European Chapters Coordination Group (ECCG) President's Viewpoint

In this issue: European Chapters Coordination Group (ECCG) President's Viewpoint... 2 SFPE European Chapter News... 3 A Swedish Best Practice Guideline for Proper Use of CFD-Models With ASET-Analysis... 5 Fire Safety Engineering: Applications for Water-Based Fire Control and Suppression Modelling... 8 Call for Abstracts Open for 11th Conference on Performance-Based Codes & Fire Safety Design Methods Deadline 30 September 2015... 13 First SFPE Europe Conference on Fire Safety Engineering Draws Great Attendance, Feedback... 14 About SFPE Europe... 17 1

European Chapters Coordination Group (ECCG) President's Viewpoint This is the second issue of SFPE Europe magazine. I m happy to say that we managed to keep on track and continue the hard work after the first issue. From now on I am certain that it will be easier for us to continue with this great initiative. In this issue we have a short recap from our first SFPE Europe conference that was held in Copenhagen earlier this year. From my point of view it was a success. We managed to gather more than 150 professionals from all over Europe, even attracting participants all the way from Asia and Australia. Good papers were presented and interesting discussions were held and the feedback from many of the participants was good, which will help us prepare even better for the next one. Within fire safety engineering, one of the areas that is evolving rapidly is modelling. Many fire safety projects include advanced modelling such as CFD analysis or evacuation modelling. Unfortunately, this is one of the areas where our profession is still in need of improvement, principally from a knowledge and ethical point of view. Because the users of models make different decisions or assumptions in regards to model input parameters, studies on the subject often show a great variability in the model outputs. Implicitly this could affect the safety level. That is why the treatment of uncertainty is an important issue that the model user should address. Additionally, there is no doubt that a thorough theoretical base and experience in fire safety projects is needed to be able to perform this type of analysis correctly. It is also necessary to understand the limitations of the programs used and, even more importantly, the validity of the results produced. Two articles in this issue offer different examples of how to deal with this variability. The first article, A Swedish Best Practice Guideline for Proper Use of CFD-Models, is about how guidelines could help the user by introducing certain limitations and values on specific areas within modelling. This is no doubt a good way to try to increase knowledge and reliability of modelling results and proposes an important step forward. The second article, Fire Safety Engineering: Applications for Water-Based Fire Control and Suppression Modelling, will be an eye-opener for some and present well-known facts to others. It illustrates how important it is to know the limits of modelling and the applicability of certain aspects within modelling. Even if programs allow for certain types of input, it does not necessarily mean that they are appropriate to include; rather, including them depends on the purpose of the modelling. The article makes us consider: Are we designing for life safety or are we doing scientific research? I hope that all of you-- but especially the fire engineers out there involved in modelling work-- will find these articles interesting, and that the words appropriateness and reliability will be in your heads the next time you evaluate input/output data. As always, a great thanks to the people that have put in a lot of time and effort to make this issue a reality. I hope you will enjoy our second issue of our SFPE Europe magazine. Yours sincerely, Jimmy Jönsson, ECCG President 2

