Aug. 21, 2024

165 - Best Practice vs. Appropriate Practice with Arnold Dix

165 - Best Practice vs. Appropriate Practice with Arnold Dix
Apple Podcasts podcast player badge
Spotify podcast player badge
Apple Podcasts podcast player icon Spotify podcast player icon
Interesting For General Audience Car Parks And Tunnels Fun Episodes Recommendations

Is the "best practice" always the best approach to solving an engineering problem? Can we consider "best" and "appropriate" practices synonymous, and if not - how big is the gap between them? Join us as we welcome Professor Arnold Dix back to challenge conventional wisdom in engineering. Focusing on the nuanced distinction between "best practice" and "appropriate practice," we explore how context-sensitive solutions outperform complex and costly standards. Using real-world examples like tunnel ventilation systems, we illustrate the power of practicality, cost-effectiveness, and suitability in engineering, particularly in fire safety.

We also uncover the hidden economic motives that shape our engineering standards. From Stockholm’s innovative fire suppression mechanisms integrated into everyday systems to the critical role of regulatory bodies in enforcing effective safety measures, we highlight the benefits of familiar, reliable solutions over specialized ones. Personal anecdotes and international examples, including a farm story and regulations in Poland, bring these concepts to life, showing how everyday systems can enhance reliability and community awareness.

Finally, we explore how different nations approach tunnel construction and infrastructure preservation. Highlighting the challenges and successes of countries like Argentina, Chile, China, and Malaysia, we emphasise the importance of building local expertise and resilience. This episode invites you to reconsider how we define and implement standards across various fields by examining practical solutions in ventilation systems and the importance of context-sensitive engineering practices. Join us for a thought-provoking discussion on what constitutes best engineering practice and beyond.

----
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.

Chapters

00:00 - Best Practice vs. Appropriate Practice

10:56 - Innovative Solutions and Market Influence

21:26 - National Implementation of Best Practice

30:50 - Future Preservation in Underground Infrastructure

43:07 - Narratives of Resilience in Infrastructure

48:58 - Ventilation System Challenges in Infrastructure

58:22 - Sharing Opinions on Best Practice

Transcript
WEBVTT

00:00:00.261 --> 00:00:02.084
Hello everybody, welcome to the Fire Science Show.

00:00:02.084 --> 00:00:15.849
I know for the last weeks I have challenged you with some hardcore fire science content suits, visibilities, ais, some really tough topics and I still believe they're important and impactful.

00:00:15.849 --> 00:00:20.123
But this week I have something that hopefully is simply fun for you.

00:00:20.123 --> 00:00:23.035
Being fun doesn't mean it's not impactful.

00:00:23.035 --> 00:00:28.405
I think it's as important as all the previous subjects we've touched in the Fire Science Show.

00:00:28.405 --> 00:00:30.489
So I'll give you some context.

00:00:30.489 --> 00:00:44.210
I have a friend who's been here multiple times, professor Arnold Dix, and Arnold has literally sent me an email saying how about we do best practice versus appropriate practice?

00:00:44.210 --> 00:00:51.033
And when Arnold sends you an email like that, you know there is much, much more to dig about the subject.

00:00:51.033 --> 00:00:56.192
And then I've started contemplating what does the best practice in engineering mean?

00:00:56.192 --> 00:00:59.366
What does appropriate practice in engineering mean?

00:00:59.366 --> 00:01:09.593
A few days later, I had an entire page of notes and thoughts around the topic, and then I've joined Arnold online to record the episode.

00:01:09.593 --> 00:01:17.793
It was a really interesting discussion, one of the kinds that does not tell you the final answer, because there is no final answer.

00:01:17.793 --> 00:01:34.480
There is no unbiased definition of what the best practice is, there's no universal best at all, but I think we've reached some really, really interesting places in that discussion and I would welcome you to be a part of this discussion.

00:01:34.480 --> 00:01:43.665
I would welcome you to listen to what we had to say and present your stance on what's the best practice and what would be an appropriate practice.

00:01:43.665 --> 00:01:49.355
I promise you it's really interesting and much better than it may sound from a definition space.

00:01:49.355 --> 00:01:57.310
And, of course, you get Professor Arnold Dix, who, from my perspective, is perhaps the most interesting human being on the planet right now.

00:01:57.310 --> 00:01:59.948
So I hope you won't miss the chance to listen to this.

