249 - PBD of a large car park with EVs (Case study) with Jonathan Hodges, Mark McKinnon and Christian Rippe

Transcript

Singapore Case Study Kickoff The Garage And EV Upgrade Why Old Assumptions Fail Building Better Car Park Design Fires Modeling Multi-Vehicle Fire Spread Binning Scenarios For Risk Analysis FDS Results And Heat Exposure Concrete Spalling In Abaqus Sprinklers And Residual Risk Lessons And Conference Wrap

WEBVTT 00:00:00.415 --> 00:00:01.016 <v Christian Rippe>Hello everybody. 00:00:01.016 --> 00:00:02.335 <v Christian Rippe>Welcome to the Fire Science Show. 00:00:02.335 --> 00:00:09.840 <v Christian Rippe>I've recently returned from Singapore, where I have attended the SFPE Performance Based Design Conference. 00:00:09.840 --> 00:00:13.218 <v Christian Rippe>one of my favorite conferences that happen every two years, I believe. 00:00:13.218 --> 00:00:17.152 <v Christian Rippe>And, one significant aspect of this conference is that. 00:00:17.152 --> 00:00:24.884 <v Christian Rippe>They come up with case studies, with some buildings to be designed and invite teams from all over the world. 00:00:24.884 --> 00:00:25.993 <v Christian Rippe>Actually, it's competition. 00:00:25.993 --> 00:00:29.504 <v Christian Rippe>You can, you can, uh, set a proposal and you may be chosen. 00:00:29.504 --> 00:00:42.779 <v Christian Rippe>So there are teams, uh, from all over the world trying to design the same buildings, showcasing solutions that would perhaps be specific to that country, that region, that, legal framework or a company. 00:00:42.779 --> 00:00:49.079 <v Christian Rippe>And, uh, in this time we had two big case studies at the conference, a car park, and a historical building. 00:00:49.079 --> 00:00:53.249 <v Christian Rippe>As you've seen from the title, this episode is on the car park. 00:00:53.249 --> 00:00:53.279 <v Christian Rippe>Uh. 00:00:53.279 --> 00:01:01.240 <v Christian Rippe>And out of the carpark presentations, one really stood out to me and that was, uh, called Team FSRI. 00:01:01.240 --> 00:01:04.480 <v Christian Rippe>And I have the representatives here with me. 00:01:04.480 --> 00:01:05.290 <v Christian Rippe>Of course. 00:01:05.290 --> 00:01:09.549 <v Christian Rippe>Uh, that was Johnathan Hodges from UL Research Institutes. 00:01:09.549 --> 00:01:30.750 <v Christian Rippe>Mark McKinnon also from ULRI and, uh, Christian Rippe from Jensen Hughes, And these folks have performed very sophisticated, structural analysis for the car park going very probabilistic, very deep on analyzing whether this, uh, concrete structure can collapse or not. 00:01:30.750 --> 00:01:36.689 <v Christian Rippe>They've done tremendous work on the assumptions for their analysis and tremendous work on. 00:01:36.689 --> 00:01:45.909 <v Christian Rippe>Translating those assumptions into scenarios, into simulations, and then into structural analysis that included, uh, for polling. 00:01:45.909 --> 00:01:49.030 <v Christian Rippe>That's, that's actually, it was quite impressive to be honest. 00:01:49.030 --> 00:01:54.084 <v Christian Rippe>And, of course in this podcast episode we will talk about how they got there. 00:01:54.084 --> 00:01:55.495 <v Christian Rippe>What was their assumptions? 00:01:55.495 --> 00:01:58.614 <v Christian Rippe>How did they choose what they were doing? 00:01:58.614 --> 00:02:00.894 <v Christian Rippe>What, what were the steps of their analysis really? 00:02:00.894 --> 00:02:08.334 <v Christian Rippe>And, uh, I recognize it's very difficult to kind of follow if you don't see the building layouts, if you don't see the case study on its own. 00:02:08.334 --> 00:02:18.533 <v Christian Rippe>We are, uh, we're introducing it shortly in the podcast, but really the focus in here is on methodology and framework, not on the particular project that we're dis discussing. 00:02:18.533 --> 00:02:25.299 <v Christian Rippe>So please treat it not as a demonstration of how to design a single car park that was made up for the case study, but rather. 00:02:25.299 --> 00:02:28.593 <v Christian Rippe>Demonstration of how one could work. 00:02:28.593 --> 00:02:31.354 <v Christian Rippe>Designing a car park that they find. 00:02:31.354 --> 00:02:35.883 <v Christian Rippe>I think this is the correct way to look on those case studies. 00:02:35.883 --> 00:02:40.984 <v Christian Rippe>As you'll see in the show notes, there's a ton of resources available up there. 00:02:40.984 --> 00:02:44.283 <v Christian Rippe>There's perhaps a lack of one of the more important ones. 00:02:44.283 --> 00:02:49.264 <v Christian Rippe>The case study report itself, as I said, I've just came back from uh, Singapore. 00:02:49.264 --> 00:02:50.343 <v Christian Rippe>It's very fresh. 00:02:50.343 --> 00:02:57.723 <v Christian Rippe>We are not sure yet if the case study can be or cannot be shared, uh, due to it being a part of the conference. 00:02:57.723 --> 00:03:08.793 <v Christian Rippe>But regardless, I still think, uh, you'll get a lot from what is inside this one hour recording and what's inside the shared material in the show notes. 00:03:08.793 --> 00:03:18.092 <v Christian Rippe>If this changes at one time and I have access to the case study file that I can share with you, I will be sure to make, let you know and it will be. 00:03:18.092 --> 00:03:21.497 <v Christian Rippe>In the show notes as well with all the other resources. 00:03:21.497 --> 00:03:34.602 <v Christian Rippe>Um, bear in mind this was recorded live at the conference in a crazy pace I think, uh, also the atmosphere during the recording was, uh, exceptionally good, which I hope translates into good content. 00:03:34.602 --> 00:03:37.400 <v Christian Rippe>let's be the intro and I really hope you enjoy this. 00:04:01.467 --> 00:04:05.698 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>The Fire Science Show podcast is brought to you in partnership with OFR Consultants. 00:04:05.698 --> 00:04:15.467 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>OFR is the UK's leading independent multi-award winning fire engineering consultancy with a reputation for delivering innovative safety driven solutions. 00:04:15.467 --> 00:04:24.697 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>we've been on this journey together for three years so far, and here it begins the fourth year of collaboration between the Fire Science Show and the OFR. 00:04:24.697 --> 00:04:42.124 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>So far, we've brought you more than 150 episodes, Which translate into nearly 150 hours of educational content available, free, accessible, all over the planet without any paywalls advertisement or hidden agendas. 00:04:42.124 --> 00:04:49.113 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>This makes me very proud and I am super thankful to OFR for this long lasting partnership. 00:04:49.113 --> 00:05:04.994 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>I'm extremely happy that we've just started the year four, and I hope there will be many years after that to come So big thanks, OFR for your support to the Fire Science show and the support to the fire safety community at large that we can deliver together. 00:05:04.994 --> 00:05:12.550 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>And for you, the listener, if you would like to learn more or perhaps even become a part of OR, they always have opportunities awaiting. 00:05:12.550 --> 00:05:16.990 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Check their website@orconsultants.com And now let's head back to the episode. 00:05:16.990 --> 00:05:18.069 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Hello everybody. 00:05:18.069 --> 00:05:30.399 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>I am here today in, uh, hot and moist Singapore with an interesting, uh, US-based team, uh, who's done their case study presentation just a few hours ago at the SFP Conference. 00:05:30.399 --> 00:05:34.704 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>So here with me, Jonathan Hodges from, uh, UL Research Institute. 00:05:34.704 --> 00:05:35.298 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Hey, Jonathan. 00:05:35.423 --> 00:05:35.872 <v Jonathan Hodges>Hey, Woj. 00:05:35.872 --> 00:05:36.923 <v Jonathan Hodges>Good to talk to you. 00:05:36.923 --> 00:05:37.312 <v Jonathan Hodges>Uh, 00:05:37.612 --> 00:05:39.940 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>thank, thanks for taking a very rapid invite. 00:05:39.940 --> 00:05:41.341 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>this is like hot still. 00:05:41.341 --> 00:05:44.850 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>The laptop has not cooled yet, so thank thanks for that. 00:05:44.850 --> 00:05:48.630 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Uh, together with Jonathan Mark McKinnon from UL Research Institutes. 00:05:48.630 --> 00:05:49.081 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Hey, mark. 00:05:49.237 --> 00:05:49.747 <v Mark McKinnon>Hey Woj. 00:05:49.747 --> 00:05:50.468 <v Mark McKinnon>Thanks for having us. 00:05:50.757 --> 00:05:50.997 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Yeah. 00:05:50.997 --> 00:05:51.298 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Thanks. 00:05:51.298 --> 00:05:54.898 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Thanks for joining us and, uh, Christian Rippe from Jensen Hughes. 00:05:55.377 --> 00:05:55.767 <v Christian Rippe>Okay, well check. 00:05:55.767 --> 00:05:56.562 <v Christian Rippe>Thanks for the, uh, invite here. 00:05:57.269 --> 00:06:00.610 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Okay guys, so, you've done the, the carpark case study. 00:06:00.610 --> 00:06:13.098 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>So SFP for those who, who don't, are not attending the performance based design conferences of SFP, there's a tradition that SFP drops a case studies number of case studies for people to solve around the world. 00:06:13.098 --> 00:06:19.338 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>And then we gather here in this beautiful big room and we share how we have approached our case studies this year. 00:06:19.338 --> 00:06:22.247 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>There were two, uh, car park and a historical building. 00:06:22.247 --> 00:06:28.906 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>You have chosen the car park and you've presented quite an interesting analysis regarding the, the car park. 00:06:28.906 --> 00:06:34.588 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>perhaps first we should introduce the listeners to what the case study was like. 00:06:34.588 --> 00:06:36.807 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>What, what kind of car park are we talking in here? 00:06:36.807 --> 00:06:39.807 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>They, they complicated it as, as they, they usually like to do that. 00:06:39.807 --> 00:06:39.958 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Okay. 00:06:40.173 --> 00:06:40.382 <v Jonathan Hodges>Yeah. 00:06:40.382 --> 00:06:43.653 <v Jonathan Hodges>Uh, we can give you, uh, a quick overview of the, the main features for it. 00:06:43.653 --> 00:06:50.612 <v Jonathan Hodges>Uh, so, uh, big picture, it's, uh, seven stories of parking garage, and then 23 stories of a highrise tower on top of it. 00:06:50.612 --> 00:06:56.733 <v Jonathan Hodges>Uh, so for the parking garage, there were, I think it was three stories underground, uh, and then four above ground. 00:06:56.733 --> 00:07:01.742 <v Jonathan Hodges>Uh, the underground had an old sprinkler system with an RTI around 80 or above. 00:07:01.742 --> 00:07:02.702 <v Jonathan Hodges>They didn't really know. 00:07:02.702 --> 00:07:05.403 <v Jonathan Hodges>And then the above ground was uns sprinklered. 00:07:05.403 --> 00:07:11.103 <v Jonathan Hodges>Uh, and then the 23 stories above, there were three stories of, uh, medical or dental. 00:07:11.103 --> 00:07:17.913 <v Jonathan Hodges>Uh, and then there was mixed use above that with 10 stories of office space and then 10 stories of residential. 00:07:17.913 --> 00:07:24.634 <v Jonathan Hodges>Uh, we had estimated the total occupancy of the tower to be around 3000 based on IBC, uh, occupancy loads. 00:07:24.634 --> 00:07:33.494 <v Jonathan Hodges>and, uh, what the owner would like to do in the case study is implement EV chargers in 50% of the 600 spaces in the garage. 00:07:33.494 --> 00:07:41.473 <v Jonathan Hodges>And then they also wanted to add Uh, stacker, like an automated stacker, exterior to the structure, but adjacent to it on one of the walls. 00:07:41.473 --> 00:07:46.449 <v Jonathan Hodges>and so what we were looking at with this was really, you know, if you were not really. 00:07:46.449 --> 00:07:52.838 <v Jonathan Hodges>Considering the difference in vehicles be before and after the upgrades because you've got this mixed use. 00:07:52.838 --> 00:08:03.269 <v Jonathan Hodges>So, you know, people could be driving their electric vehicles, you know, they, they're, they're big, you know, long range, vehicles and parking them to go to the doctor or to go to the adjacent mall. 00:08:03.269 --> 00:08:09.418 <v Jonathan Hodges>And there weren't really any operational controls to affect, uh, what types of vehicles would be in the facility. 00:08:09.418 --> 00:08:18.312 <v Jonathan Hodges>and so the, the question that we had is, well, if you're gonna look at this, the max consequence event is probably the same regardless of whether you have chargers or not. 00:08:18.312 --> 00:08:34.695 <v Jonathan Hodges>And so we wanted to look at the potential increase in frequency, uh, due to the chargers as another initiating mode, as well as, possibly the potential increase in the likelihood of the fire being more severe should it occur due to having more modern vehicles. 00:08:34.695 --> 00:08:36.375 <v Jonathan Hodges>And that shifts in population. 00:08:36.822 --> 00:08:36.942 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Yeah. 00:08:36.942 --> 00:08:44.621 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>I mean, e even if you try to assume a different population of vehicles, whether they're charged or not, absolutely no means to control that. 00:08:44.621 --> 00:08:50.652 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>In Poland, we are very unsuccessful with our no LPG allowed in the car park assumption. 