SFPE European Chapter News Benelux Chapter The SFPE Benelux Chapter has focused on developing and (re)aligning its strategy with the developments in the Benelux market, especially with respect to education of FSE practitioners and their alumni associations. As a result, the Board of Directors has changed, and specific tasks allocated to its members. The young Chapter has had a number of very active and successful years, especially with a sequel of very well attended and appreciated tunnel fire seminars, but with relatively limited and skewed growth and limited awareness of the Chapter in the Benelux. The planned activities for 2015 / 2016 include a totally new website, membership growth, development of the network in education (universities in the Benelux, and their alumni), company c.q. manufacturers (of active and passive protection measures) visits and some seminars on issues such as high rise buildings, car parks and sustainable buildings. On top of that, the Chapter will launch some working groups, with a mission to develop codes of best practice for typical Benelux FSE issues. More information about the SFPE Benelux Chapter can be found at http://www.sfpe-benelux.org/. French Chapter Information about the SFPE French Chapter can be obtained by contacting armelle.muller@cnpp.com. Italian Chapter Information about the SFPE Italian Chapter can be found at http://www.aiiasfpe.org/chisiamo/chisiamo.html. Polish Chapter Information about the SFPE Polish Chapter can be found at http://www.sfpe.pl/index.php/charpterpl. Spanish Chapter The Spanish chapter is preparing a technical seminar/formal inaugural event for this autumn. Our idea is to give a high standard technical seminar and at the same time present and explain the background/purpose of the chapter and the SFPE. Currently the chapter board is in the process of formalizing the chapter into a legally recognized non-profit organization. The SFPE España website was launched in June; please take a look: http://www.sfpe.es. Swedish Chapter SFPE Sweden is currently experiencing a tremendous amount of activity. As president, I feel honored to be leading this work; which is carried out both by our members and chapter friends, as well as our elected board members. The activities during the first half of 2015 can be summarized as follows: SFPE Sweden has responded to two letter of referrals from the Swedish Fire Protection Association (on evacuation lifts) and from the National Board of Housing (on structural design rules). Apart from being represented in the fire safety reference group of the National Board of Housing, SFPE Sweden is now also represented in a regulation group for sprinklers, connected to the Swedish Fire Protection Association. SFPE Sweden had an active part in the organization of the first SFPE Europe conference. SFPE Sweden has increased its communication on the chapter webpage, Facebook and Twitter. Local groups in Sweden are now also able to spread information about their activities, both on our webpage and via our mailing list. SFPE Sweden s local groups have had one meeting each. In Gothenburg, the topic of the meeting was evacuation of disabled people. In Malmö, the topic was structural design rules, and 3

SFPE European Chapter News Swedish Chapter, con t in Stockholm a past fire. At each meeting, representatives from the BOD have been present to inform members about ongoing activities. SFPE Sweden will arrange a national conference in 2016, and the work is ongoing with this. Work to form an internal strategic document for the chapter has been ongoing by a number of board members. The plan is to release the result of this work during the autumn in 2015. A new chapter guideline is currently being circulated among members of the reference group tied to that guideline. The topic is rescue operations in high-rise buildings and the drafted guideline will be circulated among SFPE Sweden s members later this year. SFPE Sweden has published a general recommendation on how to follow structural design rules considering small deviations from the rules (a term used in the regulation). SFPE Sweden has provided input to the National Board of Housing regarding references to standards in national regulations. Daniel Rosberg, member of SFPE Sweden, took part in an international SFPE Webinar on the proper use of CFD models. The webinar was based on a chapter guideline published a couple of years ago. More information about the SFPE Swedish Chapter can be found at http://www.sfpe-biv.se/. UK Chapter The UK chapter ran two events over the summer including a CPD on Regulation 38 of the Building Regulations as well as a summer party. Both events very well attended by both existing and new members. Membership, including 80 chapter supporters, is now at 124. We have just closed entry to our new competition to find the best fire engineering strategy and best fire research project of 2015 and we had seven entries. While this is a good number of submissions, we would like to have even more and may open the competition up to European candidates next year (subject to ECCG and our own AGM approval). We are continuing our engagement with our institutions and have managed to organise closer links with Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) North West Branch who have been publicising our events. We have our September AGM and CPD event coming up on the 17th of September and we look forward to continuing to deliver services to our members over the years to come. Overall, we are continuing to grow and get stronger with the biggest threat to us being the heavy level of work load on the committee and membership. 4