00:01:59.948 --> 00:02:37.307
And, of course, one more element of context Arnold is president of International Tunneling Association, so it's understandable that a lot of the discussion is carried about the subject of tunneling and underground infrastructure, which is also keen to the world of buildings, and I also think it would translate to the world of wildfire engineering or any other aspects where we have to bring fire safety to a specific case or task or specific group of people or solution.

00:02:37.307 --> 00:02:49.175
So, without further ado, let's spin the intro and join us in the discussion about what the industry believes is the best practice and what actually is an appropriate practice.

00:02:53.740 --> 00:02:55.381
Welcome to the Firesize Show.

00:02:55.381 --> 00:02:58.843
My name is Wojciech Wigrzyński and I will be your host.

00:02:58.843 --> 00:03:18.318
This podcast is brought to you in collaboration with OFR Consultants.

00:03:18.318 --> 00:03:21.179
Ofr is the UK's leading fire risk consultancy.

00:03:21.179 --> 00:03:32.129
Its globally established team has developed a reputation for preeminent fire engineering expertise, with colleagues working across the world to help protect people, property and environment.

00:03:32.129 --> 00:03:47.908
Established in the UK in 2016 as a startup business of two highly experienced fire engineering consultants, the business has grown phenomenally in just seven years, with offices across the country in seven locations, from Edinburgh to Bath, and now employing more than a hundred professionals.

00:03:47.908 --> 00:03:59.573
Colleagues are on a mission to continually explore the challenges that fire creates for clients and society, applying the best research experience and diligence for effective, tailored fire safety solutions.

00:03:59.573 --> 00:04:13.567
In 2024, ofr will grow its team once more and is always keen to hear from industry professionals who would like to collaborate on fire safety futures this year, get in touch at ofrconsultantscom.

00:04:14.370 --> 00:04:18.309
Hello everybody, I am here, joined today again by Professor Arnold Dix.

00:04:18.309 --> 00:04:20.564
Hello, arnold, hey, greetings.

00:04:20.564 --> 00:04:25.331
Great to be here, good to see you back in the podcast and wow, you've become quite a persona nowadays, mr President, oh to be here.

00:04:25.331 --> 00:04:27.490
Good to see you back in the podcast and wow, you've become quite a persona nowadays, mr President.

00:04:28.252 --> 00:04:28.833
Oh, thank you.

00:04:28.833 --> 00:04:31.175
Hey, your podcast doing pretty well as well.

00:04:31.175 --> 00:04:32.963
Maybe we're a good team.

00:04:33.785 --> 00:04:35.108
I guess it's a match.

00:04:35.108 --> 00:04:35.809
Let's go together.

00:04:35.809 --> 00:04:41.548
Arnold, you've dropped in a super interesting topic on me and I immediately picked it up because I love it.

00:04:41.548 --> 00:04:47.906
It's, let's say, a lightweight discussion but profoundly important for the community and for engineering itself.

00:04:47.906 --> 00:04:51.302
I think it's great sometimes to stop and reflect on what we are doing.

00:04:51.302 --> 00:04:56.600
You've asked me like what's the best practice and what's an appropriate practice.

00:04:56.600 --> 00:04:59.725
I would love to pull that further.

00:04:59.725 --> 00:05:04.793
And first let me ask what does best practice mean to you?

00:05:07.841 --> 00:05:20.492
So I'm an old-fashioned kind of guy and for me, best practice should be what's best for the people who are going to be enjoying and taking the benefit of whatever it is we happen to be building out there.

00:05:20.492 --> 00:05:27.120
So that's what I think it should be out there.

00:05:27.120 --> 00:05:28.483
So that's what I think it should be.

00:05:28.483 --> 00:05:35.394
But I think it's been twisted and perverted into what is the most insanely high-tech, latest state of the art, most onerous, most burdensome.

00:05:35.394 --> 00:05:38.427
If we could have anything we want, what would we have?

00:05:38.427 --> 00:05:54.283
And that's what people are interpreting as best practice, and I think that is a total perversion of the concept and that's why I said to you provocatively I'd like to talk about best practice versus appropriate practice and appropriate practice.

00:05:54.483 --> 00:05:55.386
What would that be?

00:05:55.386 --> 00:05:57.170
Cost-effectiveness risk.

00:05:57.980 --> 00:06:02.708
It would be what's right for around here and here, could be anywhere.