00:08:50.652 --> 00:08:54.208 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>And the marking on the wall of the car park doesn't really solve the problem. 00:08:54.208 --> 00:08:55.048 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>So I I agree. 00:08:55.048 --> 00:08:56.158 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>I I would do the same. 00:08:56.158 --> 00:08:56.458 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Yeah. 00:08:57.119 --> 00:08:57.389 <v Jonathan Hodges>Yeah. 00:08:57.389 --> 00:09:03.153 <v Jonathan Hodges>In general, I'm just not a fan of operational controls unless you really have a, a rigorous system if you're enforcement. 00:09:03.239 --> 00:09:03.989 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Enforcement, yeah. 00:09:03.989 --> 00:09:16.475 <v Jonathan Hodges>If you're buying security gates and you're actually, you know, or you have assigned spots and you're gonna be towing people away if you're not in 'em, you know, there's, there are things you can do operationally to enforce those rules, but, that's not the typical case in the us. 00:09:16.986 --> 00:09:18.787 <v Christian Rippe>I also think about over the lifetime of a building. 00:09:18.787 --> 00:09:29.211 <v Christian Rippe>You know, 20 years from now, no one's gonna, you know, no one's gonna try to make changes and no one's gonna think about a performance based strategy that was used 20 years ago to design the building or design certain aspects of the building. 00:09:29.211 --> 00:09:29.511 <v Christian Rippe>Right. 00:09:29.511 --> 00:09:30.951 <v Christian Rippe>It's just not gonna happen. 00:09:30.951 --> 00:09:33.772 <v Christian Rippe>So like, that's where, like these operational controls, right? 00:09:33.772 --> 00:09:38.182 <v Christian Rippe>To think that, oh, like someone's gonna not allow certain buil vehicles in here. 00:09:38.182 --> 00:09:42.711 <v Christian Rippe>Well, that might work for a few years, but five years down the road, someone's gonna go, why are we doing that? 00:09:42.711 --> 00:09:43.312 <v Christian Rippe>I don't know. 00:09:43.312 --> 00:09:43.611 <v Christian Rippe>Mm-hmm. 00:09:43.611 --> 00:09:45.922 <v Christian Rippe>So now they're gonna allow it, right? 00:09:45.922 --> 00:09:48.861 <v Christian Rippe>And no one's gonna look back at a PVD analysis of the building, right? 00:09:49.400 --> 00:09:50.870 <v Mark McKinnon>That's essentially the case here, right? 00:09:50.870 --> 00:10:05.089 <v Mark McKinnon>So we're, the case study, the prompt was, uh, that we have this old building, it was designed with certain assumptions in mind, and we get it and we're asked, you know, how many of these EV chargers can you introduce, uh, without any fire protection upgrades? 00:10:05.089 --> 00:10:06.828 <v Mark McKinnon>So it's an interesting case study. 00:10:07.038 --> 00:10:07.158 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Yeah. 00:10:07.158 --> 00:10:15.402 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>I, I, I would say, you know, for me, if I got that as a real project What client asks you for is how many chargers you can put in. 00:10:15.402 --> 00:10:18.822 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>And I can immediately tell them like, whatever you like. 00:10:18.822 --> 00:10:25.792 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>in my first opinion, doesn't really trigger a point that is gonna be a big difference because I can't control for vehicles anyway. 00:10:25.792 --> 00:10:28.461 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>But at the same time, it's an opportunity. 00:10:28.461 --> 00:10:36.831 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>It it, it gives you a reason to revisit the far strategy for a building and perhaps do some good things for the building because the cars have changed. 00:10:36.831 --> 00:10:37.131 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Right. 00:10:37.131 --> 00:10:48.922 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>It's, it's like the, the, the fact that you are now implementing charger is not as big contributor to the hazard as the fact that 20 years ago you had a completely different vehicles in it. 00:10:48.922 --> 00:10:49.162 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Right. 00:10:49.476 --> 00:11:02.136 <v Jonathan Hodges>Yeah, that, I think that's a great point since most of the previous guidance was really, uh, there, there's even some, uh, reports that I think they might have been from NFBA that say that, um, all the guidance is based on this assumption that you're not gonna get multi-vehicle spread. 00:11:02.136 --> 00:11:04.057 <v Jonathan Hodges>Like it's gonna be limited to one vehicle. 00:11:04.057 --> 00:11:06.126 <v Jonathan Hodges>And there was data in the past to back that up. 00:11:06.126 --> 00:11:14.616 <v Jonathan Hodges>Um, but now with the, the recent studies by NFPA as well as ULRI, it just seems more likely that you're going to have multi-vehicle spread. 00:11:14.616 --> 00:11:15.006 <v Jonathan Hodges>Yeah. 00:11:15.006 --> 00:11:22.268 <v Jonathan Hodges>And so that's why we wanted to, to revisit that and kind of challenge those assumptions that the structure would be safe, because it would be a single vehicle fire. 00:11:22.791 --> 00:11:27.350 <v Christian Rippe>And to be real, over the last 10 years we've had, you know, a half a dozen major car park tires. 00:11:27.350 --> 00:11:27.681 <v Christian Rippe>Yeah, absolutely. 00:11:27.681 --> 00:11:29.571 <v Christian Rippe>We're like half the, half the building's burned down. 00:11:29.571 --> 00:11:29.841 <v Christian Rippe>Right. 00:11:29.841 --> 00:11:35.240 <v Christian Rippe>You know, so it's not like that, there's not evidence out there in the real world that this doesn't happen. 00:11:35.240 --> 00:11:35.541 <v Christian Rippe>Right. 00:11:35.878 --> 00:11:40.833 <v Jonathan Hodges>And actually while we were here at the conference, there was a very large, parking garage fire in, in China. 00:11:40.833 --> 00:11:41.224 <v Jonathan Hodges>Okay. 00:11:41.224 --> 00:11:45.094 <v Jonathan Hodges>Um, where, uh, I think it spread over the whole, uh, level in Shenzhen. 00:11:45.094 --> 00:11:45.514 <v Jonathan Hodges>Right. 00:11:45.514 --> 00:11:47.344 <v Jonathan Hodges>Um, at the BYD factory. 00:11:47.344 --> 00:11:50.547 <v Jonathan Hodges>and it, uh, I don't know if there was any structural collapse. 00:11:50.547 --> 00:11:59.037 <v Jonathan Hodges>I'm sure they, they're still gonna do investigations on it, but, uh, you see this huge smoke plume, it's like three, four times the, the height of the, the parking structure. 00:11:59.277 --> 00:11:59.876 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Absolutely. 00:11:59.876 --> 00:12:04.136 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>So, uh, we have, uh, a PBD component in here for sure. 00:12:04.136 --> 00:12:07.407 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Because you are applying PBD, uh, methods to design the car park. 00:12:07.407 --> 00:12:09.267 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>We have the structural component. 00:12:09.267 --> 00:12:18.567 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Uh, so, so understanding what is the ultimate failure mode of, of the car again, and how likely are we to get it and, uh, to start with it. 00:12:18.567 --> 00:12:25.883 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>We also have the design fire component, which perhaps, to, uh, listeners, while they may not be building a seven story, uh. 00:12:25.883 --> 00:12:30.668 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Car park underneath the dentist's office and 30 floors of, of, of residential. 00:12:30.668 --> 00:12:35.437 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>They perhaps will have to play with the car park once in, in their life or twice. 00:12:35.437 --> 00:12:40.447 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>And, uh, design fire is, uh, when you start working with car parks, you, you, you, you hit the wall. 00:12:40.447 --> 00:12:42.307 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>How do I design the fire? 00:12:42.307 --> 00:12:46.268 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>So, uh, Jonathan having you here, let's talk design fires. 00:12:46.268 --> 00:12:47.197 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Um, first. 00:12:47.197 --> 00:12:48.096 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>So, yeah. 00:12:48.096 --> 00:12:50.888 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>May, maybe you can wrap up the philosophy. 00:12:50.888 --> 00:12:55.477 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>I, I know you have published the papers and listeners there are in the show notes, of course. 00:12:55.477 --> 00:12:59.875 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Uh, on, on the design of car park design fires, design of the car park, design fires. 00:12:59.875 --> 00:13:03.929 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>what's your way of thinking about this problem and how do you simplify this to a design fire? 00:13:04.351 --> 00:13:04.711 <v Jonathan Hodges>Yeah. 00:13:04.711 --> 00:13:14.379 <v Jonathan Hodges>Uh, so what we really wanted to understand is based on the, the realistic vehicles on the market, what's, the, the fire size you would see if the vehicle burned at its peak potential. 00:13:14.379 --> 00:13:18.309 <v Jonathan Hodges>So that's kinda what we had started with and was in our paper from 2024, 00:13:18.309 --> 00:13:20.710 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>like maximum hit release rate you'll get from, yeah. 00:13:21.039 --> 00:13:28.960 <v Jonathan Hodges>So if you, if you put a, a giant, you know, heptane gas burner below this vehicle and just get the whole thing going, what's, what's the peak heat release rate that you're gonna see? 00:13:28.960 --> 00:13:33.025 <v Jonathan Hodges>so, so that's what we designed to, uh, before in our previous paper. 00:13:33.025 --> 00:13:35.245 <v Jonathan Hodges>But then when we started to look at the risk based. 00:13:35.245 --> 00:13:42.341 <v Jonathan Hodges>Approach here, we really wanted to understand is that a likely, is a vehicle likely to burn at its peak potential or not? 00:13:42.341 --> 00:13:42.431 <v Jonathan Hodges>Mm-hmm. 00:13:42.431 --> 00:13:47.561 <v Jonathan Hodges>Because that's where you need to start getting into the percentiles rather than the deterministic analysis. 00:13:47.890 --> 00:13:57.791 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>So rather than one maximum value you have ever seen in any of the experiments carried out, like what's your 50th percentile, 90th percentile, something like that. 00:13:57.791 --> 00:13:57.910 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Okay. 00:13:57.910 --> 00:13:58.091 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Yeah, 00:13:58.211 --> 00:13:58.811 <v Jonathan Hodges>exactly. 00:13:58.811 --> 00:14:01.870 <v Jonathan Hodges>And when you're doing a risk approach, you need to do some sort of bending. 00:14:01.870 --> 00:14:10.721 <v Jonathan Hodges>So you can say, you could do, you know how many to do, you could do a 25th 50th, 75th 90th, 98, all the way up to 99 point, however many nines you want. 00:14:10.721 --> 00:14:18.671 <v Jonathan Hodges>Um, but you, you need to decide what those limits are that you're gonna do and what is okay to not mitigate, you know, what's your residual risk? 00:14:18.671 --> 00:14:18.791 <v Jonathan Hodges>Yeah. 00:14:19.061 --> 00:14:19.360 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Okay. 00:14:19.360 --> 00:14:24.490 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Well, well, I can imagine this is not that difficult for the peak value. 00:14:24.490 --> 00:14:30.910 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Uh, you also introduce a trends in development of that fire in the car park and that, that's the challenging part for me. 00:14:30.910 --> 00:14:44.009 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>For example, I, I gave like, you know, I gave up on that at some point because it, it's, it's so predict to me to, to have, maybe not even unpredictable for, for me, because every fire is different. 00:14:44.009 --> 00:14:53.399 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>It's impossible to have a generic fire, you know, I, I just don't find it a possibility to have a generic design fire that represents a fire, because every fire will be so vastly different. 00:14:53.399 --> 00:14:56.879 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>So, but you need something for design if you wanna have a transient design. 00:14:56.879 --> 00:15:03.479 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>So, so what, what's your best, uh, consensus, uh, solution for that? 00:15:04.259 --> 00:15:04.438 <v Jonathan Hodges>Yeah. 00:15:04.438 --> 00:15:10.379 <v Jonathan Hodges>So what we did in this analysis is we really had a few factors that we considered. 00:15:10.379 --> 00:15:11.908 <v Jonathan Hodges>You had the, the size of the vehicle. 00:15:11.908 --> 00:15:12.028 <v Jonathan Hodges>Yep. 00:15:12.028 --> 00:15:12.989 <v Jonathan Hodges>Which we know is important. 00:15:12.989 --> 00:15:13.918 <v Jonathan Hodges>'cause that's gonna be. 00:15:13.918 --> 00:15:16.806 <v Jonathan Hodges>driving the overall fuel load and the peak burning behavior. 00:15:16.806 --> 00:15:19.676 <v Jonathan Hodges>and then you have how the vehicle fires initiated. 00:15:19.676 --> 00:15:27.806 <v Jonathan Hodges>Um, and you had in your systematic review, uh, you took data from the literature and characterized it by where the fire was started. 00:15:27.806 --> 00:15:35.220 <v Jonathan Hodges>And so we use that to understand, uh, what percentage of that peak potential do vehicles actually burn at based on where it started. 00:15:35.225 --> 00:15:35.424 <v Christian Rippe>Mm-hmm. 00:15:35.549 --> 00:15:39.210 <v Jonathan Hodges>And so we use that to establish these different classes of vehicles. 00:15:39.210 --> 00:15:42.960 <v Jonathan Hodges>So we basically have a class that is vehicles that burn at their peak potential. 00:15:42.960 --> 00:15:49.860 <v Jonathan Hodges>Then vehicles that are limited to the engine compartment, vehicles that are limited to the passenger and vehicles that are related just kind of in the body. 00:15:49.860 --> 00:15:58.440 <v Jonathan Hodges>And so we, we tuned the, the peak e release rate and total energy from those based on statistical analysis of the data that you had collected. 