A Swedish Best Practice Guideline for Proper Use of CFD-Models With ASET- Analysis By Daniel Rosberg and Johan Norén Introduction In Sweden, there are performance-based regulations when constructing a building. In this performance-based code, compliance with the fire safety regulations can be demonstrated in two ways: either by constructing the building in accordance with pre-accepted solutions (as defined by the Swedish National Board of Housing, Building and Planning), or by means of fire safety engineering methods showing that the fire safety is satisfactory according to the societal level of safety. Fire safety engineering methods are used when pre-accepted solutions are not met due to building-specific conditions (i.e. if the building is over 16 floors) or if there are specific stakeholder requests (i.e. large fire compartsments due to occupancy). Performance based regulations were first implemented in Sweden in 1994. In 2012, new fire safety regulations were implemented [1]. These were the most comprehensive revisions to the Swedish Building Code since the transition to performance-based regulations. In connection to the implementation of these new regulations, the Swedish National Board of Housing, Building and Planning also published general guidelines on the use of fire safety engineering methods [2]. The national guidelines for ASET-analysis In the guidelines from the Swedish National Board of Housing, Building and Planning [2], scenario analysis may be used to analyze means of egress from a building. Other methods, such as qualitative comparative analysis and quantitative risk analysis are also permitted. The scenario analysis approach is based on comparing available safe egress time (ASET) with required safe egress time (RSET). The design process for the ASET analysis is based on pre-defined fire scenarios where parameters such as type of occupancy and available systems (i.e. sprinkler systems) are considered. The prescribed scenarios are chosen to represent a probable worst case scenario and a number of robust scenarios. Fire scenarios to be analyzed The national guidelines [2] specify three required fire scenarios that are generally applicable to the majority of ASET analyses. These scenarios are selected to represent a reasonable stress on the building s fire protection. Fire Scenario 1 is characterized by a severe fire with rapid development, high maximum heat release rate, and a high production of byproducts - a probable worst case. The installed fire protection systems are assumed to function as intended and the impact of these may be included in the design fire. Also, fire propagation shall be selected as conservative (see Tables 1 and 2). The impact of active systems is also specified in the new regulations. If the building is not equipped with a full automatic fire and evacuation alarm, the analysis should include Fire Scenario 2. This scenario includes a fire in an area that is normally unoccupied, but which is adjacent to an area where there is a large number of people. Fire Scenario 3 is characterized by a fire progression which is expected to have a smaller stress effect on the building s fire protection. On the other hand, in this scenario individual systems (such as sprinkler or smoke control systems) are not functioning as intended. The systems in the analyzed building should all be made inaccessible separately. In this scenario, the fire progression shall be selected non-conservative (see Tables 1 and 2). 5

A Swedish Best Practice Guideline for Proper Use of CFD-Models With ASET-Analysis, con t Design values to be used Design values for the required fire scenarios according to growth rate, maximum heat release and heat of combustion should not be less than what is defined in in the national guidelines. The heat release rate should be calculated according to the well-known t-squared fires with defined α-values. In the guidelines there is also design values defined for by-products in the early stage of the fire. The soot yield, CO- and CO2- production is dependent on what fire scenario analyzed. Table 1 presents the design values according to the different occupancies. Suggested design values for byproducts, are presented in Table 2. The values in Table 2 that are defined for Scenario 3 can also be used for Scenarios 1 and 2 if there is no automatic fire extinguishing system in the building. In the national guidelines there are also defined levels for tenable conditions to determine when untenable conditions occur. The Swedish best practice for ASET-analysis with CFD-models Regarding the difficulty to fully understand the defined design process for ASET analysis in the national guidelines [2] and the Swedish National Board of Housing, Building and Planning doesn t give any guidance concerning how to do the analysis (it is assumed that the fire safety engineer knows how to do it), there was a need for more in-depth guidance. As a result, the Swedish SFPE Chapter (BIV, föreningen för brandteknisk ingenjörsvetenskap) initiated a project in 2012 to develop a Swedish best practice to ensure better use of CFD-modelling. The starting point for the project was to pick-up where the national guidelines ended concerning ASET-analysis and to give more user-friendly recommendations. The work in the project was carried out similar to the development of open-source codes, standardizing committees and how the SFPE-organizations work with the development of best practice 6

