantification input there, actually doing the tests and then quantifying upfront what the test output is going to teach us.

00:42:03.931 --> 00:42:05.240
<v Ruben van Coile>So this is the value of information.

00:42:05.240 --> 00:42:12.920
<v Ruben van Coile>So this a PhD, which is just doing that basically bringing us to a first evaluation value of information for a fire test.

00:42:13.538 --> 00:42:16.617
<v Ruben van Coile>the second PhD is on the gray model.

00:42:17.016 --> 00:42:20.800
<v Ruben van Coile>But gray modeling with a bit of, focus on risk as well, I must say.

00:42:20.987 --> 00:42:21.268
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Mm-hmm.

00:42:21.521 --> 00:42:24.561
<v Ruben van Coile>this is, those profiles actually very different if you think about it, right?

00:42:24.561 --> 00:42:37.911
<v Ruben van Coile>So the, the first PhD has some, would need to know something about structures, or at least be able to, to handle, let's say, infinite element modeling as well there, because you need to do tests on a tructure.

00:42:38.496 --> 00:42:52.996
<v Ruben van Coile>Element glazing and have the modeling there with uncertainty, quantification, second profile, thinking much more about fundamentals of risk, what are the constraints and if we do physical modeling, how are we going to implement those constraints in our machine learning approach?

00:42:53.126 --> 00:42:54.115
<v Ruben van Coile>So very different.

00:42:54.570 --> 00:42:55.409
<v Ruben van Coile>those two.

00:42:56.030 --> 00:43:03.659
<v Ruben van Coile>The nice thing of the project, is that the researchers, both the PhDs and the postdoc, they're actually very nicely.

00:43:03.659 --> 00:43:08.360
<v Ruben van Coile>integrated in the sense that, I'm in a way quite proud of, of that is as an.

00:43:08.974 --> 00:43:19.784
<v Ruben van Coile>One PhD builds up something, a post-OC comes in, they work together to, on one hand side, finish the PhD and the post takes over and moves it forward on the next stage.

00:43:19.994 --> 00:43:20.784
<v Ruben van Coile>So there's

00:43:20.922 --> 00:43:21.192
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>uh,

00:43:21.204 --> 00:43:21.625
<v Ruben van Coile>yes,

00:43:21.702 --> 00:43:23.364
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>of, of knowledge goods.

00:43:23.434 --> 00:43:25.538
<v Ruben van Coile>at least that's the what is intended.

00:43:25.827 --> 00:43:30.697
<v Ruben van Coile>Of course that can, there will be for sure some practical issues.

00:43:31.148 --> 00:43:32.737
<v Ruben van Coile>Um, people who start a bit later.

00:43:33.230 --> 00:43:34.349
<v Ruben van Coile>Things happen, right?

00:43:34.760 --> 00:43:37.909
<v Ruben van Coile>So it'll not be exactly as I said it would be

00:43:38.168 --> 00:43:44.601
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Life always comes in the way, but it's, there's a reason why this is a five, uh, grant, not a two or three funding scheme.

00:43:45.021 --> 00:43:49.949
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>So it, it's meant to accommodate really grant ideas and support you with funding too.

00:43:50.659 --> 00:43:52.498
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>to help you achieve these grand ideas.

00:43:53.251 --> 00:43:56.521
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>it, it looks like, uh, I mean, not even day one.

00:43:56.521 --> 00:43:58.898
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>It's it's day minus, 180.

00:43:59.228 --> 00:44:02.168
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>But, it's already, it is already looking good at Ruben.

00:44:02.188 --> 00:44:09.889
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>I'm really happy that, this happening and, you have a really great chance to, to change, how we work.

00:44:10.248 --> 00:44:11.728
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Hopefully, you'll you'll achieve that.

00:44:11.835 --> 00:44:12.436
<v Ruben van Coile>Thank you.

00:44:12.639 --> 00:44:15.559
<v Ruben van Coile>Yeah, it's, uh, a challenge, but I mean it in a positive way.

00:44:15.590 --> 00:44:31.076
<v Ruben van Coile>It's, um, the project is what, for me personally, what I wanted to work And there's, I think where I don't see, at least, I don't see any other way to get consistent funding for different work packages, which are actually nicely linked to each other, but still very distinct.

00:44:31.474 --> 00:44:31.954
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>absolutely.