00:06:02.708 --> 00:06:08.122
So any country, any project, anywhere, what's right in all the circumstances for that?

00:06:08.122 --> 00:06:18.507
And so, for example, at the moment there's a big discussion about and I know you've had it on your podcast series critical velocity.

00:06:18.507 --> 00:06:20.983
So let's just go straight to critical velocity.

00:06:20.983 --> 00:06:40.249
So some people would want to argue that, in order to get the ventilation system correct, we're going to do a very extraordinary analysis of all the circumstances of the tunnel, we're going to do all the modeling and we're going to get a ventilation system with a control system that gets our critical velocity within point.

00:06:40.249 --> 00:06:43.423
Whatever it is Doing that, there's a whole lot of burdens.

00:06:43.483 --> 00:06:48.016
It's going to bring on a project which may or may not be appropriate in a particular location.

00:06:48.016 --> 00:06:50.343
There's a consulting burden to do that.

00:06:50.343 --> 00:06:51.966
There's a control system burden.

00:06:51.966 --> 00:06:53.831
There's a hardware burden.

00:06:53.831 --> 00:06:57.547
There's a what energy supply like how much power do we have burden.

00:06:57.547 --> 00:07:00.192
So I'm saying it's got to be.

00:07:00.192 --> 00:07:09.185
We'd say, either horses for courses, or cut the cloth to the size, or however you want to put it, what do we need around here to do the job?

00:07:09.185 --> 00:07:12.773
So am I making sense or am I just gone off?

00:07:12.773 --> 00:07:13.053
You know?

00:07:13.093 --> 00:07:13.701
you brought.

00:07:13.800 --> 00:07:48.752
Like we're tunnel enjoyers and you know, tunnel ventilation is something close to my heart and I'm trying to educate people in here a lot about the concepts of ventilation and how we've twisted it in a way, because critical velocity is your component and you're supposed to achieve it right, but you're supposed to achieve it in the absolutely worst wind conditions, in the absolutely worst location of a fire in your tunnel and, by the way, the tunnel was filled with absolute maximum number of people who can pass through it at the day, and the day is the worst, and the fire brigade is after a Polish wedding and half of them are unavailable.

00:07:48.752 --> 00:08:01.968
And suddenly you are designing for a combination of factors, which means that the last time such an event happened was when the dinosaurs were roaming the world and perhaps they were building tunnels, and the next one will be in 100 million years.

00:08:01.968 --> 00:08:12.642
And what really happens on your building, on your building side, is then when you have this massive system, you plug it in, you suddenly have 10 meters per second in your tunnel and whoa, whoa, whoa, wait, wait.

00:08:12.642 --> 00:08:14.348
Didn't we design it for three?

00:08:14.348 --> 00:08:24.802
Yes, you did, yeah, but you have added seven meters on top of that for a case that perhaps will never happen and even if perhaps it's acceptable For me it's ridiculous.

00:08:25.062 --> 00:08:35.535
Yeah, and just say, take that example where you've actually sized your ventilation to the 10, say it achieves your 10 meters a second, and you go to your power station or your power provider.

00:08:35.535 --> 00:08:44.331
The way that's normally provided is they have to make available to you the power for your ventilation system to do that in an emergency.

00:08:44.331 --> 00:08:53.741
So not only isn't it appropriate for your tunnel, but you've just denied your community access to a whole lot of the capacity of your power station.

00:08:53.741 --> 00:08:57.169
And it's actually because this infrastructure is so big.

00:08:57.169 --> 00:09:00.585
The roll on the consequential effects for this.

00:09:00.845 --> 00:09:08.807
Pessimism on pessimism on pessimism, or best practice, best practice, best practice, best practice, which isn't best practice, it's just like crazy practice.

00:09:08.807 --> 00:09:11.111
It doesn't achieve the mission.

00:09:11.111 --> 00:09:21.706
And the mission is infrastructure fit for and appropriate for that community, because you've just denied that community a whole lot of efficiency in their power generation.

00:09:21.706 --> 00:09:27.283
So for me, this is where we, as engineers, we have to take a little step backward and go.

00:09:27.283 --> 00:09:46.173
Let's stop being so myopic, so focused, so looking down a magnifying glass, trying to impress our girlfriends or boyfriends or bosses and everything about how clever we are, about putting A plus B plus C plus D and being so onerous, and instead go.