A Swedish Best Practice Guideline for Proper Use of CFD-Models With ASET-Analysis, con t guidelines. The project was completely non-profit and the project group consisted of 8 members with representatives from the consulting industry, academic institutions and research institutes. The project was completed in one year and took about 600 person-hours to complete. In order to increase the quality, raise awareness of the project and get a wider distribution and legitimacy for the work, the best practice, in a preliminary form, was sent out for referral. All members of the BIV and other relevant organizations within the fire safety community in Sweden were invited to give consultation responses. The comments received were considered before the final version of the best practice was published. The overall purpose with the best practice was to be a supporting guide for practising fire safety engineers, reviewers and clients to achieve a sufficient quality level and to increase the understanding for the process when analysing ASET. From this point of view, the best practice included both technical guidance concerning how to work with CFD-models, as to describe a well-functioning working process and to provide suggestions for quality assurance. Most fire safety engineers in Sweden working in the design of buildings use the CFD-model Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS) [3] when performing advanced ASET-analysis. Based on this, the best practise was developed for FDS version 5.5.3 (SVN 7031), which was the latest official version when the project was initiated. The best practice was limited to only describing aspects concerning the early stages of fire during well ventilated conditions and to fulfil the requirements given by the Swedish National Board of Housing, Building and Planning. However, some parts of the best practice guidance can still be used for other CFD-programs or versions of FDS and for different kinds of analysis which don t follow the Swedish way of performing ASET-analysis. Especially, parts concerning the working process and the quality assurance are areas that in some extent are universal for all kinds of CFDmodelling. The content of the best practice consists of a suggested working process, different technical aspects concerning fire characteristics (based on the national guidelines), and example on parameters to control quality assurance. But, the best practice also gives guidance to important aspects concerning verifying and validation of FDS, smoke management, how to handle input and output data and what sensitivity analysis to perform to ensure reliable results. However, the best practice doesn t give hands-on tips to programing a FDS input file or how to do specific functions in pre-process programs such as PyroSim. But there are other guidelines developed in Sweden [4] and Denmark [5] that give more hands-on tips for these kinds of issues. It is also important to note that the guidelines are not written from the perspective on how to properly model fire. They are written with a designer s perspective, about how the defined requirements in the building regulations should be met. Daniel Rosberg is with WSP Sweden and Johan Norén is with Briab Brand & Riskingenjörerna AB References 1. Boverket the Swedish National Board of Housing, Building and Planning, "Building Regulations, BBR with changes up until BFS 2011:6", Karlskrona, 2011. 2. Boverket the Swedish National Board of Housing, Building and Planning, "BFS 2011:27 Boverkets general recommendations on the analytical design of the buildings fire protection", 2011. 3. K. McGrattan, S. Hostikka and J. Floyd, "Fire Dynamics Simulator (Version 5) - Users guide," National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2010. 4. Briab, Guidance on smoke filling calculations, external version" Briab Brand & Riskingenjörerna AB, Stockholm, 2012. (In Swedish) 5. Best Practice gruppen, "CFD Best Practice," 2009. (In Danish) 7

Fire Safety Engineering: Applications for Water-Based Fire Control and Suppression Modelling By Grégoire Pianet, Alexandre Jenft and Armelle Muller Presently, many applications of computational science to fire safety engineering (FSE) are directed at heat and smoke propagation in buildings and thermal stress on structures, as well as the control of each by means of specific fire protection systems (smoke control systems, fire walls, smoke curtains, etc.). There are two reasons for this: on one hand, both hot gas propagation models and solid structure stability models are reliable and can be solved with enough accuracy for engineering applications; on the other hand, the calculation power of both scientific and personal computers has dramatically increased over the last 20 years. As such, ordinary computers can handle calculations of aeraulic phenomena or structure stability for standard sized buildings. Furthermore, fire protection in buildings also includes active systems like sprinklers or water-mist which are designed to suppress fire, control fire propagation, and cool hot gases and smoke. As waterbased systems are known to strongly affect smoke propagation and thermal stresses on structures, both contracting and civil authorities are justified in demanding evaluations of water-based protection systems efficiency when considering an FSE project. Fire control and suppression phenomena This is a far more challenging field since modelling fire and water interaction involves a multiphase medium compound of hot gases, soot, water droplets and water vapor, interacting with either burning, combustible or inert solid surfaces. One of the most important issues involves the modelling of fire behavior under aspersion which is driven by several phenomena: Heat absorption by vaporization (including hot gases cooling, solid surface cooling and pre-wetting); Inerting by oxygen dilution; Radiative heat flux attenuation. Considered independently, these physical phenomena have already been modelled with success. But real-size fires with water-based protection involve a strong coupling of those phenomena where modelling still needs to be addressed by research efforts. Fire control and suppression models interactions: One can distinguish three families of models which have already been used to evaluate fire and water spray 1. Commercial multiphysics codes, provided with aspersion and cooling models, not specifically developed for FSE applications but used as such; 2. High-end computing codes, with specific fire and combustion toolboxes, but whose computational cost in size and time makes it almost unusable for real-life engineering applications; and 8