00:15:58.440 --> 00:16:08.373 <v Jonathan Hodges>And then we pulled data from NFPA, um, in the, previous data sets to characterize based on investigations, you know, where is the. 00:16:08.373 --> 00:16:10.923 <v Jonathan Hodges>Where do you see these fires contained? 00:16:10.923 --> 00:16:11.013 <v Jonathan Hodges>Mm-hmm. 00:16:11.013 --> 00:16:12.452 <v Jonathan Hodges>Um, in the data. 00:16:12.452 --> 00:16:21.692 <v Jonathan Hodges>And so what we assume there is, if they're able to identify that the fire started in the passenger compartment, then we said, okay, we'll use the passenger compartment bias for that. 00:16:21.855 --> 00:16:22.485 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Tell me more about that. 00:16:22.485 --> 00:16:33.067 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>That's when we're talking about the data I've collected, I, I know a lot about it, but, uh, now you mentioned, uh, you, you took some data to, to see what the fires in real world looked like. 00:16:33.067 --> 00:16:33.111 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Mm-hmm. 00:16:33.111 --> 00:16:33.517 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Okay. 00:16:33.517 --> 00:16:34.147 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Tell me more about that. 00:16:34.147 --> 00:16:34.807 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>That's interesting. 00:16:34.986 --> 00:16:35.136 <v Jonathan Hodges>Yeah. 00:16:35.136 --> 00:16:40.476 <v Jonathan Hodges>So NFPA has, um, a report, I think it's, uh, McGee's, the author on it, vehicles and Fire. 00:16:40.476 --> 00:16:43.777 <v Jonathan Hodges>Uh, I think 2024 was the most recent edition of that. 00:16:43.777 --> 00:16:51.659 <v Jonathan Hodges>and within that there's, there's lots of tables, um, that say like, uh, location that the fire was started, um, for the passenger vehicles. 00:16:51.659 --> 00:16:57.450 <v Jonathan Hodges>And uh, there's a lot of groups there, but there's, the engine compartment is one passenger compartments one. 00:16:57.450 --> 00:17:01.023 <v Jonathan Hodges>and then they'll have one like the whole section that's like unknown. 00:17:01.023 --> 00:17:01.562 <v Jonathan Hodges>And so 00:17:01.682 --> 00:17:05.972 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>is that from firefighters report post-fire or investigation insurance? 00:17:06.298 --> 00:17:09.178 <v Jonathan Hodges>Yeah, it's from the, the N-F-I-R-S data. 00:17:09.208 --> 00:17:09.538 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Okay. 00:17:09.718 --> 00:17:12.241 <v Jonathan Hodges>Infers data, from incident reports. 00:17:12.271 --> 00:17:12.511 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Okay. 00:17:12.511 --> 00:17:14.791 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>But it is post-incident real fire data. 00:17:14.791 --> 00:17:15.001 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Okay. 00:17:15.001 --> 00:17:15.567 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>That's nice. 00:17:15.721 --> 00:17:20.852 <v Jonathan Hodges>And we, one, one of the things we assumed is if they couldn't identify where the fire started, that the whole vehicle was involved. 00:17:20.912 --> 00:17:21.152 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Okay. 00:17:21.152 --> 00:17:21.241 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>And 00:17:21.241 --> 00:17:24.031 <v Jonathan Hodges>so that was where we got the full vehicle involvement percentage. 00:17:24.031 --> 00:17:31.531 <v Jonathan Hodges>Uh, now, uh, with UL we do have the, the nearest data, uh, that the collection now and we're adding more granularity. 00:17:31.531 --> 00:17:31.686 <v Jonathan Hodges>Mm-hmm. 00:17:31.686 --> 00:17:39.154 <v Jonathan Hodges>And so hopefully as more data comes in over the next few years, we'll be able to better understand where the fires are starting. 00:17:39.154 --> 00:17:41.855 <v Jonathan Hodges>'cause we're actually collecting, um, data that's gonna be. 00:17:41.855 --> 00:17:43.565 <v Jonathan Hodges>More designed around what we need. 00:17:44.015 --> 00:17:44.464 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Oh man. 00:17:44.464 --> 00:17:45.694 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>That, that, that's really awesome. 00:17:45.694 --> 00:17:50.615 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>And some baseline statistics like fleet distribution, science distributions. 00:17:50.615 --> 00:17:50.914 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Mm-hmm. 00:17:50.914 --> 00:17:53.494 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Did you took the, like, statistical data of us? 00:17:54.035 --> 00:17:54.424 <v Jonathan Hodges>Yeah. 00:17:54.424 --> 00:18:01.325 <v Jonathan Hodges>So what we collected some data on sales of vehicles from, uh, both the US market and globally. 00:18:01.325 --> 00:18:06.305 <v Jonathan Hodges>And we actually just published a paper on that, I think it came out a, a few weeks ago now. 00:18:06.305 --> 00:18:08.494 <v Jonathan Hodges>And we'll be presenting on it at IFSS. 00:18:08.555 --> 00:18:09.275 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>It's in the show notes. 00:18:09.785 --> 00:18:09.964 <v Jonathan Hodges>Huh? 00:18:10.115 --> 00:18:10.924 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>It's in the show notes. 00:18:11.105 --> 00:18:11.434 <v Jonathan Hodges>There we go. 00:18:11.434 --> 00:18:21.557 <v Jonathan Hodges>And, uh, so that one again, that, that model, um, is based purely on, uh, the determinist model we had before, plus the sales data. 00:18:21.557 --> 00:18:27.797 <v Jonathan Hodges>Um, and then we did start talking about multi-vehicle fire spread, but it was all presuming that a vehicle burns at its peak potential. 00:18:27.797 --> 00:18:30.609 <v Jonathan Hodges>Uh, but you know, you know, I assessed their few times are long. 00:18:30.609 --> 00:18:33.819 <v Jonathan Hodges>So that was submitted, you know, what, six, nine months ago? 00:18:33.819 --> 00:18:34.990 <v Jonathan Hodges>I don't remember at this point. 00:18:34.990 --> 00:18:35.690 <v Jonathan Hodges>Um, and so. 00:18:35.690 --> 00:18:37.968 <v Jonathan Hodges>We started the case study after that. 00:18:37.968 --> 00:18:38.272 <v Jonathan Hodges>Mm-hmm. 00:18:38.272 --> 00:18:42.347 <v Jonathan Hodges>And so what we wanted to look at the initiating mode as well. 00:18:42.347 --> 00:18:45.048 <v Jonathan Hodges>And so that was a new feature that we added since that paper. 00:18:45.048 --> 00:18:46.847 <v Jonathan Hodges>And so we'll have to do it. 00:18:46.847 --> 00:18:51.107 <v Jonathan Hodges>We're planning on doing follow up paper that, uh, includes some of the additional features in it. 00:18:51.407 --> 00:18:53.988 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Fire Essential brings you knowledge as it happens. 00:18:53.988 --> 00:18:56.817 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>that's, that, that, that's great. 00:18:56.817 --> 00:19:07.660 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>so you use this model you've described in the previous papers, uh, for each initiating vehicle, for every vehicle, like every vehicle has its own hit release rate curve. 00:19:07.660 --> 00:19:08.950 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Only the first one gets. 00:19:08.950 --> 00:19:12.400 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>How do you translate this into the, how do you use it in the project really? 00:19:12.549 --> 00:19:12.849 <v Jonathan Hodges>Yeah. 00:19:12.849 --> 00:19:22.152 <v Jonathan Hodges>Uh, so what we did is we, uh, generated a hundred thousand sets of, um, initiating vehicles, and used that to get heat release rate profiles. 00:19:22.152 --> 00:19:30.281 <v Jonathan Hodges>And then what we did is we said, okay, based on that a hundred thousand, we're now gonna re-sample, uh, for how they were initiated mm-hmm. 00:19:30.281 --> 00:19:32.412 <v Jonathan Hodges>From the NFPA data that we collected. 00:19:32.412 --> 00:19:39.461 <v Jonathan Hodges>And so we kind of tied those together, and then we biased the heat release rate down using the statistical analysis that we presented in the case study. 00:19:39.461 --> 00:19:44.311 <v Jonathan Hodges>So we, we always start with the peak potential and then bias it down based on that initiating load. 00:19:44.311 --> 00:19:53.653 <v Jonathan Hodges>And then we use that information to predict the heat flux to an adjacent park vehicle, and we randomly sampled from that size distribution, what the size of that vehicle is. 00:19:53.653 --> 00:19:53.923 <v Jonathan Hodges>Mm-hmm. 00:19:53.923 --> 00:19:58.903 <v Jonathan Hodges>So then if that vehicle ignites based on our ignition criteria, then we're, we're off to the races. 00:19:58.903 --> 00:20:01.933 <v Jonathan Hodges>We keep going down the line continuing to predict the heat release rate. 00:20:02.263 --> 00:20:09.824 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>One question that always comes to my mind when I see such complicated case studies performed here in SFP is, do people really work like that? 00:20:09.824 --> 00:20:18.223 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Like it, it is unlikely that you do that in, in the, well, maybe it's likely that you do it on a real world project, but I, I, I find it very. 00:20:18.223 --> 00:20:25.573 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Advanced, like if you wanted to incorporate that in the, like, normal PBD framework, like run of the mill car park. 00:20:25.573 --> 00:20:29.928 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Do, do you see any modifications to the process after you went through it? 00:20:29.928 --> 00:20:30.167 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Like, 00:20:30.487 --> 00:20:33.876 <v Jonathan Hodges>There's definitely areas that we need to do more work, um, to finalize. 00:20:33.876 --> 00:20:38.977 <v Jonathan Hodges>But my goal would be that we, we we're doing the legwork, we're doing the research, and then we're publishing it. 00:20:38.977 --> 00:20:43.717 <v Jonathan Hodges>And then when someone's going to design, they can use the curves that we've, um, developed. 00:20:43.717 --> 00:20:47.136 <v Jonathan Hodges>They don't necessarily need to reinvent the wheel in their exact project. 00:20:47.136 --> 00:20:50.059 <v Jonathan Hodges>but, you know, someone has to take that first step. 00:20:50.059 --> 00:20:56.116 <v Jonathan Hodges>And thankfully, uh, with ul, we have the ability to, spend the time to do this investigation. 00:20:56.503 --> 00:20:59.773 <v Mark McKinnon>uh, you know, the impression that I get, I, I spend a little bit of time in consulting. 00:20:59.773 --> 00:21:00.763 <v Mark McKinnon>The impression that I get is. 00:21:00.763 --> 00:21:10.902 <v Mark McKinnon>S uh, no owner would pay for this level of analysis, but at ULRI, we have a really diverse stakeholder, a set of stakeholder groups. 00:21:10.902 --> 00:21:10.991 <v Mark McKinnon>Mm-hmm. 00:21:10.991 --> 00:21:17.488 <v Mark McKinnon>And so, one of the groups that we're really trying to, start to work with and work for are fire protection engineers. 00:21:17.488 --> 00:21:30.147 <v Mark McKinnon>And so if we can develop guidance and, and tools and resources for fire protection engineers, you know, to, to make their jobs easier, maybe they can, uh, do this level of analysis, uh, much more cost effective. 00:21:30.147 --> 00:21:30.567 <v Mark McKinnon>Yeah. 00:21:30.567 --> 00:21:31.617 <v Mark McKinnon>Someone has to do it first. 00:21:31.617 --> 00:21:31.917 <v Mark McKinnon>Yeah. 00:21:31.917 --> 00:21:33.298 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>So someone has to do it first. 00:21:33.718 --> 00:21:34.018 <v Christian Rippe>Yeah. 00:21:34.018 --> 00:21:41.596 <v Christian Rippe>And you know, this the first case study I worked on, and I've actually found it kind of fun because there's not an actual life safety implication in the analysis we're doing. 00:21:41.596 --> 00:21:41.747 <v Christian Rippe>Right. 00:21:41.747 --> 00:21:41.811 <v Christian Rippe>Okay. 00:21:41.811 --> 00:21:43.727 <v Christian Rippe>You know, it's because it's all, it's make believe. 00:21:43.727 --> 00:21:43.967 <v Christian Rippe>Right. 00:21:43.967 --> 00:21:44.092 <v Christian Rippe>You know? 00:21:44.092 --> 00:21:44.372 <v Christian Rippe>Mm-hmm. 00:21:44.372 --> 00:21:48.346 <v Christian Rippe>And so you can kind of push that envelope further than you would feel then I would feel comfortable. 00:21:48.346 --> 00:21:48.497 <v Christian Rippe>Right. 00:21:48.497 --> 00:21:50.836 <v Christian Rippe>And, you know, definitely the structural part that, that we did like. 00:21:50.836 --> 00:21:58.921 <v Christian Rippe>There's holes that, like if we were to do this in an actual fire, you know, an actual parking structure, that they would have to be filled a hundred percent right. 00:21:58.921 --> 00:22:02.131 <v Christian Rippe>But we can kind of say, Hey, look, you know, we, we got the ball rolling. 00:22:02.131 --> 00:22:09.272 <v Christian Rippe>And, and I think that this is kind of where these kinds of analyses could end up in the next, three, four, or five years, right. 00:22:09.272 --> 00:22:10.893 <v Christian Rippe>That, that we could be doing this kind of stuff. 00:22:10.893 --> 00:22:11.913 <v Christian Rippe>But that's right. 00:22:11.913 --> 00:22:13.262 <v Christian Rippe>You someone's gotta do it first. 00:22:13.262 --> 00:22:20.282 <v Christian Rippe>And these case studies present a really great opportunity to kind of show, hey, here's where we could go with this. 00:22:20.282 --> 00:22:21.663 <v Christian Rippe>And now maybe Right. 00:22:21.663 --> 00:22:22.682 <v Christian Rippe>Other people right. 00:22:22.682 --> 00:22:26.432 <v Christian Rippe>Can, can take these ideas and run with them and, and kind of a real world application. 00:22:26.853 --> 00:22:27.002 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Yeah. 00:22:27.002 --> 00:22:41.613 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>I I, I'm, I'm running this question purposefully because, the design curve or design fired is actually something that can be taken out of this analysis and implemented, but not in a fully performance based risk analysis. 