Demand for the energy storage is as high as ever, and is about to triple-quadruple. The development of technology is at unprecedented phase, and even within a single project you may face different cell, battery or container generations. This pace reshapes how we think about battery energy storage safety, from enclosure design to emergency response. We sat down with Noah Ryder from the Fire and Risk Alliance to unpack how BESS has evolved from walk-in containers to dense, modular “refrigerator” units—and how the move to liquid cooling, tighter layouts, and higher amp-hour cells impacts both opportunity and risk.

We explore the real jobs batteries do for the grid: shifting solar and wind, replacing peaker plants, stabilizing frequency, and powering microgrids. Then we zoom into the fast-growing edge case: AI-hungry data centers integrating batteries at the rack level for modularity and speed. That flexibility has a cost. Less free airspace and larger cells mean faster gas accumulation, higher heat flux into insulated enclosures, and a credible explosion hazard from a single failure. We walk through the failure timeline—monitoring anomalies, venting, immediate versus delayed ignition, sustained fire, and potential propagation—and identify practical interventions at each step.

Noah lays out the tradeoffs many teams avoid: accept that a damaged unit is a write-off, or try to save modules at all costs? Should we prefer a known flame over an uncertain blast by using intentional spark ignition? How should NFPA 855’s push toward gas-triggered mechanical ventilation and deflagration venting influence spacing, panel placement, and vent direction? We also dig into enclosure construction—non-combustible insulation, steel skins, coolant flammability—and how better insulation can safely cut spacing by slowing heat penetration and reducing internal temperature rise.

Looking forward, stacking feels inevitable. The smarter approach is to treat batteries not just as a cause but as a fuel, borrowing tested methods from high-rack storage: quantify heat release and radiant exposure, model gas evolution and overpressure, orient vents to manage flame jets, and define acceptable loss before design begins. If you care about real-world energy storage—utility sites, microgrids, or data centers—you’ll leave with a clearer framework to make informed, defensible choices.

If you would like to learn more about Noah and the Fire and Risk Alliance, you can find them online here: https://fireriskalliance.com/

Enjoy the conversation, then subscribe, share this episode with a colleague, and leave a review to help more engineers find the show.

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

This week, in the Fire Science Show, we host a roundtable discussion on complexities in fire safety science and engineering.

Most safety failures don’t come from a single mistake—they emerge when people, technology, and institutions misalign. In an ever-changing field in which complexities just go up, we open up a debate on how to cope with that so that the entire field goes in the right direction. For this podcast roundtable debate, I've invited Steve McGuirk, who represents Fire Sector Confederation, and Professor Brian Meacham from Crux, a lifelong contributor to understanding systems in fire safety.

The conversation starts with Grenfell as a case study in systemic breakdown, then stretches into the “fire chain” of policy, design, construction, occupation, incidents, investigation, and remediation. Along the way, we confront the half-life of crises, the overload of regulations, and the real-world trade-offs that shape housing, affordability, and risk.

We push beyond “add another rule” and ask better questions: How do incentives drive design decisions? Where does culture—of fire services, engineers, and politics—help or hinder outcomes? What would it take for standards bodies, professional institutions, and regulators to speak with a more unified voice? We explore convergence research as a practical method to break silos, inviting small, diverse teams to co-create solutions instead of defending old paradigms. From single-stair mid-rise housing to lithium-ion hazards, we dig into how to balance life safety, property protection, and community needs without freezing progress.

Technology shows up as both a tool and a trap. AI and modelling can map complexity and test scenarios, but they cannot replace critical thinking or ethics. We share grounded advice for practitioners: define the problem before you simulate, involve the right stakeholders early, make risk choices explicit, and design for how people actually behave. Competence, mentoring, and integrity are not nice-to-haves; they’re the core of public safety.

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

In this episode of the Fire Science Show we invite dr. Antonela Čolić from the OFR Consultants, to break down the performance of adhesives used in CLT in fire, what differences between the glues are observable at the microscale and how they show up in real structure fires.

We compare common polyurethane adhesives: one that softens near 200–220 C and one that resists softening, crosslinks, and ultimately chars. Through thermogravimetric and calorimetric testing, we map pivotal transitions like glass transition and softening. Then we scale up. With small shear-lap coupons and meter-long cantilevers under controlled heat flux, we see how mechanical load amplifies normal strains at the bond line—especially in cross-laminated elements where grain orientation concentrates stress. The result is a clear picture of when heat-induced delamination begins, how it differs from char fall-off, and why heat flux often dominates the story.