Fire Safety Engineering: Applications for Water-Based Fire Control and Suppression Modelling, con t 3. Very fast codes specifically developed for FSE, but with strong hypothesis and numerical parameters settings which cannot be defined in a predictive way. The first family could eventually be suited for applications with little or no coupling between waterspray and fire, as it is not designed for FSE, it generally suffers from a lack of verification and validation. Codes from the second family are not suited to FSE studies because of very demanding computational resources in terms of both size and time, and, as such, are better considered as powerful research tools for building intermediate models. Amongst codes from the third family, the Fire Dynamic Simulator (FDS) from the National Institute of Standards and Technology is used worldwide by the FSE community. Models of water aspersion were included several years ago, but only those involving empirical parameters, which cannot be predicted, which makes the model almost applicable for engineering applications. For inexperienced operators, using default values for these parameters may produce a convincing result, but it would be subject to strong error levels. The authors believe that technical centers specializing in fire suppression should play a role in, through their "duty to advise" in communicating the limitations of engineering computing codes and in helping researchers develop new engineering models based on a large experimental knowledge. This is the point of research activities (see [1, 2]) funded by CNPP Group with LEMTA Laboratory (UMR 7563). Experimental and numerical modelling project An exhaustive experimental campaign has been realized with a goal of better understanding what mechanisms drive interactions between fire and water at a laboratory scale, but still using conventional aspersion systems. In addition to being videotaped, instrumentation monitored gas temperature, combustible surface temperature, oxygen consumption, pyrolysis rate and thermal flux. Over 80 fire tests based on liquid pool fires were conducted with different input parameters such as combustible type, heat release rate, number of active nozzles and time from fire start to aspersion. The objective was to identify suppression mechanisms and to discriminate physical parameters to be used in a predictive model. We identified two mechanisms: suppression by fuel cooling (as fuel temperature is lowered below its ignition point) and suppression by inerting effects (as water vaporization causes oxygen dilution yielding suppression by lack of combustion air). In this project, research efforts have been focused on the relation between heat release rate and fuel surface temperature after water aspersion. The Arrhenius law, usually considered to model rate of pyrolysis before water application, was modified providing a new model based on fuel temperature, fuel ignition temperature, and two numerical parameters. Unlike the model currently implemented in FDS code, it was found that the two numerical parameters can be predicted if fuel behavior before water application is well known. 9

Fire Safety Engineering: Applications for Water-Based Fire Control and Suppression Modelling, con t As such, parameters can be determined using simulations of the free-burning phase. Promising results were achieved, as the new model predicted all suppression cases by fuel cooling. In one case, the fire was not suppressed which was confirmed by simulation. Suppression time was estimated within an acceptable order of magnitude considering FSE applications generally underestimate suppression time due to overestimation of heat exchange between water drops and solid surfaces. The current objective is to improve suppression time prediction, and apply the model at different scales and fuel configurations. Remaining issues that still require R&D The research project helped identify issues in the model that are currently implemented in FDS and other codes. The research project has focused on fuel cooling but it is common knowledge that local suppression by inerting and generally by simulation of under-ventilated conditions needs significant improvement (see mixture fraction model in FDS). It is also admitted that the evaporation model is quite efficient for smoke cooling but heat absorption is still over-predicted, with error levels that tend to increase as heat absorption occurs in flaming zones. Large scale modelling attempts With a goal of testing the maturity of current water-based suppression models for FSE applications, simulations of past large-scale fire tests were performed. 1.7 MW pool fire in engine room with water-mist application. Suppression in tests and simulations were observed. As previously stated, there is a significant trend to underestimate suppression time due to overestimated exchanges between water drop and solid surfaces. 0.4 MW then 5 MW pool fire in aircraft hangar with water-mist application. There was no suppression observed in tests where a very slow suppression was observed in simulation. Once again, this was ascribed to overestimated surface/drops heat exchanges. However, a large uncertainty level due to nozzle type and spray PSD have been shown to be parameters which have significant impact on simulation sensitivity. 10