00:09:46.173 --> 00:09:48.642
How could this fit properly around here?

00:09:48.642 --> 00:09:51.067
What would be an appropriate fit?

00:09:51.067 --> 00:09:56.605
What's an acceptable level of residual risk here, given this particular context?

00:09:56.605 --> 00:10:00.240
And that doesn't have to be the biggest and best of everything.

00:10:00.460 --> 00:10:25.610
Yeah, I had this episode with Lars from Swedish road administration here and he I had this episode with Lars from Swedish road administration here and he has spearheaded the idea to put sprinklers into Swedish tunnels, but this very specific way how they put them, because they don't have pump stations, they just plug it to the, let's say, main pipe for Stockholm, and I thought this is brilliant, you know, because the pipe will always have water and it will always have pressure.

00:10:25.931 --> 00:10:32.053
We can discuss whether it's sufficient pressure for extinction or not, but I would say any water is better than no water.

00:10:32.053 --> 00:10:42.458
So, again here, your best practice could be two redundant pumps and whatever PSI of pressure and whatever amount of water per nozzle at a specific length of the tunnel.

00:10:42.458 --> 00:10:49.631
Cool, okay, that's true, that's the best practice, but you cannot argue that putting a lot of water in a tunnel will not do a job.

00:10:49.631 --> 00:10:50.642
It will do some job.

00:10:50.642 --> 00:10:56.202
But the second part is why do we need the redundancy in pumps so you always have water In here?

00:10:56.202 --> 00:11:02.163
If the guy loses his water, that means Stockholm has a lot more problems than a fire in the tunnel.

00:11:02.163 --> 00:11:07.446
This is brilliant because he just matched, he just found a proper solution.

00:11:07.947 --> 00:11:08.389
I love him.

00:11:08.389 --> 00:11:10.216
Tell him I'm on my way to Stockholm.

00:11:10.216 --> 00:11:12.123
I want to marry him.

00:11:12.123 --> 00:11:31.173
And look, I've actually just because you mentioned it, I've done something similar here with my, because I live on a farm in a fire prone area and I had a choice of having a completely separate reticulated fire suppression system for protecting my home, or just my normal hose, just big, longer versions.

00:11:31.173 --> 00:11:45.028
And I opted for the longer hoses, not because the separate system on paper wouldn't be better performance, but because using my normal system as the fire system means it's more likely to work, because I use it all the time.

00:11:45.028 --> 00:11:46.621
I'm using it to water my plants.

00:11:46.621 --> 00:11:47.884
I'm using it all the time.

00:11:47.884 --> 00:11:50.211
So the Stockholm thing you're right.

00:11:50.211 --> 00:12:03.243
If there's a problem with the system, all the mums and dads and bald-headed babies of Stockholm will say we've got no water, whereas if the tunnel had a problem with the separate system, maybe no one would notice, maybe the repairs will be delayed.

00:12:03.243 --> 00:12:04.003
The next budget.

00:12:04.464 --> 00:12:10.849
And again, the costs right the pumps, the redundancy, the power supply, the consultancy, the control, the hardware, everything you mentioned.

00:12:10.849 --> 00:12:14.272
So a beautiful example and I truly admire it.

00:12:14.272 --> 00:12:18.475
I mean, I know it triggers some people because that's not the way we do sprinklers.

00:12:18.475 --> 00:12:27.910
And even Lars, he faced that Like oh, it's not going to be approved by authorities, and he's like I'm the authority, I'm the authority, let's burn this in rice, let's check it out.

00:12:27.910 --> 00:12:28.673
If it works, it works.

00:12:28.673 --> 00:12:29.441
We put it in tunnel.

00:12:29.441 --> 00:12:30.482
Yeah, brilliant.

00:12:30.482 --> 00:12:37.708
But okay, we know that we should do good and and I guess we could now end the podcast everyone's around inspired.

00:12:37.708 --> 00:12:40.320
Let's do best we can, let's find appropriate solutions.

00:12:40.320 --> 00:12:51.273
But you very well know that it's not possible everywhere in the world because there are boundaries that systematic boundaries that prevent you from doing your appropriate practice.

00:12:51.273 --> 00:12:53.388
Want to start on those yeah.

00:12:53.649 --> 00:12:58.222
Well, do you want to do the real ones or do you want to do the hidden ones, which are even more real?