00:22:41.613 --> 00:22:42.038 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>You know, like. 00:22:42.038 --> 00:22:50.662 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Uh, in my world, uh, how people design car parks in Poland, they would just take one curve that exists, whatever they, whatever is their preferred curve. 00:22:50.662 --> 00:22:53.392 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>and they apply it in one, two locations. 00:22:53.392 --> 00:22:56.122 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>I do as well, when I design a car park, I don't, I don't run qa. 00:22:56.122 --> 00:23:06.430 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>I, I just, you know, run a demonstration that my sport control works and I just take one design, fire and apply there, and when I apply it, um, that's it. 00:23:06.430 --> 00:23:11.125 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>and therefore, my whole risk analysis is at the design fire level really? 00:23:11.125 --> 00:23:21.865 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Because if you take a hundred thousand courses of fire and then sample them by statistical distributions, fully understanding the implications of what you're doing, I think that's awesome. 00:23:21.865 --> 00:23:24.775 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>And, and, and, and I think this approach is, is really awesome. 00:23:24.775 --> 00:23:33.902 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>But I can also see someone, Misusing this type of, of tool of the design fire, you know, in their single point analysis because Oh yeah. 00:23:33.902 --> 00:23:36.460 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Someone, you know, did that, for their fire. 00:23:36.460 --> 00:23:39.009 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>I just took this curve because I like it, and, and here it is. 00:23:39.278 --> 00:23:39.548 <v Christian Rippe>Yeah. 00:23:39.548 --> 00:23:46.990 <v Christian Rippe>And there's, there's been some discussion here at the conference of, you know, I, in the design fire development, that's really the heart of the engineering that we do, right? 00:23:46.990 --> 00:23:47.016 <v Christian Rippe>Mm-hmm. 00:23:47.016 --> 00:23:50.260 <v Christian Rippe>You know, that's, that's the judgment and it's such a hard thing to teach. 00:23:50.260 --> 00:23:54.701 <v Christian Rippe>You know, it's something that experience is really like the only way to, to get it right. 00:23:54.701 --> 00:23:57.468 <v Christian Rippe>And, we can teach people to run models very easily, right? 00:23:57.468 --> 00:24:01.817 <v Christian Rippe>You can give 'em all the inputs, they can build an FDS model and, and they can go, right? 00:24:01.817 --> 00:24:06.133 <v Christian Rippe>But, and so it's great for new, you know, people come, coming out of university, stuff like that. 00:24:06.133 --> 00:24:11.329 <v Christian Rippe>But to tell someone, Hey, can you figure out how big of a fire to use for a car in a car park? 00:24:11.329 --> 00:24:16.028 <v Christian Rippe>You know, it's people who have years of experience and they're still like, oh, there's so much unknown. 00:24:16.028 --> 00:24:16.327 <v Christian Rippe>Right? 00:24:16.327 --> 00:24:18.397 <v Christian Rippe>Like, it's such a hard question. 00:24:19.028 --> 00:24:21.218 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>And we're back to the, is there a generic fire? 00:24:21.218 --> 00:24:24.877 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Because I, I would argue that the same goes to just using experimental data. 00:24:24.877 --> 00:24:27.548 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>You can as well just abuse experimental data. 00:24:27.548 --> 00:24:34.739 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>You choose a calorimeter output that you liked, you put it directly in your, in your simulation, and it's, it's there. 00:24:34.739 --> 00:24:39.449 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Mark, you, you look like someone who could comment on, on using, uh, experimental data. 00:24:40.515 --> 00:24:50.325 <v Mark McKinnon>I think what's, what's really important with, experiments and, determining which experimental data to use is, that the researchers themselves have to kind of define their limitations. 00:24:50.325 --> 00:24:53.863 <v Mark McKinnon>And, you know, I guess, uh, that's something that you don't often see. 00:24:53.863 --> 00:25:00.021 <v Mark McKinnon>In reports and, and peer-reviewed journals is, uh, people defining exactly how things should be used. 00:25:00.021 --> 00:25:09.061 <v Mark McKinnon>And so I think one thing that we, have tried to do here and we try to do in our work, at UL is, you know, provide guidance for how these things are gonna be used. 00:25:09.061 --> 00:25:12.756 <v Mark McKinnon>and I guess in this case study, you know, this is, it is a case study. 00:25:12.756 --> 00:25:17.585 <v Mark McKinnon>It's a, it's a way to show, our potential stakeholders how you should use the data. 00:25:17.585 --> 00:25:17.795 <v Mark McKinnon>Mm-hmm. 00:25:18.086 --> 00:25:24.565 <v Jonathan Hodges>And if you limit, you know, if you're using an experimental curve, you can always find an experimental curve that'll match your Exactly. 00:25:24.565 --> 00:25:25.974 <v Jonathan Hodges>That'll, that'll look better. 00:25:25.974 --> 00:25:37.460 <v Jonathan Hodges>and so that's the value of really doing the engineering analysis, like Christian was mentioning, to look at the statistics on the types of vehicles and the data that we have to come up with these distributions. 00:25:37.460 --> 00:25:43.406 <v Jonathan Hodges>And then I can recommend to you what's a, percentile to use, or we can codify what percentile needs to be used. 00:25:43.406 --> 00:25:45.027 <v Jonathan Hodges>And then we've got a curve. 00:25:45.027 --> 00:25:45.866 <v Jonathan Hodges>It's a single curve. 00:25:45.866 --> 00:25:49.959 <v Jonathan Hodges>And now we've removed a lot of that, um, subject matter judgment, from it. 00:25:49.959 --> 00:25:50.048 <v Jonathan Hodges>Mm-hmm. 00:25:50.163 --> 00:25:54.933 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>so some parameters of those curves also, uh, the, the growth rate 00:25:55.173 --> 00:25:55.263 <v Jonathan Hodges>mm-hmm. 00:25:55.594 --> 00:25:58.173 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>That's also part of the istic assessment, right? 00:25:58.391 --> 00:25:58.990 <v Jonathan Hodges>That's correct. 00:25:58.990 --> 00:26:04.442 <v Jonathan Hodges>And, the growth rate, we, we did analysis based on the data that you had collected in your systematic review. 00:26:04.442 --> 00:26:09.242 <v Jonathan Hodges>And, uh, basically we looked at the, um, using some subject matter judgment. 00:26:09.242 --> 00:26:17.373 <v Jonathan Hodges>We looked at the, the first peak, and then it kind of extrapolated it down until it crossed the zero, uh, neglecting the incipient phase. 00:26:17.373 --> 00:26:17.792 <v Jonathan Hodges>Um, 00:26:17.823 --> 00:26:20.282 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>how, how did you decide when it ended the incipient phase? 00:26:20.564 --> 00:26:23.953 <v Jonathan Hodges>I think we did 10% of the peak, or maybe it was one megawatt. 00:26:23.953 --> 00:26:24.134 <v Jonathan Hodges>Okay. 00:26:24.134 --> 00:26:25.903 <v Jonathan Hodges>It, it some criteria, 00:26:25.903 --> 00:26:27.044 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>just a rule for a cutoff. 00:26:27.284 --> 00:26:27.463 <v Jonathan Hodges>Yeah. 00:26:27.463 --> 00:26:27.493 <v Jonathan Hodges>I 00:26:27.733 --> 00:26:28.933 <v Mark McKinnon>think it was fairly subjective. 00:26:28.933 --> 00:26:31.304 <v Mark McKinnon>I think, you know, typically 10, around 10%. 00:26:31.453 --> 00:26:31.784 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Okay. 00:26:31.844 --> 00:26:35.128 <v Jonathan Hodges>But In most of the data, it's pretty obvious when you look at it. 00:26:35.128 --> 00:26:39.463 <v Jonathan Hodges>The ones where it's not, were really like the body ones where it kind of you body 00:26:39.463 --> 00:26:41.564 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>has in ignition in on the body of the car. 00:26:41.653 --> 00:26:42.013 <v Jonathan Hodges>Yeah. 00:26:42.013 --> 00:26:42.253 <v Jonathan Hodges>Okay. 00:26:42.253 --> 00:26:47.969 <v Jonathan Hodges>Those ones, it, it grew fairly slowly, maybe almost linear up to a megawatt after like 20, it's a mud 30 minutes. 00:26:47.969 --> 00:26:53.530 <v Jonathan Hodges>And so for those and for those ones, again, those weren't the ones we were as worried about. 00:26:53.530 --> 00:27:00.266 <v Jonathan Hodges>It was more because those are not usually gonna be the founding scenarios, but in the risk analysis, they are important. 00:27:00.266 --> 00:27:00.625 <v Jonathan Hodges>Yeah. 00:27:00.625 --> 00:27:07.652 <v Jonathan Hodges>but we did that analysis and basically came up with if the whole vehicle's involved and it's really growing at a fast or an ultra fast growth rate. 00:27:07.741 --> 00:27:07.832 <v Mark McKinnon>Mm-hmm. 00:27:08.162 --> 00:27:15.152 <v Jonathan Hodges>And then if it's in the passenger or the engine compartment, then the medium fast that we used in the previous was pretty reasonable. 00:27:15.152 --> 00:27:17.821 <v Jonathan Hodges>That's the 2 25 second critical time. 00:27:18.392 --> 00:27:23.724 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>That's really awesome because there used to be a discussion that I know that some people would be preaching, oh yeah. 00:27:23.724 --> 00:27:26.035 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Medium curve is what you should use for a car. 00:27:26.035 --> 00:27:29.738 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>And there would be others who would be going like fast, ultra fast. 00:27:29.738 --> 00:27:32.438 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>I, I think I would be in the camp of, of fast growing fires. 00:27:32.438 --> 00:27:40.998 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>'cause I'm, if I, my purpose is to do smoke control and if there's a medium fire growth in my car park, I don't need smoke control at all. 00:27:40.998 --> 00:27:42.521 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>I have not proven anything. 00:27:42.521 --> 00:27:44.801 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Like I, I don't feel I've tested the system. 00:27:44.801 --> 00:27:45.852 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>It's, again, subject, 00:27:46.271 --> 00:27:52.031 <v Jonathan Hodges>again, if you're only using one curve, you need to use a curve that is at that upper level of design. 00:27:52.061 --> 00:27:52.521 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Yeah, yeah. 00:27:52.521 --> 00:27:52.990 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Yeah. 00:27:52.990 --> 00:27:54.430 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>I, I think I agree with that. 00:27:54.430 --> 00:27:55.000 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>I agree with that. 00:27:55.000 --> 00:27:55.299 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Totally. 00:27:55.299 --> 00:27:58.119 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>And, uh, what, what about the experiments that go weird? 00:27:58.119 --> 00:28:00.700 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Like have two peaks or that have very late peak? 00:28:00.700 --> 00:28:02.109 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>How did you account those? 00:28:02.569 --> 00:28:06.230 <v Jonathan Hodges>Yeah, so for those, the, the growth rate, we, based on the first beak. 00:28:06.230 --> 00:28:06.259 <v Jonathan Hodges>Okay. 00:28:06.259 --> 00:28:08.015 <v Jonathan Hodges>Um, but then in terms of the, the. 00:28:08.015 --> 00:28:11.873 <v Jonathan Hodges>the peak, uh, heat release rate and the total energy. 00:28:11.873 --> 00:28:16.853 <v Jonathan Hodges>Um, we did our statistical analysis there to basically say how much lower is it? 00:28:16.913 --> 00:28:17.212 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Yeah. 00:28:17.212 --> 00:28:24.083 <v Jonathan Hodges>And so if it's in the engine compartment or the passenger compartment and it's limited to that, it's about a 50% of the full potential for the peak. 00:28:24.083 --> 00:28:30.606 <v Jonathan Hodges>And so when we're using the exponential form for the heat release rate, did you get about the same total energy? 00:28:30.606 --> 00:28:33.967 <v Jonathan Hodges>It extends that duration out and flattens the curve a bit. 00:28:34.127 --> 00:28:34.397 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Okay. 00:28:34.397 --> 00:28:35.988 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>How about the chargers? 00:28:35.988 --> 00:28:40.900 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Because it was like, the point of the study was that 50% of the spots will have now a charger. 00:28:40.900 --> 00:28:44.980 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>So this charge charger changed Anything from your perspective at this point? 00:28:45.253 --> 00:28:49.693 <v Jonathan Hodges>So that's a, that's a really complicated question, uh, where there's not great data. 00:28:49.693 --> 00:28:55.003 <v Jonathan Hodges>You know, some of the, the really high speed chargers, now you're, you're charging from another battery, right? 00:28:55.003 --> 00:28:55.124 <v Jonathan Hodges>Mm-hmm. 00:28:55.124 --> 00:29:02.743 <v Jonathan Hodges>And so it's possible that that battery could be part of the system, and so you could be increasing the fuel load within the car park even. 00:29:02.743 --> 00:29:08.328 <v Jonathan Hodges>Um, the assumption that we made in the case study, however, was that they weren't contributing to the fuel load. 00:29:08.328 --> 00:29:14.058 <v Jonathan Hodges>So either you have a separate energy storage system if you've got batteries, or it's just coming off of, um, the, the power. 00:29:14.058 --> 00:29:16.939 <v Jonathan Hodges>There's no fixed, um, energy with the charger. 00:29:16.939 --> 00:29:24.115 <v Jonathan Hodges>so within that framework, the way the chargers are contributing is as a new initiating mode for the electric vehicle fires. 00:29:24.115 --> 00:29:26.950 <v Jonathan Hodges>And there's not great data on that. 00:29:26.950 --> 00:29:38.336 <v Jonathan Hodges>the data that we did use, uh, was basically that 18% of EV fires, occurred either while the vehicle was on the charger or within 60 minutes of being on the charger. 