Fire Safety Engineering: Applications for Water-Based Fire Control and Suppression Modelling, con t 0.8 MW fire in hotel room with water-mist application. Suppression in fire tests and simulations were observed within comparable delays. It was found that combustion zones persist for screened surfaces (under bed) in simulations. One can see that results on large-scale configurations are qualitatively acceptable when used and interpreted together with fire test data. It was not possible to obtain a quantitative agreement for several reasons: 1. Models of gas and solid surface cooling still need improvements; 2. Metrology of fire tests for large-scale configurations was not designed for simulation needs (fuel surface temperature); 3. Some data in these experiments were only partial (particle size, distribution of nozzles, pressure in pipe-networks, etc.) which had a significant impact on simulations. Application perspectives to FSE This section attempts to outline what FSE applications of water aspersion modelling could be expected in the near future. Our research revealed that crude modeling of a water aspersion system with little or no specific experimental background yields large error levels. Nevertheless, FSE applications can support a certain error level depending on the provided methodology. The dimensioning approach, for example, predicts suppression time or no suppression at a given accuracy. A security-oriented approach could consist of evaluating whether a water-based protection system is able to control a developing fire. Irrespective of the time it takes to achieve the goal, an answer to the latter question is potentially conclusive from an engineering perspective. A relative or comparative approach could consist of stating which water-based protection system is best suited to a particular application. If all relevant physical phenomena are taken into account, the relative approach is known to be reliable. Therefore, application perspectives depend on one of three conditions: 1. The physical setup on which the code is applied has no or little use of the weakest models; 2. The weakest models are improved or replaced by more efficient ones; 3. Numerical model is systematically validated by an experimental setup with a proper metrology. The following table summarizes what application and methodology could be used together considering current water-based control and extinction models. For some combinations, specific care is required which means numerical modelling should include specific verification, validation and sensitivity analysis, together with a significant background in suppression tests. 11

Fire Safety Engineering: Applications for Water-Based Fire Control and Suppression Modelling, con t A new predictive model of surface cooling developed for FDS has proven effective with medium scale tests. Model parameters for a well-defined material can be determined using simulations of the freeburning phase, or using results from specific fire tests with adapted metrology. Besides this significant progress should now focus on improving drop/wall heat exchanges models, inerting models and evaporation models. Using engineering-oriented computing codes for water protection design is currently possible in very few applications. Extending the application range in the near future is possible but still subject to research and development. Further collaboration is needed between academic laboratories and technical centers that have real-life experience with specialized fire extinction design that are able to provide relevant facilities to ensure assessment of numerical models from medium to real-size scales. Grégoire Pianet, Alexandre Jenft and Armelle Muller are with Groupe CNPP - Fire & Environment Department References 1. A. Jenft, P. Boulet, A. Collin, G. Pianet, A. Breton, A. Muller. Can we predict fire extinction by water mist with FDS? Mechanics & Industry; 14(5):389-393, 12/2013. DOI: 10.1051/meca/2013079 2. A. Jenft, A. Collin, P. Boulet, G. Pianet, A. Breton, A. Muller. Experimental and numerical study of pool fire suppression using water mist. Fire Safety Journal; 07/2014; 67:1 12. DOI: 10.1016/j.firesaf.2014.05.003 Related resource A. Jenft. Study of the interactions between fire and water mist systems. Development of a suppression model for FDS software, PhD Thesis Université de Lorraine, 12/2013. 12

Call for Abstracts Open for 11th Conference on Performance-Based Codes & Fire Safety Design Methods Deadline 30 September 2015 Performance-based fire protection design continues to grow in use and acceptance. However, fire protection engineering has not reached the state of other engineering disciplines, where performancebased design is the norm. Because it is an emerging field, major new developments occur at a rapid pace. Since 1996, SFPE, along with several partner organizations, has held a biennial conference to showcase state-of-the-art practices in performance-based code approaches and engineering design methods. In May 2016, SFPE will hold the 11th Conference on Performance-Based Codes and Fire Safety Design Methods in Warsaw, Poland, and is currently seeking presentation abstracts on performance-based codes and performance-based design. The deadline for abstract submissions is 30 September 2015. The Conference on Performance-Based Codes and Fire Safety Design Methods has established a reputation within the fire protection engineering community as the preeminent event for keeping abreast of advancements in performance-based fire protection design. The program will showcase emerging technologies, proven methods, approaches that need modification and other topics of interest to those focused on performance-based fire protection design. Conference attendees will be professionals involved in all disciplines of engineering, regulation development and enforcement, testing, standards of development and development of engineering design methods. SFPE seeks abstracts for paper presentations on subjects related to current developments and observations with regard to the use or implementation of performance-based codes or fire safety design methods. Details about abstract submission, including acceptable topics and submittal requirements, can be found on the SFPE website. 13