00:44:31.965 --> 00:44:34.715
<v Ruben van Coile>Um, so now this is, this is it.

00:44:35.175 --> 00:44:36.936
<v Ruben van Coile>Now I have to, um, make it.

00:44:38.224 --> 00:44:40.204
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Yeah, that loud, the easy part.

00:44:41.014 --> 00:44:42.153
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Congratulations, Ruben.

00:44:42.184 --> 00:44:46.184
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Um, once again, and if you, if you do something, tell me on on air.

00:44:46.483 --> 00:44:47.474
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>I don't want you to call me.

00:44:47.474 --> 00:44:55.664
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>I want you to come to the show and tell us what happened and, uh, to anyone listening, uh, there's, as you heard, September two nice opportunities open.

00:44:55.664 --> 00:44:56.204
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Keep your.

00:44:56.514 --> 00:44:57.775
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>tracking this space.

00:44:57.775 --> 00:45:07.885
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>This is a good space to, to follow and, uh, really nice to work, in a project that may change, uh, fire science and fire engineering.

00:45:08.364 --> 00:45:13.445
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Ruben, thank you very much for, for coming to the show and I, I'm crossing fingers for, your project

00:45:13.467 --> 00:45:16.094
<v Ruben van Coile>Thanks for the opportunity to talk Wojciech it was great.

00:45:16.094 --> 00:45:16.454
<v Ruben van Coile>Thank you.

00:45:17.306 --> 00:45:17.907
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>and that's it.

00:45:18.056 --> 00:45:20.007
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>It's even hard to summarize the episode.

00:45:20.007 --> 00:45:20.847
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>It's, it's so good.

00:45:20.847 --> 00:45:25.016
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>The grant proposal is so good, and he really is changing the fire science.

00:45:25.617 --> 00:45:29.606
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>It's not the first time someone has proposed that the whole paradigm must shift.

00:45:29.606 --> 00:45:39.083
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>It's not the first time someone has, proposed innovative ways of testing, but it, it is the first time where someone has put it into one.

00:45:39.514 --> 00:45:46.773
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Major, well laid out proposal with steps on how to get there, non-linear steps.

00:45:46.773 --> 00:45:49.744
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>I'm sorry if the parts of the episode were confusing.

00:45:49.744 --> 00:45:55.653
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>It's really these grants are really complicated and you have to jump from one part to another.

00:45:55.659 --> 00:46:00.664
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>I hope we've done a good job in explaining the, the base concepts and.

00:46:00.929 --> 00:46:06.331
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Yeah, I, I hope Ruben will really, really achieve, uh, what he planned in, in this grant.

00:46:06.871 --> 00:46:20.282
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>If you are someone at the early stages of their career in fire science, uh, watch out, uh, announcements for job opportunities at the grant, it's an exciting opportunity to work at the project that may change the world.

00:46:20.282 --> 00:46:25.961
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>And as Ruben said, Belgium sounds like a great place to, to work for decent amount of money.

00:46:26.291 --> 00:46:27.521
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>So definitely.

00:46:28.161 --> 00:46:29.992
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Opportunity I would be looking for.

00:46:30.282 --> 00:46:33.385
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>that would be it, uh, for this episode.

00:46:33.385 --> 00:46:35.994
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Um, a final announcement, a final call.

00:46:36.235 --> 00:46:43.121
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>The survey of listener experience is still up, in the podcast Webpage will be up for one more week.

00:46:43.121 --> 00:46:46.532
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Uh, so if you would like to share your feedback with me, please do so.

00:46:46.541 --> 00:46:50.351
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>I, I've received amazing feedback, great ideas.

00:46:50.757 --> 00:46:56.817
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>In five minutes, I'm recording an episode that's directly related to the request from the survey.

00:46:57.206 --> 00:46:59.724
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>This is how I like to react, to, to your needs.

00:46:59.724 --> 00:47:07.284
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>So if there is something you would like to hear on the podcast, if there is a way how I can improve the podcast, please tell me and I'll do that.

00:47:07.974 --> 00:47:09.864
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>And that's for today.

00:47:09.864 --> 00:47:12.083
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>I appreciate you being here with me.

00:47:12.414 --> 00:47:15.353
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>And yeah, see you here next Wednesday.

00:47:15.483 --> 00:47:16.094
<v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Cheers.