00:29:38.336 --> 00:29:43.557 <v Jonathan Hodges>But that doesn't tell you that the charger started the fire, it just tells you that it was charging. 00:29:43.557 --> 00:29:47.527 <v Jonathan Hodges>But it's also, typically when you have an ev, people are gonna park it and charge it. 00:29:47.527 --> 00:29:52.288 <v Jonathan Hodges>but that doesn't, doesn't give you that answer, but it's at least something that we can use as a starting point. 00:29:52.567 --> 00:30:03.335 <v Mark McKinnon>Yeah, I think, uh, one of the major takeaways that we had as a team was, you know, this, this kind of acted like a gap analysis to see, you know, what's available for practitioners out there. 00:30:03.335 --> 00:30:09.536 <v Mark McKinnon>And this is one major gap we just don't have the data to support some of these, uh, analyses. 00:30:09.536 --> 00:30:14.250 <v Mark McKinnon>And I think the assumption that we made is probably a pretty good one, but, in fire. 00:30:14.250 --> 00:30:16.095 <v Mark McKinnon>Science, fire research. 00:30:16.095 --> 00:30:25.035 <v Mark McKinnon>We're fairly reactive and you know, this is a, a fairly new technology, so I think in the coming years, this is something that's gonna get refined really well. 00:30:25.748 --> 00:30:25.778 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Okay. 00:30:25.778 --> 00:30:26.768 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Let, let, let's move. 00:30:26.768 --> 00:30:29.738 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>I mean, it's already awesome, but we haven't got to the good part yet. 00:30:29.738 --> 00:30:38.107 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>So Yeah, let, let's perhaps move towards the, uh, the structural analysis and, and the general QA process that you went through. 00:30:38.107 --> 00:30:46.778 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>So we just covered extensively how you got into the design fire, but now tell me what you intended to do with that, with those, once you, once you figured them out, 00:30:47.308 --> 00:30:53.459 <v Jonathan Hodges>Uh, so I think I mentioned this earlier in the podcast, but whenever you're doing a risk analysis, you have to decide on how to bend things. 00:30:53.459 --> 00:31:02.714 <v Jonathan Hodges>Um, because if we're, if we have a hundred thousand, scenarios for the different heat release rates, that's great, but we're not gonna run cf d simulations for all of those. 00:31:02.714 --> 00:31:04.987 <v Jonathan Hodges>so in terms of the bins. 00:31:04.987 --> 00:31:07.612 <v Jonathan Hodges>Maybe, maybe with AI future episode. 00:31:07.761 --> 00:31:09.501 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Yeah, I, I don't want to do that with ai. 00:31:09.501 --> 00:31:15.490 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Jesus, you can just ask Chad, but will my car park collapse as well at this point? 00:31:15.971 --> 00:31:17.830 <v Jonathan Hodges>You know, I didn't actually ask it that, but 00:31:18.060 --> 00:31:18.300 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>there's 00:31:18.300 --> 00:31:18.661 <v Jonathan Hodges>All right. 00:31:18.661 --> 00:31:28.530 <v Jonathan Hodges>Uh, anyway, so we've been, uh, the bins we came up with were, you know, sprinklers on sprinkler's not, um, and then three different bins for the heat release rate for an individual vehicle. 00:31:28.530 --> 00:31:31.891 <v Jonathan Hodges>So 50th percentile, 90th, or 98th percentile. 00:31:32.010 --> 00:31:35.371 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>There's been three curves of heat release rate that you would put into analysis. 00:31:35.580 --> 00:31:36.151 <v Jonathan Hodges>That's correct. 00:31:36.181 --> 00:31:36.510 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Okay. 00:31:36.961 --> 00:31:39.960 <v Jonathan Hodges>And then, we had single vehicle or multi-vehicle 00:31:40.153 --> 00:31:40.213 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>uhhuh, 00:31:40.453 --> 00:31:46.513 <v Jonathan Hodges>and then we had the mitigation result, which was either free burning, sprinkler control, or suppressed. 00:31:46.693 --> 00:31:46.784 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Mm-hmm. 00:31:47.203 --> 00:31:50.953 <v Jonathan Hodges>And so each of those had different heat release rate curves that we were considering. 00:31:50.953 --> 00:31:57.403 <v Jonathan Hodges>Um, and then each of these had different probabilities that we tune based on engineering data and some of the modeling results. 00:31:57.614 --> 00:31:58.663 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>So, so it's like fuel QA, 00:31:59.146 --> 00:31:59.656 <v Jonathan Hodges>That's correct. 00:31:59.656 --> 00:32:02.596 <v Jonathan Hodges>It's a full QRA and there were some things that we didn't vary. 00:32:02.596 --> 00:32:02.896 <v Jonathan Hodges>Okay. 00:32:02.896 --> 00:32:04.277 <v Jonathan Hodges>There were some things that we just assumed. 00:32:04.277 --> 00:32:10.727 <v Jonathan Hodges>So, uh, again, you have to, when you're doing a risk analysis, you have to draw some bounds on it or else you'll never be able to get an answer. 00:32:10.936 --> 00:32:11.027 <v Mark McKinnon>Mm-hmm. 00:32:11.457 --> 00:32:19.196 <v Jonathan Hodges>but pretty early on when we started doing the analysis, uh, we realized that in terms of occupant, tenability, the R sets are generally pretty low. 00:32:19.196 --> 00:32:24.477 <v Jonathan Hodges>And so as long as you have that automated detection and notification, people are able to get out. 00:32:25.057 --> 00:32:25.268 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Okay. 00:32:25.268 --> 00:32:30.775 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>So, uh, so you, you have your scenarios, you said it's full probabilistic. 00:32:30.775 --> 00:32:34.953 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>So how, how do you, put frequencies or probabilities on those scenarios? 00:32:35.181 --> 00:32:35.510 <v Jonathan Hodges>Yeah. 00:32:35.510 --> 00:32:43.932 <v Jonathan Hodges>Uh, so for our base frequency of just the events per year, we pull data from, the same NFPA report on the number of vehicle fires per year. 00:32:43.932 --> 00:32:48.672 <v Jonathan Hodges>And so it came up to about six 50, a little bit of variability from year to year. 00:32:48.672 --> 00:32:49.492 <v Jonathan Hodges>and that was a, 00:32:49.492 --> 00:32:53.633 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>is that fires in car parks or fires of vehicles in total? 00:32:53.903 --> 00:32:56.093 <v Jonathan Hodges>That's, uh, fires of vehicles. 00:32:56.093 --> 00:32:57.323 <v Jonathan Hodges>In parking areas. 00:32:57.327 --> 00:32:58.192 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>In parking areas, okay. 00:32:58.192 --> 00:32:59.303 <v Jonathan Hodges>Is the way it's described. 00:32:59.303 --> 00:33:00.472 <v Jonathan Hodges>And so that could be. 00:33:00.472 --> 00:33:09.873 <v Jonathan Hodges>A, uh, car park or it could be just in a, an in an open, you know, asphalt, uh, area, uh, with no building. 00:33:09.873 --> 00:33:17.992 <v Jonathan Hodges>the data collection doesn't break that down, which is one of those things that we roping to improve upon with narrows where we're gonna do better data collection. 00:33:17.992 --> 00:33:18.383 <v Mark McKinnon>Mm-hmm. 00:33:18.604 --> 00:33:25.534 <v Jonathan Hodges>so once we had the number of fires, uh, per year, we needed to estimate or in parking areas, we needed to estimate the number of parking garages. 00:33:25.534 --> 00:33:30.711 <v Jonathan Hodges>and so there was, uh, some work done, by, few researchers, uh, out of New Zealand. 00:33:30.711 --> 00:33:37.049 <v Jonathan Hodges>I So once we knew how many fires or we had an estimate of fires in parking areas, we then needed to know the denominator Yeah. 00:33:37.049 --> 00:33:38.460 <v Jonathan Hodges>For the number of parking structures. 00:33:38.460 --> 00:33:41.421 <v Jonathan Hodges>And so there was an article, it'll be in the show notes, I'm sure. 00:33:41.570 --> 00:33:41.810 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Yes, 00:33:41.810 --> 00:33:42.050 <v Jonathan Hodges>it is. 00:33:42.050 --> 00:33:46.641 <v Jonathan Hodges>Where they estimated the number of parking structures in the United States. 00:33:46.641 --> 00:33:48.230 <v Jonathan Hodges>Uh, so we used that number. 00:33:48.230 --> 00:33:50.540 <v Jonathan Hodges>It ended up being about 122,000. 00:33:50.540 --> 00:33:53.359 <v Jonathan Hodges>there were a few other sources we tried to look at. 00:33:53.359 --> 00:33:56.839 <v Jonathan Hodges>We looked at like registered parking businesses and things like that. 00:33:56.839 --> 00:34:01.384 <v Jonathan Hodges>but you know, the numbers you get are pretty different depending on how you try and characterize it. 00:34:01.413 --> 00:34:02.523 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Yeah, I can imagine. 00:34:02.614 --> 00:34:08.704 <v Jonathan Hodges>Um, that gets us our base frequency, and that was 0.005 fires per year, per garage. 00:34:08.704 --> 00:34:12.483 <v Jonathan Hodges>So that'd be like one fire every 200 years in a garage 00:34:12.483 --> 00:34:13.264 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>that's actually low. 00:34:13.264 --> 00:34:17.103 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>That's actually, I would expect the number, like one in 30, one in 50 maybe. 00:34:17.103 --> 00:34:17.661 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>But yeah. 00:34:17.661 --> 00:34:17.902 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Fine. 00:34:17.902 --> 00:34:19.101 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>And now per scenario. 00:34:19.525 --> 00:34:19.856 <v Jonathan Hodges>Yeah. 00:34:19.856 --> 00:34:31.248 <v Jonathan Hodges>so for the scenarios, uh, kinda the first break point we had was whether sprinklers, um, were active or not, uh, for the existing structure in the case study, where there weren't sprinklers, we just assumed there weren't sprinklers. 00:34:31.248 --> 00:34:31.458 <v Jonathan Hodges>Okay. 00:34:31.458 --> 00:34:32.568 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>So weren't on no active. 00:34:32.688 --> 00:34:32.989 <v Jonathan Hodges>Yeah. 00:34:32.989 --> 00:34:33.739 <v Jonathan Hodges>And so there 00:34:33.739 --> 00:34:34.579 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>very robust. 00:34:34.673 --> 00:34:45.001 <v Jonathan Hodges>um, in the case with the upgrade where we're recommending sprinklers throughout the structure, uh, we use data from NFPA, uh, where sprinklers are observed to operate in 92% of scenarios. 00:34:45.001 --> 00:34:45.181 <v Jonathan Hodges>Okay. 00:34:45.181 --> 00:34:47.701 <v Jonathan Hodges>Where the fire is considered large enough to activate them. 00:34:47.701 --> 00:34:56.445 <v Jonathan Hodges>and then we have another break point later on in the entry that is sprinklers are, you know, how effective are they when they do operate at controlling the fire? 00:34:56.445 --> 00:35:02.710 <v Jonathan Hodges>And so their FBA lists, the sprinklers are being 97% effective at controlling fire when they operate. 00:35:02.860 --> 00:35:08.710 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>So the sprinklers that are present, they operate at 97% of cases they were successful in controlling the size of, okay. 00:35:08.860 --> 00:35:08.980 <v Jonathan Hodges>Yeah. 00:35:08.980 --> 00:35:14.739 <v Jonathan Hodges>And so we took that to be mean that 3% of fires when sprinklers were active, um, still burn as free burn. 00:35:14.943 --> 00:35:20.737 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>and, and the, does the free burn mean they're, they're, they're gonna transition into multi-vehicle fire or? 00:35:20.907 --> 00:35:21.447 <v Jonathan Hodges>Yes. 00:35:21.657 --> 00:35:22.016 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Okay. 00:35:22.467 --> 00:35:31.639 <v Jonathan Hodges>So, we could always try and say maybe you get some benefit from the sprinklers and reducing the likelihood of it transitioning to multi-vehicle so you get some cooling. 00:35:31.639 --> 00:35:34.369 <v Jonathan Hodges>Uh, but that wasn't something we considered as part of the case study. 00:35:34.369 --> 00:35:40.014 <v Jonathan Hodges>We just assumed if it was uncontrolled then, um, the sprinklers were providing no benefit. 00:35:40.014 --> 00:36:02.635 <v Jonathan Hodges>but then the remaining 97%, uh, we had to decide how to distribute that between fire suppression versus fire, fire control, where suppression means that heat release rates is going all the way to zero and fire control is, um, being limited either at the time of activation or, um, at some, you know, minimum level that, uh, for a shielded fire or something. 00:36:02.905 --> 00:36:03.144 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Okay. 00:36:03.144 --> 00:36:09.626 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>And then to translate those results into, input for further, thought process, good old FDS simulations. 00:36:09.626 --> 00:36:10.436 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>How did you did? 00:36:10.947 --> 00:36:11.217 <v Jonathan Hodges>Yep. 00:36:11.217 --> 00:36:13.887 <v Jonathan Hodges>Uh, so we, we modeled the, the scenarios. 00:36:13.887 --> 00:36:14.456 <v Jonathan Hodges>Uh, so 00:36:14.487 --> 00:36:15.327 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>36 of them, 00:36:15.597 --> 00:36:17.336 <v Jonathan Hodges>yeah, we modeled 36 scenarios. 00:36:17.336 --> 00:36:17.516 <v Jonathan Hodges>That's 00:36:17.516 --> 00:36:18.117 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>actually impressive 00:36:18.327 --> 00:36:19.496 <v Jonathan Hodges>for, for the occupant. 00:36:19.496 --> 00:36:20.936 <v Jonathan Hodges>Tenability, we did that. 00:36:20.936 --> 00:36:28.666 <v Jonathan Hodges>And then, uh, for the most part we really just looked at the free burning scenarios because with the sprinklers, we didn't really see occupant um, impacts. 00:36:28.666 --> 00:36:28.907 <v Jonathan Hodges>Mm-hmm. 00:36:28.907 --> 00:36:34.315 <v Jonathan Hodges>but we ran, um, more simulations in FDS looking at the heat transfer to the ceiling. 00:36:34.315 --> 00:36:41.672 <v Jonathan Hodges>Um, and the columns, and that's where we buried the heat release rate and a quasi steady form, to get that exposure. 