Moisture emerges as a powerful, often overlooked driver. Using neutron imaging, we visualize vapor moving toward and across the bond line, slowing as it crosses the interface. That temporary moisture retention can make an adhesive appear to “fail at a lower temperature,” not from chemistry alone but from local pore pressure and hydration dynamics. We translate these findings into actionable guidance: specify adhesives that char rather than soften, control lamella thickness, consider parallel lamellas to preserve capacity after a ply loss, and model realistic heat flux and shear demands instead of relying on a single critical temperature.

If you design or review mass timber, this conversation gives you the tools to ask better questions: Which adhesive? What heat flux history? How much shear at the bond line? And how will moisture in use and during fire shift the thresholds you’re counting on?

Interested in further reading? Got your back.

• Paper on microscale experiments on adhesives
• Book Chapter on Compartment Fire Dynamics with Timber
• Full scale experiments on CLT with different adhesives

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

In this episode we try to demonstrate another step in integrating fire engineering into WUI risk management, and vice versa. These two areas together form some sort of fire engineering method, which I strongly believe will be an important part of our profession in the future. Today I got to sit down with Dr. Pascale Vacca from UPC to unpack a practical, end-to-end framework for wildland–urban interface risk that engineers can use today, which she has shared in her keynote at the ESFSS Conference in Ljubljana earlier this year.

From mapping hazard, exposure, and vulnerability across scales to chaining wildfire spread outputs into building-focused simulations, we show how careful modeling turns uncertainty into a plan communities can fund and maintain.

We begin with risk assessment that respects terrain, fuels, and construction typologies, then translate FARSITE’s rate of spread and fireline intensity into FDS boundary conditions to test real weaknesses—like heat flux and breakage in large glazed facades. The case study in Barcelona grounds it all: what happens when wind pushes a fast front toward a community center, and which retrofits move the needle? Noncombustible shutters, smarter venting, and defensible spacing emerge as high-ROI fixes, while fuel breaks and fuel treatments reduce intensity so crews can act. Along the way, we tackle data resolution, moisture, and weather selection—how to choose between worst case and representative scenarios and why that choice matters for policy and budgets.

Preparedness and recovery complete the cycle. Annual maintenance keeps gains from eroding as vegetation regrows; community preparedness days build habits and trust; and a homeowner app scores parcel risk to make decisions concrete. On the response side, precomputed scenarios and quick wildfire modeling inform shelter-in-place versus evacuation, aligning engineering insight with operational realities. We also confront limits: validation gaps, ember exposure, and the fact that risk is never zero. But the path forward is clear—interdisciplinary planning, better data sharing after fires, and education to bring more engineers into WUI work.

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

Fire doesn’t play by Earth’s rules once you leave gravity behind. In this deep dive with Professor Michael Gollner, we unpack what the recent experiments at the ISS called SoFIE-MIST taught us about solid fuel flammability in microgravity—how tiny ventilation, oxygen levels, and pressure shifts determine whether a flame spreads, stalls, or vanishes. The details are surprising: blue “bubble” flames, two distinct extinction points, and sustained burning at oxygen levels that would fail to ignite on Earth.

We walk through the entire setup: PMMA rods chosen for clean, uniform burning; a compact wind tunnel inside the ISS hardware; ceramic heaters delivering 1–3 kW/m² to probe incipient behavior; and a control strategy that often lets the flame’s own oxygen consumption carry the chamber gently to extinction. Along the way, you’ll hear how constraints drive design—why rods beat flats, why halogen lamps didn’t fly, how crew time is minimized with robotic runs—and how data is captured without weighing anything. Opposed-flow flame spread becomes a window into fundamentals: radiative preheating, thermal thickness, and the delicate balance between convective loss and feedback when buoyancy is gone.

The implications stretch to future habitats and vehicles. As spaceflight moves toward longer missions and more commercial operators, safety will hinge on accurate flammability limits under low ventilation and non-Earth atmospheres. We connect the dots to normoxic choices, partial‑g research on the Moon and Mars, and the growing need for space fire engineering that’s grounded in real data. If you care about spacecraft safety, materials selection, and the science behind early fire detection, this conversation is right for you.

If you want to learn more, do it here:

• a brilliant article at the Berkeley website
• NASA Glenn website about the SoFIE programme
• Episode 75 with David Urban on spacecraft fire safety
• QA session 5 - brainstorming martian habitat fire safety

Cover image credit: NASA, Igniting a 12.7 mm sample at 21% oxygen under 100 kPa ambient pressure in microgravity. From article https://engineering.berkeley.edu/news/2024/12/nasa-funded-project-offers-new-insights-into-fire-behavior-in-space/

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

In this episode we dive into the ap between standardized tests and experiments, trying to figure out (a) is there a difference and (b) if there is, could not understanding the difference quietly erode safety. With guest David Morrisset (Queensland University), we unpack furnace ratings that read like time but aren’t, cladding classifications that were never meant for façades, and the infamous bird-strike test that shows how any standard bakes in choices and consequences. The throughline: context rules everything.