First SFPE Europe Conference on Fire Safety Engineering Draws Great Attendance, Feedback On 4-5 June 2015, more than 150 attended SFPE s first European Conference on Fire Safety Engineering in Copenhagen, Denmark. The event marked the first of what SFPE hopes will become a regular event, bringing together fire engineers and fire safety engineers to network, exchange ideas and further the advancement of fire safety engineering in Europe. The call for abstracts for the event yielded a number of quality submissions spanning a wide range of topics, culminating in a strong technical program that addressed the science and practice of fire safety engineering, as well as the tools and methods used by fire safety engineers in Europe and across the globe. Prior to the official conference, the conference kicked off with a two-day technical seminar Evacuation for Fire Safety Engineering, presented by Daniel Nilsson, Ph.D., FSE, Department of Fire Safety Engineering and Systems Safety, Lund University; Rita F. Fahy, Ph.D., M.Sc., Fire Analysis and Research Division, National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). Following the conclusion of the technical seminar, a welcome reception and poster session afforded attendees to view posters on topics ranging from An Evacuation Model Based on a Continuous Approach to Fire Safety in Timber Buildings, among others. Attendees enjoyed an array of local hors d oeuvres and cocktails while networking and catching up with colleagues both new and familiar. The official conference began Thursday, 4 June with welcome messages from SFPE President Michael Madden, P.E., FSPE and Jimmy Jönsson, President, SFPE European Chapter Coordination Group (ECCG). Following the welcome remarks were two keynote presentations: What Makes Fire Safety Engineers Professional? by Graham Spinardi, Ph.D., Science Technology and Innovation Studies, University of Edinburgh Research and Fire Safety Engineering Education and the Role of Fire Safety Engineers in Denmark by Anne Dederichs, Ph.D., Associate Professor in Fire Safety Engineering, Institute of Civil Engineering, Technical University of Denmark. The technical sessions Thursday focused on two tracks in the morning: Fire Safety Engineer Development and Modelling, followed by two more tracks in the afternoon: Fire Safety Performance and Cases. A full list of presentations and presenters can be viewed via the program brochure [PDF]. Thursday afternoon concluded with a general session in which Michael Madden outlined SFPE s Strategic Plan followed by a 60 minute roundtable discussion with Chapters on professional recognition. Topics addressed in the roundtable discussions included Fire Safety in Switzerland: Certification, Qualification and Educational Challenges and Opportunities led by James Bassett, M.Sc., FPE, EIT, Fire Protection Engineer, Swissi AG; Fire Engineering, the Missing Link led by David Maeso, EurIng, CEng, MIFireE, Associate Fire Engineering, Ramboll; and Certification of Fire Experts Within the Building Control System led by Caroline Bernelius Cronsioe, B.Sc., M.Sc., Fire Protection Engineer and Civil Engineer-Risk Management, The National Board of Housing, Building and Planning (Boverket). The day s sessions concluded with a follow-up discussion on Professional Recognition facilitated by Brian Meacham, Ph.D., P.E., CEeng, FIFireE, FSFPE, Associate Professor, Worcester Polytechnic Institute. Friday, 5 June began with a keynote presentation by Greg Baker, Chief Scientist, SP Fire Research, titled Lessons from 20+ Years of Performance-Based Design in New Zealand and another, The State of Fire Safety Engineering in Italy, by Emanuele Gissi, Ph.D., MEng., Vice Dirigente, Ministero dell'interno, Corpo nazionale dei Vigili del fuoco (Fire and Rescue Service). Friday s technical tracks included Accidents & Tests, Sustainability, Evacuation and Structures in Fire. The event concluded after lunch with a general session on the theme of Developing Fire Safety Engineering Practice, including the following topics and presenters: A Newcomer s View on the Direction that PBFSE Should Take, Greg Baker, Chief Scientist, SP Fire Research; Assessing Variability in Engineer Selection of Tenability Criteria, Camille Levy, Graduate Student, Worcester Polytechnic Institute; User Impact on FDS Simulations, Nils Johansson, Ph.D., Department of Fire Safety Engineering, Lund University; Proposal for European CFD ASET Round Robin Study, Johan Norén, Fire Safety Engineer, Technical Director, Briab Brand & Riskingenjörerna AB. 14