00:36:41.672 --> 00:36:51.137 <v Jonathan Hodges>But particularly with these multi-vehicle fires, we were just seeing such high potential for exposure and we wanted to understand the likelihood of, uh, failing the structure. 00:36:51.137 --> 00:36:57.947 <v Jonathan Hodges>so that's when we, we brought, uh, Jensen Hughes in as a partner to, uh, help us, uh, evaluate the structural analysis 00:36:58.269 --> 00:36:59.260 <v Christian Rippe>at the very last minute. 00:36:59.260 --> 00:37:07.829 <v Christian Rippe>I'll add, but uh, so we ended up for the structural, it was, it was I think an interesting approach. 00:37:07.829 --> 00:37:16.594 <v Christian Rippe>Um, and really I think what's novel that we did is with the elephant in the room for car parks, at least in the US for modern car parks, they're all concrete structures. 00:37:16.594 --> 00:37:17.043 <v Christian Rippe>Um, okay. 00:37:17.043 --> 00:37:18.903 <v Christian Rippe>You know, you get some old stuff that might be steel. 00:37:18.903 --> 00:37:21.436 <v Christian Rippe>but, you know, everything's concrete for car parks. 00:37:21.436 --> 00:37:22.396 <v Christian Rippe>Especially in the Oh, that's interesting. 00:37:22.427 --> 00:37:24.106 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Twist because in, in Europe and UK. 00:37:24.106 --> 00:37:27.467 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>You would find a lot of steel structure cardboards 00:37:27.771 --> 00:37:30.442 <v Christian Rippe>and in concrete, the, the elephant is sping, right? 00:37:30.442 --> 00:37:34.407 <v Christian Rippe>you know, we, our, our understanding of sping is really still in its infancy. 00:37:34.407 --> 00:37:42.657 <v Christian Rippe>You know, we're just starting to like really build the theoretical backgrounds for what's like, what is sping, like, the mechanisms of sping and things like that. 00:37:42.657 --> 00:37:47.936 <v Christian Rippe>But then in terms of practical application of some of those, of those mechanisms, you know, we're not there yet. 00:37:47.936 --> 00:37:51.208 <v Christian Rippe>and so, you know, we, we kind of gave it our stab here, right? 00:37:51.208 --> 00:37:54.367 <v Christian Rippe>and we, you know, got some kind of interesting approaches. 00:37:54.367 --> 00:37:59.646 <v Christian Rippe>There's been some, some work out in the literature in the last couple years about kind of people putting in some interesting approaches. 00:37:59.646 --> 00:38:02.514 <v Christian Rippe>so for us, what we ended up doing, you kind have two things, right? 00:38:02.514 --> 00:38:05.304 <v Christian Rippe>It's how you implement the actual mechanisms of spalling. 00:38:05.304 --> 00:38:05.315 <v Christian Rippe>Mm-hmm. 00:38:05.315 --> 00:38:09.655 <v Christian Rippe>Or in the, and the kind of theory behind that, but then how you put them into an engineering model as well. 00:38:09.655 --> 00:38:12.355 <v Christian Rippe>'cause you, our engineering models aren't set up to handle spalling. 00:38:12.355 --> 00:38:13.885 <v Christian Rippe>And so. 00:38:13.885 --> 00:38:21.295 <v Christian Rippe>On the kind of more theoretical side, you know, you look at the most common mechanism spine that people are familiar with, right? 00:38:21.295 --> 00:38:32.034 <v Christian Rippe>Is the, what's called a thermo hydro spalling, where you got the, the moisture in the concrete and it's evaporating with the heat, and that vapor is trying to move through the concrete and it can't move very well. 00:38:32.034 --> 00:38:37.045 <v Christian Rippe>And so the pressure start building up and eventually get this, you know, explosive sping mechanism going. 00:38:37.045 --> 00:38:44.730 <v Christian Rippe>and there's some, there's some great work coming out the last couple years and the last few years about, and I'm trying to understand the theory behind that. 00:38:44.730 --> 00:38:47.057 <v Christian Rippe>And it's awesome for a research perspective, right? 00:38:47.057 --> 00:38:49.764 <v Christian Rippe>But when you go to even this, this case study, right? 00:38:49.764 --> 00:39:00.900 <v Christian Rippe>Things like concrete porosity and permeability and things like that, we don't measure those things in, you know, when something builds a car park, no one measures the concrete porosity or the permeability, right? 00:39:00.900 --> 00:39:06.530 <v Christian Rippe>Um, and so, you know, let alone a historical, you know, a historical car park and trying to analyze something like that for an upgrade. 00:39:06.530 --> 00:39:07.820 <v Christian Rippe>You're never gonna know. 00:39:07.820 --> 00:39:09.822 <v Christian Rippe>but even a new structure, you're not gonna know. 00:39:09.822 --> 00:39:26.768 <v Christian Rippe>And so we, one of the challenges we had was to try to kind of convert what's done for the research scale where in a lab you can go, yeah, let's, let's cast some concrete, let's do all these really cool measurements with get all these cool, these properties that we need to try to implement these theoretical models in, in some way. 00:39:26.768 --> 00:39:33.242 <v Christian Rippe>and the challenge we had was to try to scale that back into what could we really kind of apply this to in a real world situation. 00:39:33.242 --> 00:39:35.932 <v Christian Rippe>and then second to that is then you come up with a method. 00:39:35.932 --> 00:39:40.231 <v Christian Rippe>It's how do you put that into an actual, you know, a, a solver, right? 00:39:40.231 --> 00:39:43.891 <v Christian Rippe>And so in this case, we're doing thermal finite element in Abacus. 00:39:43.891 --> 00:39:50.510 <v Christian Rippe>and, you know, the idea of removing material that's in, in an FEA model, that's already a very advanced concept. 00:39:50.510 --> 00:39:50.630 <v Christian Rippe>Right? 00:39:50.630 --> 00:39:56.097 <v Christian Rippe>You know, if you're, if you're kind of doing any sort of element deletion in a, in an FE model, you, you're really. 00:39:56.097 --> 00:39:59.353 <v Christian Rippe>Kind of in the advanced user category for that model. 00:39:59.353 --> 00:39:59.623 <v Christian Rippe>Right. 00:39:59.713 --> 00:40:06.282 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>So, so, so in practically, I, I mean, I have an idea because I see, saw the presentation, but how, how, how did you apply that? 00:40:06.282 --> 00:40:14.233 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Because as you say, it's not that you turn on a button that says includes polling and, and your model starts popping. 00:40:14.233 --> 00:40:15.793 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>But, uh, how did you do that? 00:40:16.063 --> 00:40:25.773 <v Christian Rippe>Yeah, it was, I've actually very recently Abacus has a, a Python scripting interface that, um, not just interfacing with the input files, but you actually essentially interface with the Abacus gui. 00:40:25.773 --> 00:40:26.103 <v Christian Rippe>Mm-hmm. 00:40:26.103 --> 00:40:33.273 <v Christian Rippe>Um, and you, you know, every single command you, you, you do in the Abacus Gooey has an associated Python command that essentially is, is under the hood. 00:40:33.273 --> 00:40:37.293 <v Christian Rippe>And you can actually then write Python scripts and, and people write macros all the time. 00:40:37.293 --> 00:40:37.563 <v Christian Rippe>Right? 00:40:37.563 --> 00:40:48.826 <v Christian Rippe>And so we ended up kind of creating this, master python script that then edited templates for these kind of, essentially like Abacus macro scripts to build these models. 00:40:48.826 --> 00:40:49.291 <v Christian Rippe>And so then it would. 00:40:49.291 --> 00:41:10.143 <v Christian Rippe>You kind of build this, the first model of the, of the, of kind of the, the virgin material that you have to start, you would run that analysis, look at when you first have a spalling event, kind of freeze the analysis there, re remove the geometry, then from the spa, kind of rebuild the model, pick up the analysis where it left off, and you keep doing that over and over again. 00:41:10.143 --> 00:41:16.038 <v Christian Rippe>Um, you know, in some of these analysis, you know, we could have 10 or 15 sping events over the duration, you know? 00:41:16.038 --> 00:41:16.112 <v Christian Rippe>Mm-hmm. 00:41:16.112 --> 00:41:18.967 <v Christian Rippe>You're looking at like multi-vehicle fire, three hour durations. 00:41:18.967 --> 00:41:21.097 <v Christian Rippe>You have a lot of Sping events. 00:41:21.097 --> 00:41:24.688 <v Christian Rippe>but it was all done kind of in a, a, a procedural scripting way. 00:41:24.688 --> 00:41:24.898 <v Christian Rippe>Right. 00:41:24.898 --> 00:41:29.248 <v Christian Rippe>So I didn't have to sit there and click, you know, over and over again and measure and results. 00:41:29.248 --> 00:41:29.489 <v Christian Rippe>Right. 00:41:29.489 --> 00:41:35.590 <v Christian Rippe>But it's, it's not, it's not that straightforward process in terms of like an actual, like commercial viability. 00:41:35.590 --> 00:41:37.300 <v Christian Rippe>It's definitely right on the edge. 00:41:37.300 --> 00:41:37.570 <v Christian Rippe>Right. 00:41:37.708 --> 00:41:48.148 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>so now you have this model that allows you to, to understand how the, the transient thermal, uh, exposure changes with, with, with polling included. 00:41:48.148 --> 00:41:56.353 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>How, how do you go from here to answering the question whether the residents of the tower above are alive or not safe or not? 00:41:56.833 --> 00:41:57.132 <v Christian Rippe>Yeah. 00:41:57.132 --> 00:42:01.302 <v Christian Rippe>And, and we did a more, I would say a traditional PBD idea there. 00:42:01.302 --> 00:42:05.773 <v Christian Rippe>We, you know, took kind of some reinforcement and prestressing steel temperatures, right? 00:42:05.773 --> 00:42:06.943 <v Christian Rippe>With a concrete structure. 00:42:07.182 --> 00:42:07.512 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Mm. 00:42:07.543 --> 00:42:07.643 <v Christian Rippe>You know. 00:42:07.643 --> 00:42:12.568 <v Christian Rippe>If you look at even like the prescriptive codes, like a as tmv one 19 test, right? 00:42:12.568 --> 00:42:23.135 <v Christian Rippe>You know, a pass fail on the thermal criteria for something that's a, a structural member, you know, you measure the temperatures at the reinforcing steel or the pre stressing steel and you'll have temperature requirements there. 00:42:23.135 --> 00:42:35.686 <v Christian Rippe>And so we, we stole those shamelessly from a, the E one 19 standards and, and it's, uh, there's definitely kind of a, a bit of a brute force and, and way, or a very simplified way to, to apply those, right? 00:42:35.686 --> 00:42:41.842 <v Christian Rippe>'cause you do kind of say that you hit those criteria and your structural member quote unquote fails, which in reality that's not really the case, right? 00:42:41.842 --> 00:42:53.362 <v Christian Rippe>You know, they, they correspond to about 50% strength, um, for the, for the steel where you could be, you know, either losing your pre stressing compression or losing confinement in a reinforced member. 00:42:53.362 --> 00:42:58.702 <v Christian Rippe>And it's not that, you know, these things, you know, lose all their strength when their steel hits 50%. 00:42:58.702 --> 00:42:58.913 <v Christian Rippe>Right. 00:42:58.913 --> 00:43:01.643 <v Christian Rippe>You know, you do get a gradual reduction so. 00:43:01.987 --> 00:43:02.228 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Hmm. 00:43:02.288 --> 00:43:05.978 <v Christian Rippe>You know, but we took that kind of simplified route, which I think is more traditional in PBD. 00:43:05.978 --> 00:43:08.197 <v Christian Rippe>You'll find a lot of people kind of doing that. 00:43:08.197 --> 00:43:14.115 <v Christian Rippe>Um, using like something like an E one 19 temperature criteria, as a PBD performance objective. 00:43:14.115 --> 00:43:14.326 <v Christian Rippe>Right. 00:43:14.326 --> 00:43:15.556 <v Christian Rippe>Or, or performance criteria. 00:43:15.885 --> 00:43:24.612 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>I probably should have asked that just at the beginning of the episode, but part of the car park was open from what I remember from the brief, but there was an underground part. 00:43:24.612 --> 00:43:27.402 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Were they equipped with any sort of smoke control in it? 00:43:27.847 --> 00:43:31.418 <v Jonathan Hodges>Uh, so the case study did not have any smoke exhaust. 00:43:31.418 --> 00:43:38.797 <v Jonathan Hodges>Uh, there was a code compliant, uh, recert system for just mechanical, the managing co and ambient levels. 00:43:38.797 --> 00:43:44.853 <v Jonathan Hodges>Um, we could have recommended a mechanical exhaust system, and that would help mainly on the, the occupant tenability side. 00:43:44.853 --> 00:43:49.233 <v Jonathan Hodges>Uh, but for the structural, we wouldn't expect that to be a huge impact. 00:43:49.713 --> 00:43:57.963 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>And did you see any differences in the consequences of the fire between the underground part an open part that was above ground or, 00:43:58.384 --> 00:44:00.094 <v Jonathan Hodges>uh, so we didn't really focus on that. 00:44:00.123 --> 00:44:00.333 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Okay. 00:44:00.431 --> 00:44:07.090 <v Jonathan Hodges>you know, I think we, we only modeled the one scenario down at the underground, uh, from an o tenability that was gonna be the worst scenario. 00:44:07.090 --> 00:44:12.442 <v Jonathan Hodges>and on the structural side, we, uh, did the, the smaller domain kinda representative model. 00:44:12.887 --> 00:44:13.177 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Okay. 00:44:13.177 --> 00:44:14.422 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Underst un understood. 00:44:14.422 --> 00:44:14.811 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Understood. 00:44:14.811 --> 00:44:20.958 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>so, so what kind of conclusions did, did, did you go, is it safe to do that for stories on sprinklers? 00:44:21.521 --> 00:44:25.900 <v Jonathan Hodges>Uh, in general, uh, sprinklers do a great job at controlling the fire and preventing fire spread. 00:44:25.900 --> 00:44:29.081 <v Jonathan Hodges>Uh, we found that for this particular case, it was very important. 