00:12:58.222 --> 00:13:05.708
Because the hidden ones which are even more real are the how much money can someone make out of selling this hit?

00:13:05.708 --> 00:13:06.620
And we don't.

00:13:06.620 --> 00:13:08.866
That's one of the ones we don't talk about as much.

00:13:08.866 --> 00:13:26.990
But there's a whole industry promoting best practice, because if you can get your gadget or your widget into the table of best practice and you can get your contracts to specify compliance with the standard, that just happens to have your widget in the table.

00:13:26.990 --> 00:13:28.351
Thank you very much.

00:13:28.351 --> 00:13:36.450
So best practice, it's a really, really subtle form of tertiary, educated Tupperware marketing.

00:13:36.450 --> 00:13:56.996
Now, that doesn't mean it's wrong to follow tables, but as engineers, we need to be alert for the influence of vendors promoting products and getting those products into the tables in the standards as a way of using the concept of best practice just to guarantee sales.

00:13:56.996 --> 00:13:58.885
We're engineers.

00:13:58.885 --> 00:14:01.788
I'll give you an example of a technology that I love.

00:14:01.788 --> 00:14:04.052
So, for example, public address systems.

00:14:04.052 --> 00:14:07.768
So public address systems, so public address systems for emergency announcements.

00:14:08.892 --> 00:14:12.582
How often do we actually see intelligibility mentioned?

00:14:12.582 --> 00:14:13.947
Rarely, actually.

00:14:13.947 --> 00:14:17.278
What we do see is that there's a public address system.

00:14:17.278 --> 00:14:32.750
We might even see some description of how many DB or whatever they have to be, or maybe even some description of how the architecture is set up, how they're accessed dB or whatever they have to be, or maybe even some description of how the architecture is set up, how they're accessed, whether or not they're digital, pre-recorded messages, whether or not they're with a live person.

00:14:32.750 --> 00:14:39.351
And we all sit around and argue amongst ourselves as to whether a canned message is better than a live message and everything.

00:14:39.351 --> 00:14:46.493
But really isn't the more important question whether A do we want to communicate using one and B?

00:14:46.493 --> 00:15:25.538
The word communicate means if we're going to have one, we should be able to understand it, and so the intelligibility should be the issue, and yet somehow we've missed that generally in the best practice for the whole world intelligibility, and I don't know if you've experienced it but in opening by many months because of the intelligibility of the public address system.

00:15:26.480 --> 00:15:28.428
So it actually it was finished.

00:15:28.428 --> 00:15:38.184
It was in the process of commissioning and the firefighters said no, the public address system, you cannot understand what it says, you have to redo it.

00:15:38.184 --> 00:15:39.826
And it delayed it by months.

00:15:39.826 --> 00:15:41.706
It was a very strong case.

00:15:41.706 --> 00:15:48.614
But now, as I think why, I think Poland is because it's a country that was catching up.

00:15:48.614 --> 00:15:55.123
It had a connection to the newest technology and perhaps the market forces were a little different.

00:15:55.123 --> 00:16:05.576
Perhaps the vendors who had better and more useful tools had a market advantage on the old boys who were selling everything for every project for decades.

00:16:05.576 --> 00:16:16.326
So perhaps in one way that we I wouldn't say we control it or we made sure, whoever we are as a country, but we got the good stuff in here and it worked.

00:16:16.807 --> 00:16:24.011
And the same with pressurization systems, the same with a lot of smoke control technologies, the same with a lot of water mist technologies.

00:16:24.011 --> 00:16:32.398
But I would say it's because one the fire department is an extremely strong stakeholder in the discussion.

00:16:32.398 --> 00:16:38.613
They can literally not open the Warsaw main airport because they don't like the public address system.

00:16:38.613 --> 00:16:39.745
That's how powerful they are.

00:16:39.745 --> 00:16:42.528
Can you imagine the political force behind that?

00:16:42.528 --> 00:16:51.447
And they don't give a crap, they just say it's not safe, we're not going to allow it and everyone respects it.

00:16:51.447 --> 00:17:00.075
And here the firefighters would to some extent voice the society, voice the user, voice the safety.

00:17:00.075 --> 00:17:04.909
They're not monetary incentivized, they don't have anything from not opening the building.

00:17:04.909 --> 00:17:07.567
They act from a higher level.