We talk plainly about what tests actually deliver—repeatability, reproducibility, and comparability under fixed boundary conditions—and why that’s powerful but limited. Then we pivot to experiments: how to define a clear question, choose boundary conditions that matter, use standard apparatus for non-standard insights, and document deviations without pretending they’re compliant. We share stories from timber in furnaces to car park fires and design curves, showing when consistency beats a shaky chase for “realistic,” and when exploratory burns are the fastest way to find the unknowns that really drive risk.

If you’ve ever tried to drop a cone calorimeter value into a performance model, equated furnace minutes to evacuation time, or treated a single burn as gospel, this conversation will help you do this safely and prevent you from falling into some well known caveats. You’ll leave with practical heuristics for reading test data without overreach, structuring experiments that answer narrow questions well, and communicating uncertainty so decision-makers understand what the numbers can and cannot promise.

Essential reading after this episode:

• When chick hits the fan paper
• The rise of Euroclass, A. Law et al.
• The rise and rise of fire resistance, A. Law et al.

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

In this episode, we give focus to the SFPE Foundation – a catalyst transforming how fire engineering research is funded, conducted, and shared globally. In this conversation with Leslie Marshall, Interim Executive Director of the SFPE Foundation, we discover how a relatively small organization has distributed over $1.2 million in grants, scholarships, and research funding since 2021. While the Foundation has existed since 1979, its recent expansion with dedicated staff has accelerated its impact across the fire engineering community worldwide.

Leslie reveals the Foundation's unique position in the fire safety ecosystem – while SFPE maintains the gold standard for current practice, the Foundation focuses on emerging topics and future challenges. This forward-looking approach has funded groundbreaking work, such as, in my opinion, landmark David Morissette's research on furniture fire variability, which began with a modest $5,000 student grant but yielded findings that challenge fundamental assumptions in fire modeling.

The conversation explores the Foundation's flagship Grand Challenges Initiative, a 10-year collaborative effort addressing four critical areas: energy and infrastructure, resilience and sustainability, climate change, and digitalization/AI/cybersecurity. With over 40 industry and academic partners worldwide, this initiative exemplifies how bringing diverse perspectives together can tackle complex problems that no single entity could solve alone.

For researchers, students, and professionals looking to give back to the fire safety community, Leslie outlines multiple pathways for involvement – from financial contributions to volunteering on advisory panels or working groups. The Foundation's commitment to open access ensures all research findings are freely available, maximizing their impact across the field.

You can learn more about the foundation on its website here.

Additional resources can be found here:

• The 2026 WUI Summit: https://www.sfpe.org/2026wuisummit/home
• The WUI Handbook: https://www.sfpe.org/wuihandbook/home
• Grand Challenges Initiative website: https://www.sfpe.org/gci/home

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

What happens when the flames die down? It's a question rarely addressed in fire engineering, yet the decay and cooling phases of fires can be more dangerous than peak fire conditions. In this deep-dive conversation with Dr. Andrea Lucherini from Frisbee at ZAG in Slovenia, we uncover why these overlooked phases matter profoundly for structural safety.

Most engineers focus on protecting structures during the fully developed fire phase, but as Dr. Lucherini reveals, catastrophic failures can actually occur during cooling. We discuss a tragic case where seven firefighters died when a concrete structure collapsed, not during the fire's peak, but while they were extinguishing what appeared to be a dying fire. This sobering reality highlights how current testing methods fail to capture real-world risks—standard fire curves never decrease, creating a dangerous blind spot in our understanding.

The physics of cooling creates unique challenges for different building materials. Reinforced concrete might reach maximum temperatures in the steel reinforcement during decay rather than during peak fire. Steel structures face destructive tensile forces during contraction that can exceed the compressive forces experienced during heating. Mass timber presents particularly complex behaviour that may never truly enter a cooling phase without proper design considerations.

Perhaps most fascinating is how thermal boundary conditions transform as fires decay. When dense smoke thins, radiation patterns change dramatically, creating heat transfer scenarios that standard models fail to capture. These insights aren't just academic—they're essential for performance-based engineering approaches that prioritise realistic structural behaviour throughout a fire's entire timeline.

Andrea was kind enough to share these papers with me:

- Defining the fire decay and the cooling phase of post-flashover compartment fires: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2023.103965
- ⁠Thermal characterisation of the cooling phase of post-flashover compartment fires: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijthermalsci.2024.108933
- ⁠More information about FRISSBE project and team: https://www.frissbe.eu/

And I can shamelessly plug one of our own: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/fam.2735

Cover image from experiments with Danny Hopkin that we have discussed here: https://www.firescienceshow.com/172-lessons-from-mass-timber-experiments-with-danny-hopkin/

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