00:44:29.081 --> 00:44:36.911 <v Jonathan Hodges>Um, we saw, I think it was, uh, something like a 90% reduction in the residual risk by adding sprinklers, uh, throughout the structure. 00:44:36.911 --> 00:44:42.697 <v Jonathan Hodges>And, uh, there was still some residual risk, but, it was, uh, very impactful. 00:44:42.936 --> 00:44:43.117 <v Christian Rippe>Mm-hmm. 00:44:43.507 --> 00:44:46.206 <v Mark McKinnon>Yeah, I think, uh, you know, you can't argue with the data. 00:44:46.206 --> 00:44:49.507 <v Mark McKinnon>Um, it's obvious that sprinklers are, are really important. 00:44:49.507 --> 00:45:06.393 <v Mark McKinnon>I think one of the things that, you know, that looking back we all kind of agree on is that, this sort of building just would not, it would, would've never been built this way in the us you know, with a, uh, large, uh, multi-use tower on top of a parking structure that's uns sprinkled. 00:45:06.934 --> 00:45:19.018 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>I mean, this isn't, and I, I'm venturing now beyond the, the case study, but in general, when I think about car parks, I just feel if you have a, a, a car park. 00:45:19.018 --> 00:45:21.382 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Where the likelihood of a fire is quite high. 00:45:21.382 --> 00:45:28.003 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>I mean, even if it's one every 200 years, this means like one in the four lifetimes of the building, there will be a fire. 00:45:28.003 --> 00:45:33.313 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>If in Poland we use the value of one per 50 years, it means you will have a fire in the car park. 00:45:33.313 --> 00:45:34.483 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>That's it. 00:45:34.483 --> 00:45:40.664 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>You will, it's, it's not, it's subject of a question and now you have a residential tower above it. 00:45:40.664 --> 00:45:44.342 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>This is a very high consequence fire. 00:45:44.342 --> 00:45:46.773 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>People are losing their homes. 00:45:46.773 --> 00:45:49.202 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>If something goes, it doesn't even have to collapse. 00:45:49.202 --> 00:45:52.112 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>We had exactly that happen in Poland. 00:45:52.112 --> 00:45:54.932 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>We had the fire in the car park in Poland. 00:45:54.932 --> 00:46:07.532 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>There was a cutoff point of the fire compartment area, which was 1500 square meters above which you have to put smoke detection, smoke control, various different things. 00:46:07.532 --> 00:46:15.842 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>So there was a time in my country where every car park was 1499 just to not have to have, you know, detections and everything. 00:46:15.842 --> 00:46:23.342 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>And, and unfortunately this car park was built underneath, uh, medium sized, but still a tower building residential. 00:46:23.342 --> 00:46:32.762 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>There was a massive fire in that car park, and if I'm not wrong, it took them two and a half years until people could return to their homes. 00:46:32.762 --> 00:46:35.402 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>They fixed the car park, which is a, a, a miracle. 00:46:35.402 --> 00:46:44.163 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>There's a technical research paper by, uh, professor Kowski, uh, which is likely in the show notes, uh, that that describes the fixing process. 00:46:44.163 --> 00:46:45.512 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>But it was madness to fix it. 00:46:45.512 --> 00:47:00.190 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>And, and they fought for the building because there was so many families who lost their homes and they just find it like unjust to lose your living, place your residence because of a likely event. 00:47:00.190 --> 00:47:03.579 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>You know, and I find this even like, I, I just don't feel this is right. 00:47:03.579 --> 00:47:07.809 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>I don't if, if you find safety engineering tells you you should be comfortable with that. 00:47:07.809 --> 00:47:11.050 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>There's something fundamentally wrong with it, I think. 00:47:11.523 --> 00:47:20.728 <v Jonathan Hodges>yeah, I think, I think that's one of the main things we learned, uh, or really confirmed through the case study is that, when the consequences are as potentially severe as. 00:47:20.728 --> 00:47:25.603 <v Jonathan Hodges>Um, having this tower collapse, or as you mentioned, having people outta their homes, it was just 00:47:25.603 --> 00:47:25.994 <v Mark McKinnon>damage. 00:47:26.204 --> 00:47:26.563 <v Jonathan Hodges>Yeah. 00:47:26.563 --> 00:47:30.670 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>It didn't collapse, but the damage was so big they were not, allowed to go back. 00:47:30.797 --> 00:47:36.077 <v Jonathan Hodges>so if you have consequences that severe, then it's an unacceptable solution. 00:47:36.077 --> 00:47:42.190 <v Jonathan Hodges>And so, we need to decrease that likelihood, uh, to where it's, you know, once in 10,000 years Mm. 00:47:42.190 --> 00:47:44.590 <v Jonathan Hodges>Or whatever the acceptable limit is. 00:47:44.590 --> 00:47:48.579 <v Jonathan Hodges>And what we found in the case study was the best way to do that was to put the sprinklers on. 00:47:48.585 --> 00:47:48.804 <v Mark McKinnon>Mm-hmm. 00:47:49.030 --> 00:47:53.994 <v Jonathan Hodges>You could do compartmentation or, limiting how many vehicles can be parked next to each other. 00:47:53.994 --> 00:47:58.224 <v Jonathan Hodges>Like there are other strategies that could be investigated for that. 00:47:58.224 --> 00:48:03.594 <v Jonathan Hodges>Uh, but it's very important to keep it to, you know, as few vehicles as possible. 00:48:03.594 --> 00:48:09.077 <v Jonathan Hodges>Now when you start looking at, you know, in the US at least, there's a lot of parking structures that aren't below a high rise. 00:48:09.077 --> 00:48:10.666 <v Jonathan Hodges>They're a separate building entirely. 00:48:10.666 --> 00:48:14.746 <v Jonathan Hodges>And so the, the risk, um, profile for that is different. 00:48:14.806 --> 00:48:15.077 <v Mark McKinnon>Yep. 00:48:15.166 --> 00:48:28.396 <v Jonathan Hodges>And so once you, once the consequences are not nearly as severe, then it becomes much more of an open question on how much remediation should be done and the cost benefit to society and things like that. 00:48:28.775 --> 00:48:30.846 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>And also on the underground, it's a different story. 00:48:30.846 --> 00:48:32.226 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Man, that was a bad pun. 00:48:32.226 --> 00:48:35.431 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Mike. 00:48:35.461 --> 00:48:41.690 <v Mark McKinnon>Yeah, I, so I, I mean, I think, you know, the adding sprinklers to this, uh, this structure, it's not controversial at all. 00:48:41.690 --> 00:48:42.920 <v Mark McKinnon>I think if I'm 00:48:42.949 --> 00:48:43.699 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Well it is. 00:48:43.699 --> 00:48:44.150 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>It is in Poland. 00:48:44.150 --> 00:48:44.869 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>It is in Poland, 00:48:44.869 --> 00:48:45.440 <v Mark McKinnon>yeah. 00:48:45.440 --> 00:48:45.500 <v Mark McKinnon>Yeah. 00:48:45.500 --> 00:48:53.844 <v Mark McKinnon>I guess from ice water, the perspective of all these teams that have, have done this case study, everyone agreed that it needed to be sprinkled. 00:48:53.934 --> 00:48:54.114 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Yeah. 00:48:54.114 --> 00:48:55.043 <v Mark McKinnon>You know, that there was no. 00:48:55.043 --> 00:48:58.389 <v Mark McKinnon>Controversy at all, uh, here at the, at the conference 00:48:59.079 --> 00:49:01.898 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>as if engineering led you to, to good designs, right? 00:49:01.898 --> 00:49:10.528 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Well, no, but, while I agree with you, that is essential and it's proven and proven beyond doubt, yet in my country it's controversial for some reason. 00:49:10.528 --> 00:49:14.398 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>But I also would like to comment that what you said, uh, is very important. 00:49:14.398 --> 00:49:20.699 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>John, you said that we need to lower the, the, the probability or frequency of those events to, to whatever number is. 00:49:20.699 --> 00:49:38.635 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Now, if I think about the design process that gets me there, if I am in my traditional hat of far engineer doing my normal job for a normal client for a moderate pay, I'm not there because I, I do a design fire, I do a single case, uh, you know, investigation here. 00:49:38.635 --> 00:49:42.625 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>What you have shown was a really neat probabilistic, uh, pathway. 00:49:42.625 --> 00:49:42.864 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>There. 00:49:42.864 --> 00:49:48.025 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>We, we did something similar with OR or OFR, did something similar with our small, um. 00:49:48.025 --> 00:49:51.014 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Small part in it for, for car parks in uk. 00:49:51.014 --> 00:50:05.311 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>And God, the show notes are really long right now, but if you like car parks, you have a lot of reading my friends, but, uh, I, I think, uh, getting those methods mainstream for these types of structures is something that, that we should work towards. 00:50:05.530 --> 00:50:15.197 <v Jonathan Hodges>And uh, something we haven't talked about today but kind of ties in nicely with this is, all the teams that participated in this case study each had their own unique twist on the, the problem. 00:50:15.197 --> 00:50:22.456 <v Jonathan Hodges>And you know, I think we, we did a lot of work on the design, fire and the structural analysis. 00:50:22.456 --> 00:50:28.217 <v Jonathan Hodges>Um, but a lot of the teams had, uh, interesting creativity on how to have different mitigations. 00:50:28.217 --> 00:50:41.713 <v Jonathan Hodges>And it would be interesting to try and tie together, you know, our, frequency and consequence analysis with the other mitigation strategies, uh, to see, how does that affect the overall risk if you use some of those more creative strategies. 00:50:41.713 --> 00:50:45.786 <v Jonathan Hodges>and so that's may, maybe something we can look at over the next, you know, few months. 00:50:45.786 --> 00:50:49.735 <v Jonathan Hodges>But, you know, there's a lot of really, uh, creative fire protection engineers out there. 00:50:49.735 --> 00:50:54.414 <v Jonathan Hodges>And we do have options with the, the compartmentation, the ventilation and the sprinkler 00:50:54.777 --> 00:50:56.608 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>and yeah, shout out to teams. 00:50:56.608 --> 00:50:59.675 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>SFP Canada Team East meets West. 00:50:59.675 --> 00:51:01.746 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>That was Boston and Macau team. 00:51:01.746 --> 00:51:04.565 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Oh, that was an unexpected, uh, combination. 00:51:04.565 --> 00:51:08.376 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>And Team SFP Korea, who did their, their takes 00:51:08.376 --> 00:51:10.806 <v Jonathan Hodges>on the same, uh, the same, uh, case study 00:51:11.226 --> 00:51:12.065 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>to finalize it. 00:51:12.065 --> 00:51:17.346 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Like for each of you, like what's lesson out of it for you as, as a fire safety engineer? 00:51:17.346 --> 00:51:22.311 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Like, uh, what, what did you, what new things that opened for you, uh, as an engineer? 00:51:22.806 --> 00:51:27.836 <v Mark McKinnon>So I think, uh, I'd mentioned that, we saw this as a bit of a gap analysis and. 00:51:27.836 --> 00:51:48.197 <v Mark McKinnon>I think about the research that's currently being done around the world, uh, but also at ULRI, um, specifically around modern vehicles and how we had, had we had three more months, what we could potentially do, with this experimental data that we're, we're starting to roll out. 00:51:48.197 --> 00:51:56.998 <v Mark McKinnon>Um, I think recently, uh, we published a paper on, uh, the toxic products associated with EVs. 00:51:56.998 --> 00:52:05.442 <v Mark McKinnon>we've got, data on, the, um, sorry, the, the heat flux, uh, coming from these, fully involved, vehicle fires. 00:52:05.472 --> 00:52:06.161 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Ah, the spread one. 00:52:06.431 --> 00:52:07.041 <v Mark McKinnon>Yeah, yeah, yeah. 00:52:07.041 --> 00:52:12.166 <v Mark McKinnon>And then, you know, I think, we, uh, we used a fairly simplistic model for ignition of. 00:52:12.166 --> 00:52:14.914 <v Mark McKinnon>Of these, vehicles that are adjacent. 00:52:14.914 --> 00:52:22.114 <v Mark McKinnon>And, you know, I think we've been talking about how we could characterize these materials a little bit better, uh, make sure that they're more modern. 00:52:22.114 --> 00:52:25.467 <v Mark McKinnon>Some of these, some of these products were measured, you know, 20, 30 years ago. 00:52:25.467 --> 00:52:27.476 <v Mark McKinnon>They just don't represent modern vehicles anymore. 00:52:27.476 --> 00:52:35.407 <v Mark McKinnon>So I think there's, there's a lot of opportunity to apply some, contemporary research to, to get even better results here. 00:52:36.079 --> 00:52:46.342 <v Jonathan Hodges>Uh, I think what's, uh, stuck out to me with this, and I think it's been a topic of the conference a lot as well, is that, in practice we don't do a lot of fire risk assessments in the industry. 