00:17:07.567 --> 00:17:21.710
But also, if I may continue on this example, it also creates other issues Because, for example, when we were doing a tunnel in Warsaw, it created charges with us because they only understood the best practice in smoke control.

00:17:21.710 --> 00:17:25.746
You know the one tunneling handbooks, ingots, cobbles and stuff like that.

00:17:25.746 --> 00:17:29.622
That's the level of comprehension they had of smoke control systems.

00:17:29.622 --> 00:17:38.391
But those books don't tell you how to design a very specific 20-meter-wide transversely ventilated tunnel in a windy passage in Warsaw.

00:17:38.759 --> 00:17:46.623
And we've designed a very robust system which basically meant that with one single configuration of the system.

00:17:46.623 --> 00:17:54.403
The system would act perfectly in 95% of wind conditions in Warsaw, one setting and in 5%.

00:17:54.403 --> 00:17:58.833
It had some challenges but we made sure that we're still on the safe side.

00:17:58.833 --> 00:18:17.912
And they did not accept the design because on the day of commissioning we had the 5% wins and they said, oh, the smoke has passed through the smoke control zone and it's not acceptable anymore, even though it reached a point where no one would be in the tunnel and they had us to redo the design because it did not align with the best practice.

00:18:17.912 --> 00:18:23.008
They were acting on behalf of the society and said no, this is not safe, we have to redo it.

00:18:23.441 --> 00:18:27.039
And we've implemented 700 scenarios for every possible measured wind in Warsaw.

00:18:27.039 --> 00:18:31.086
We have a different scenario of operating jet fans in the tunnel to cancel wind.

00:18:31.086 --> 00:18:35.542
And tell me which is more robust, one with one scenario or one with 700?

00:18:35.542 --> 00:18:37.726
Because I see 700 scenarios that can break.

00:18:37.726 --> 00:18:41.271
So I can go on and on and on, and I know you can do as well.

00:18:41.271 --> 00:18:48.201
You're the guest, so I'll give you back the mic, but it's complicated, you know it's complicated.

00:18:48.201 --> 00:19:00.744
But going back to what you said, I agree that best practice became kind of a marketing tool or market opening tool game, kind of a marketing tool or market opening tool.

00:19:00.765 --> 00:19:11.382
Yeah, I like your observation that maybe one of the advantages you had in Poland was that it was a new market and, by implication, the networks and old boy clubs and all the other things that get entrenched hadn't had a chance to get entrenched.

00:19:11.382 --> 00:19:18.686
So therefore there was an opportunity for a more open and informed discussion about the importance of intelligibility.

00:19:18.686 --> 00:19:43.592
I like that idea and that idea would be consistent with what we saw in Australia originally when our first big urban tunnels came and we embraced things like fire suppression, so like the deluge systems, and that was actively resisted by the old boys club older, I'll call it the old established countries, um, who were saying that's just ridiculous.

00:19:43.592 --> 00:19:51.564
It's going to de-stratify smoke and cause explosions and steam burns and all that sort of stuff and you lose visibility on top of it.

00:19:51.564 --> 00:19:59.750
Oh, and you lose visibility, yeah, and then I was around at that time and we're saying, yeah, but wouldn't it be kind of handy if we didn't get the big fires like that?

00:19:59.750 --> 00:20:02.144
We actually kind of kept them little Like.

00:20:02.144 --> 00:20:03.989
Wouldn't that kind of be an advantage?

00:20:03.989 --> 00:20:16.175
And surely it's not a surprise that if you have a great big fire and then you dump a whole lot of water on it, you get steam and de-stratification, but hello, wouldn't we be trying to debate this system quickly, isn't that the point?

00:20:16.175 --> 00:20:27.167
So we were able to have that discussion because the old boys club hadn't actually formed yet and the regulator and the fire brigade were happy to have that sort of discussion.

00:20:27.208 --> 00:20:43.606
And I recall, when Mont Blanc happened, a delegation from Australia going across to France and one of our God bless, their little cotton socks firemen getting up saying well, you know, if Modblog had happened in Australia it wouldn't have happened because we've got fire suppression systems.

00:20:43.606 --> 00:20:47.722
And then, of course, everyone wanted to fight each other to the death and everything.

00:20:47.722 --> 00:20:50.490
But the point, I think the point you're making is a good one.