First SFPE Europe Conference on Fire Safety Engineering Draws Great Attendance, Feedback, con t Jimmy Jönsson, President, SFPE ECCG and co-chair of the SFPE Europe Conference Program committee closed out the event with a summary of the two days sessions and closing remarks. Of the SFPE European Conference on Fire Safety Engineering, Jönsson said this event would not have been possible without the great support and involvement by the local Swedish SFPE chapter, SFPE Headquarters, the sponsors, the Program Committee and the Organising Committee. Jouni Nevala, Fire Protection Engineer at L2 Fire Safety Ltd in Finland was among the conference attendees and praised the event, saying We found the conference very fruitful. It was especially interesting to hear how engineers around Europe approach performance based design and how the problems or challenges using it are quite similar to what we have faced here in Finland. I m looking forward to seeing this conference become a regular event. In addition to great feedback from attendees once the event concluded, there were a lot of great tweets and social media posts shared during the event. 15

First SFPE Europe Conference on Fire Safety Engineering Draws Great Attendance, Feedback, con t If you couldn t attend the SFPE Europe Conference in Denmark, mark your calendars for the 11th Conference on Performance-Based Codes and Fire Safety Design Methods which will be held 23-25 May 2016 at the Hilton Warsaw Hotel in Warsaw, Poland. The call for abstracts for that conference is currently open, so if you re interested in presenting, be sure to submit your abstract by the deadline, 30 September 2015. 16

About SFPE Europe SFPE Europe is a digital magazine produced by SFPE. The mission of SFPE Europe is to highlight the practice of fire protection engineering and fire safety engineering in Europe and to showcase current research being done in the field. The opinions and positions stated are the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of SFPE. SFPE Europe is published digitally biannually. Subscribe to receive new issues via email here. EUROPEAN CHAPTERS COORDINATION GROUP (ECCG) Members Benelux Chapter President: Gordon Biezeveld French Chapter President: Armelle Muller Italian Chapter President: Simone Sacco Polish Chapter President: Piotr Tofilo Spanish Chapter President: Jimmy Jönsson Swedish Chapter President: Karl Fridolf U.K. Chapter President: Gary Daniels SFPE Europe Editorial Advisory Board Jimmy Jönsson, JVVA Fire & Risk Kees Both, Promat Research and Technology Centre NV Michael Strömgren, SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden SFPE Editorial Staff Technical Editor: Chris Jelenewicz, P.E., FSFPE Production Manager: Maggie McGary Interested in Contributing? To be considered for publication, articles submitted should be free of commercial bias and should provide fresh insights that are sound and relevant to practicing fire protection engineers. Articles should describe problems and solutions from which readers can learn. Descriptions of solutions should clearly communicate lessons learned-how-to insights deduced from experience and explained through examples. Authors are asked to comply with the Style Sheet for Fire Protection Engineering. Articles submitted should cite authoritative references whenever applicable. All articles accepted will be reviewed by the magazine's editorial board. Authors will be asked to respond to any comments that are provided by members of the editorial board. All articles accepted will be published with the understanding that publication has been approved by the necessary authority. Please submit articles to: Chris Jelenewicz, Technical Editor SFPE 9711 Washingtonian Blvd Suite 380 Gaithersburg, MD 20878 USA cjelenewicz@sfpe.org Advertising in SFPE Europe SFPE Europe is distributed via email to fire protection engineers, fire safety engineers and allied professionals in Europe and globally, and is available to the public via the SFPE website. If you re interested in exploring advertising opportunities with SFPE Europe, please contact Maggie McGary at mmcgary@sfpe.org or 301-915-9729. 17