00:52:46.342 --> 00:52:49.373 <v Jonathan Hodges>Um, part of that is, you know, lack of time. 00:52:49.373 --> 00:52:51.052 <v Jonathan Hodges>Some of it's lack of education. 00:52:51.052 --> 00:52:57.713 <v Jonathan Hodges>Um, and I think we talked earlier in the podcast about just the level of complexity in coming up with these design fires. 00:52:57.713 --> 00:53:05.032 <v Jonathan Hodges>And so, uh, but what sticks out to me is, you know, we have this ability to provide that to fire protection engineers. 00:53:05.032 --> 00:53:23.273 <v Jonathan Hodges>Be more involved in, you know, creating webinars, uh, to do these training, uh, to be more involved in, uh, teaching the classes at universities and giving guest lectures to, to help educate people so that they're aware of these methods and, uh, try and increase the, the quality across the industry. 00:53:23.273 --> 00:53:28.432 <v Jonathan Hodges>Just a way that as an organization, uh, we can give back, uh, to the, the next generation. 00:53:28.432 --> 00:53:35.452 <v Jonathan Hodges>And hopefully, you know, in 20 years we can look at what they're doing and I'd just be surprised about how much progress has been made. 00:53:35.985 --> 00:53:37.514 <v Christian Rippe>Might be a little more selfish with my response. 00:53:37.514 --> 00:53:37.875 <v Christian Rippe>Yes, please. 00:53:37.875 --> 00:53:38.054 <v Christian Rippe>Go. 00:53:38.715 --> 00:53:40.125 <v Jonathan Hodges>I've learned little spike 00:53:40.125 --> 00:53:40.275 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>in 00:53:40.275 --> 00:53:40.815 <v Jonathan Hodges>coding. 00:53:41.137 --> 00:53:47.677 <v Christian Rippe>No, but so, so as you know, as someone who is normally right, as, as a consultant, I'm, you know, dealing with real world stuff. 00:53:47.677 --> 00:53:47.918 <v Christian Rippe>Right. 00:53:47.918 --> 00:53:48.398 <v Christian Rippe>And, and 00:53:48.728 --> 00:53:48.907 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>yeah. 00:53:48.998 --> 00:53:52.507 <v Christian Rippe>You know, my, my colleagues here, John, Jonathan, and Mark right. 00:53:52.507 --> 00:53:56.768 <v Christian Rippe>Get to get to deal more on the research side of things, and I've really enjoyed. 00:53:56.768 --> 00:54:02.159 <v Christian Rippe>You know, being able to push the envelope more than we could really be allowed to in a real setting. 00:54:02.159 --> 00:54:02.519 <v Christian Rippe>Right. 00:54:02.519 --> 00:54:19.538 <v Christian Rippe>Um, and you know, I, I personally really enjoy kind of bridging that gap from, from research grade topics and ideas and concepts and methods and, can we really apply these to, you know, and, you know, what are the problems with things like convincing AHJs that this is, you know, whether we come in with the right answer. 00:54:19.538 --> 00:54:19.867 <v Christian Rippe>Right. 00:54:19.867 --> 00:54:30.719 <v Christian Rippe>you know, 'cause to put, uh, something like this, like what we did in front of an a hj, you'd have to have either a very knowledgeable A HJ or maybe a very not knowledgeable A HJI don't know, maybe that could be the, uh, the bad way to get or very 00:54:31.260 --> 00:54:32.369 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>trusting aj. 00:54:32.369 --> 00:54:33.030 <v Christian Rippe>Right. 00:54:33.030 --> 00:54:34.420 <v Christian Rippe>you know, it would be so hard right. 00:54:34.420 --> 00:54:36.911 <v Christian Rippe>To, to actually implement this in today's world. 00:54:36.911 --> 00:54:47.110 <v Christian Rippe>'cause it's, it's not just about, you know, our knowledge of some of these more advanced, like the risk-based approaches, but it's like the knowledge of, of AHJs and, and, and even the public. 00:54:47.110 --> 00:54:47.440 <v Christian Rippe>Right. 00:54:47.440 --> 00:54:51.862 <v Christian Rippe>And trusting that, when we do these sorts of analyses that we are coming up with. 00:54:51.862 --> 00:54:53.887 <v Christian Rippe>Of valid engineering solutions. 00:54:53.887 --> 00:54:57.246 <v Christian Rippe>Um, you know, that, that do prioritize life safety, right? 00:54:57.246 --> 00:55:00.427 <v Christian Rippe>And, and provide an, an acceptable level of safety. 00:55:00.427 --> 00:55:13.429 <v Christian Rippe>Um, but, but yeah, so I really enjoy kind of being able to, in a situation like this, kind of reach further into the, in, into the research side of things and, and try to claws some into the, uh, kinda more like the Commercialability 00:55:13.429 --> 00:55:13.849 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>side. 00:55:13.849 --> 00:55:22.248 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Actually, I'll pull you on on, on that because it is interesting for, for Jonathan from Mark at the URI, it's, it's your normal world that you do research. 00:55:22.248 --> 00:55:23.659 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>You, you support people. 00:55:23.659 --> 00:55:25.338 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>For me, I'm a consultant, I'm a researcher. 00:55:25.338 --> 00:55:26.088 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>For me, it's normal. 00:55:26.088 --> 00:55:26.599 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>I do that. 00:55:26.599 --> 00:55:27.378 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>I, I love it. 00:55:27.378 --> 00:55:29.809 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>But actually it is quite interesting. 00:55:29.809 --> 00:55:43.094 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Would you recommend to, to your fire engineering colleagues, consultants, to, to do experiments like that where you're uncon I mean, it, it's obviously difficult and it comes with the budget, it comes with the cost of time, et cetera. 00:55:43.094 --> 00:55:48.855 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>But the value in, in personal growth and development as a fire safety engineer, I think that's in invaluable. 00:55:48.855 --> 00:55:50.864 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Is, is I, I know by myself, right. 00:55:50.864 --> 00:55:51.135 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>But 00:55:51.525 --> 00:55:53.804 <v Christian Rippe>it, it's always, you know, it's always worth learning. 00:55:53.804 --> 00:55:54.014 <v Christian Rippe>Right. 00:55:54.014 --> 00:55:55.815 <v Christian Rippe>You know, and we can, we can never stop learning, right. 00:55:55.815 --> 00:55:58.034 <v Christian Rippe>That's just what we, what we have to do. 00:55:58.034 --> 00:56:05.324 <v Christian Rippe>And, and maybe I'll shamelessly even plug the podcast here 'cause it's, it's a, it's a great vehicle for even people who are practitioners, right? 00:56:05.324 --> 00:56:06.585 <v Christian Rippe>They're, they're not researchers. 00:56:06.585 --> 00:56:06.824 <v Christian Rippe>Right. 00:56:06.824 --> 00:56:13.275 <v Christian Rippe>You know, I tell, I I, I would say that I am much more a consumer of fire science than a producer of fire science. 00:56:13.275 --> 00:56:13.545 <v Christian Rippe>Right. 00:56:13.545 --> 00:56:17.271 <v Christian Rippe>but I listen to the podcast and I go, that's a cool idea. 00:56:17.271 --> 00:56:26.329 <v Christian Rippe>Let me spend, you know, just like an hour just digging into some literature and, maybe in the months or years down the road, I can start to start to think about how that can be incorporated. 00:56:26.329 --> 00:56:31.068 <v Christian Rippe>Into an actual, like commercial design or, or you know, an actual building or something like that. 00:56:31.068 --> 00:56:35.628 <v Christian Rippe>Um, and, and so I've, I've personally just found the podcast to be a great vehicle for that, 00:56:36.083 --> 00:56:38.028 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>that that's why Fire safety Engineering. 00:56:38.028 --> 00:56:45.259 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>I'm happy we, we've created, I had, uh, David Stacy in the podcast in the, in the past who, who talked about exactly that years ago. 00:56:45.259 --> 00:56:46.248 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>He's in the conference. 00:56:46.248 --> 00:56:48.528 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Maybe I'll chase him if he changed his mind. 00:56:48.528 --> 00:56:55.159 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>But anyway, guys, uh, thank you so much for, for, for doing the case study, for showing us this interesting concept. 00:56:55.159 --> 00:56:58.798 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>You must have taken a lot of your time, so I really appreciate that. 00:56:58.798 --> 00:57:00.367 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>and, uh, thanks for, for. 00:57:00.519 --> 00:57:03.099 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Spending this hour with me and the listeners and sharing this further. 00:57:03.099 --> 00:57:03.909 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Yeah. 00:57:03.909 --> 00:57:04.480 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Thank you, EK. 00:57:04.931 --> 00:57:05.382 <v Mark McKinnon>Thank you. 00:57:05.382 --> 00:57:06.371 <v Mark McKinnon>Thanks a lot Ji. 00:57:06.371 --> 00:57:08.650 <v Mark McKinnon>I'm, I'm really excited about your case study. 00:57:08.650 --> 00:57:10.570 <v Mark McKinnon>I wanna see what you guys came up with, please. 00:57:10.960 --> 00:57:14.282 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>You really have to control your, your expectations. 00:57:14.282 --> 00:57:15.813 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>You've not helped us. 00:57:15.813 --> 00:57:17.981 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>You're still like 12 more hours. 00:57:17.981 --> 00:57:20.260 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>How many CCF d scenarios I can pull off in 12? 00:57:20.260 --> 00:57:20.561 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>No. 00:57:20.561 --> 00:57:22.391 <v Wojciech Wegrzynski>Anyway, thanks guys. 00:57:24.014 --> 00:57:24.554 <v Christian Rippe>And that's it. 00:57:24.554 --> 00:57:25.275 <v Christian Rippe>Thank you for listening. 00:57:25.275 --> 00:57:33.074 <v Christian Rippe>In the end, our uh, case study on the historical building went, went also quite, uh, well, which I am very happy with. 00:57:33.074 --> 00:57:43.626 <v Christian Rippe>And as for the car park case study in the conference, we've seen for different attempts on providing fire safety strategy to the building at hand. 00:57:43.626 --> 00:57:45.215 <v Christian Rippe>I guess it could be. 00:57:45.215 --> 00:57:52.969 <v Christian Rippe>Little bit difficult to follow on the podcast episode without having seen the presentation or the case study itself. 00:57:52.969 --> 00:58:02.847 <v Christian Rippe>But I, I tried to make, uh, the best out of it and figure out the most framework ish thinking, uh, I could get outta the guys in front of me. 00:58:02.847 --> 00:58:11.210 <v Christian Rippe>I'm very thankful they've agreed To this episode being jumped on a corridor straight after they finished, uh, their presentation. 00:58:11.210 --> 00:58:14.179 <v Christian Rippe>Uh, so as I said, it was delivered hot to you. 00:58:14.179 --> 00:58:19.440 <v Christian Rippe>Out of all the stuff they've, uh, they've done, I really admire their work on, on getting the. 00:58:19.440 --> 00:58:19.989 <v Christian Rippe>Data. 00:58:19.989 --> 00:58:20.409 <v Christian Rippe>Right? 00:58:20.409 --> 00:58:23.199 <v Christian Rippe>And getting, you know, the assumptions for the analysis, right? 00:58:23.199 --> 00:58:25.094 <v Christian Rippe>It's a lot of work. 00:58:25.094 --> 00:58:27.195 <v Christian Rippe>Really a lot of work to get through. 00:58:27.195 --> 00:58:32.778 <v Christian Rippe>And I'm a person who's done a lot of car parks and I've done a lot of papers on car parks. 00:58:32.778 --> 00:58:39.829 <v Christian Rippe>I've done a lot of research in car parks, and I fully comprehend how difficult it is to get all those puzzles in place. 00:58:39.829 --> 00:58:42.887 <v Christian Rippe>And I, I think actually, if we. 00:58:42.887 --> 00:58:46.143 <v Christian Rippe>Joint efforts and perhaps we will in the future. 00:58:46.143 --> 00:59:04.010 <v Christian Rippe>The work that Jonathan and his team done and the work that, uh, Danny Hopkins and myself and Mike, uh, Spearpoint and OFR has done on the car parks in the uk, if we joined efforts and we've combined them, I would be a pretty neat analysis and, uh, perhaps this is something to be done. 00:59:04.010 --> 00:59:05.039 <v Christian Rippe>For the future. 00:59:05.039 --> 00:59:12.186 <v Christian Rippe>for now, I can only recommend you going to SFP conferences because those case studies were really brilliant. 00:59:12.186 --> 00:59:22.556 <v Christian Rippe>I've been in some SFP conferences and, uh, I, I wouldn't be expecting that the case studies will be my favorite part of the conference, but in this, in this one, they absolutely were. 00:59:22.556 --> 00:59:26.905 <v Christian Rippe>And so thanks SFP for inviting, uh, John and his team. 00:59:26.905 --> 00:59:35.402 <v Christian Rippe>Thanks, SFP for inviting us and my team to the, uh, case study presentation, I believe the next one is in Toronto. 00:59:35.402 --> 00:59:46.422 <v Christian Rippe>So I hope we'll see more interesting case studies there and I'll be sure to be there and report on the most interesting ones I find there thanks for being here with me. 00:59:46.422 --> 00:59:49.224 <v Christian Rippe>and uh, yeah, see you around in the next episode. 00:59:49.224 --> 00:59:49.554 <v Christian Rippe>Cheers. 00:59:49.554 --> 00:59:49.614 <v Christian Rippe>Bye. 00:59:49.614 --> 00:59:49.644 <v Christian Rippe>I.

249 - PBD of a large car park with EVs (Case study) with Jonathan Hodges, Mark McKinnon and Christian Rippe

Available Results

Quick Summary

Deep Knowledge Extract

Book Recommendations

Knowledge Blocks

Quotes and Claims

Resources Mentioned

Quick Summary

Deep Summary

Knowledge Blocks

Topic Map

Quick Summary

Deep Summary

Knowledge Blocks

Topic Map

Health Tips

Business Ideas

Book Recommendations

Methods & Frameworks

Risks and Caveats

Action Items

Quotes and Claims

Resources Mentioned

Deep Knowledge Extract

Extract Knowledge

Transcript

Chapters