00:20:50.490 --> 00:20:56.352
Surely, best practice means and best practice isn't just using everything.

00:20:56.352 --> 00:21:09.794
It has to be having an open mind, having a palette available to the latest thinking and engineering and being receptive to innovation and fit for the purpose around here, wherever here might be.

00:21:10.480 --> 00:21:12.769
How do you think best practices travel across the world?

00:21:12.769 --> 00:21:14.383
Because it's also interesting, you know.

00:21:14.383 --> 00:21:17.470
Let's go again case of poland and australia.

00:21:17.470 --> 00:21:25.366
So the best practice was created somewhere and then it took its luggage and flew to poland to become the best practice in here.

00:21:25.366 --> 00:21:28.601
How do you see countries implement best practice?

00:21:28.601 --> 00:21:33.911
You're involved with many countries on the rise yeah, yeah.

00:21:33.932 --> 00:21:35.624
So yeah, look, great, great question.

00:21:35.624 --> 00:21:38.844
I think it's a form of engineering, colonialism, right?

00:21:38.844 --> 00:21:46.972
Okay, instead of little boats going off and conquering, you have standards and documents going off and conquering foreign lands.

00:21:46.972 --> 00:22:02.191
And I think in the foreign lands, wherever they might be, there's always an appetite to find out what should we do here, and there's always an appetite to do the best, like we're going to do best here, which is that's a lovely thing too.

00:22:02.191 --> 00:22:32.065
But often the budgets are restricted and often the intellectual resources are restricted, and often there's a political dimension, particularly in the early stages when a country is adopting underground infrastructure, and so there's a political need to get a project on the books and delivered, and politicians often like to you know, I don't want to name the countries, but we're going to have one of those ones like they've got over there here, sort of thing and yet I often beg.

00:22:32.065 --> 00:22:34.680
I'll give you an example, let's not muck around.

00:22:35.040 --> 00:22:43.882
I was looking at a tunnel through the Andes between Argentina and Chile and I was at a meeting somewhere up in the Andes, which was literally cool.

00:22:43.882 --> 00:22:45.949
If you've ever been to the Andes, it's very nice.

00:22:45.949 --> 00:22:46.590
Thank you very much.

00:22:46.590 --> 00:23:14.321
And I remember literally begging the decision makers not to commit to a Western European solution for the trans-Andes Tunnel straight up and suggesting to them look, just build one tube, just one, and get your local people there as well, and maybe don't do the full lighting and maybe don't do the full vent, but maybe have it scaled so you can do it later.

00:23:14.321 --> 00:23:17.070
But just see what it's like up there.

00:23:17.070 --> 00:23:18.486
It's a high altitude tunnel.

00:23:18.486 --> 00:23:20.627
We're not really sure what the winds are going to do.

00:23:20.627 --> 00:23:32.705
We're really not sure what the emissions are going to be from these internal combustion engines because we're at such high altitudes we don't really know what the mix of the engine types is going to be on the vehicles.

00:23:32.705 --> 00:23:47.203
Why don't we kind of just turn the volume down a little and let's do Argentina-Chile practice instead of Western European practice and then build from there as we learn how to do this?

00:23:47.904 --> 00:23:50.029
And I thought that was a really cool.

00:23:50.029 --> 00:23:52.603
I thought that was a very responsible idea.

00:23:52.603 --> 00:23:55.848
It meant that there was less burden on the economies.

00:23:55.848 --> 00:24:08.027
It paved the way for each of the countries to develop their own expertise, their own industry, their own universities and technical institutes to support that sort of thing.

00:24:08.027 --> 00:24:10.893
But it didn't happen and the project didn't.

00:24:10.893 --> 00:24:15.094
And one of the reasons it didn't happen was because best practice shock horror is really, really expensive and the countries couldn't afford it.

00:24:15.094 --> 00:24:20.165
So the it didn't happen was because best practice shock horror is really, really expensive and the countries couldn't afford it, so the project didn't happen.

00:24:20.165 --> 00:24:29.270
So that can't be best practice, because it means the countries of Argentina and Chile have been denied a link that they so desperately need through the Andes.

00:24:30.119 --> 00:24:40.826
But you can agree that building intellectual capacity within a country to develop such a sophisticated system as a tunnel Tunnels are pretty complicated.

00:24:40.826 --> 00:24:44.951
You cannot just wake up and say, okay, we're going to learn how to build tunnels today.

00:24:44.951 --> 00:24:52.366
It takes time and practice and there are lessons to be learned and there are non-intuitive things that happens in a tunnel.

00:24:52.366 --> 00:24:54.299
It's pretty complicated.

00:24:54.299 --> 00:25:03.010
So you need the starting point somewhere and when you have a starting point, it's difficult to know how far from the starting point you can move.

00:25:03.010 --> 00:25:21.511
And even though imagine, you have a group of brilliant engineers who say, okay, we're going to deliver that, we're going to learn, we're going to deliver that, like Professor Bjorn Karlsson said, when he needed to design something in Iceland, he just sent a PhD student to Lund to do a doctorate on that.

00:25:21.511 --> 00:25:24.280
The person came back and they had a specialist in the country.

00:25:24.280 --> 00:25:28.388
Brilliant way to reach a specialist in your country.

00:25:28.388 --> 00:25:33.787
I'm not sure how many PhD positions are open in Lund, but you can take this approach.

00:25:34.167 --> 00:25:37.013
Anyway, you can train a group of people, but then you need more people.

00:25:37.013 --> 00:25:50.989
You need verificators, you need third-party auditors in the building, you will have contractors that will battle for the project and may have their own design teams who would like to optimize or change the design.

00:25:50.989 --> 00:25:53.828
So training a small group of people is not enough.

00:25:53.828 --> 00:26:10.574
You have to literally build the competency of an entire nation and in Poland we are 30-something tunnels in and I believe it just happened we now have multiple stakeholders who are probably capable of delivering tunnel projects.

00:26:10.574 --> 00:26:26.771
So you have a competent designer, competent verificator, competent third party, competent subcontractors, because the experience is here after a decade of building tunnels, which, with the first ones being like Italians come and tell us how to do it, austrians come and tell us how to do it.

00:26:26.771 --> 00:26:30.529
It's not something you can build from one day, so you need a starting point.

00:26:31.039 --> 00:26:38.594
Yeah Well, all I'm suggesting is that starting point doesn't have to be the best tunnel as your starting point.

00:26:38.594 --> 00:26:49.547
It doesn't have to be the state-of-the-art tunnel, and I think that timeline you just used about a decade I think that's a reasonable timeline, certainly not less than a decade.

00:26:49.547 --> 00:26:51.559
Look at what's happened in China.

00:26:51.559 --> 00:26:57.147
I mean China, over 20 years, has gone from really not much sort of.

00:26:57.147 --> 00:27:05.007
I mean, they had capacity to build tunnels, but it wasn't something to write home about, Like they were doing it, but it wasn't like amazing.

00:27:05.007 --> 00:27:16.755
Now, 2024, oh my God, they are just the technological position of the organizations within China and their delivery capability is just amazing.

00:27:16.755 --> 00:27:19.970
So Malaysia, Malaysia, are like that.

00:27:19.970 --> 00:27:29.147
Now Malaysia have got this incredible domestic capacity to build In Asia, Poland, as you've just described it, and then you've got the early superpowers.

00:27:29.259 --> 00:27:35.099
I mean the early superpowers would be the Austrians, the Germans, the Italians, the Swiss and the Scandinavians.

00:27:35.099 --> 00:27:37.608
I think they're really they were the superpowers.

00:27:37.608 --> 00:27:42.490
And I think Japan came along and it really got up to speed in the 80s.

00:27:42.490 --> 00:27:49.269
I think China's, as I say, it's just amazing right now, Like it's absolutely peaking at the moment.

00:27:49.269 --> 00:27:52.627
There's cycles to this, but it takes time.

00:27:52.627 --> 00:27:55.064
But there's other countries like Papua New Guinea.

00:27:55.064 --> 00:28:01.280
I'm over in Papua New Guinea at the moment trying to help them with their tunneling society, so that's from zero, basically.

00:28:02.682 --> 00:28:12.685
And what about all boys clubs in old countries UK, switzerland, germany, austria guys who've been building tunnels for more than a century?

00:28:12.685 --> 00:28:16.551
Is their best practice, a proper practice, for their place too?

00:28:16.551 --> 00:28:26.071
I wonder at what point you have to revise and perhaps cut some fat you built up over the years.

00:28:26.071 --> 00:28:32.551
Make it leaner, the requirements, because the best practice it seems like entropy can just grow.

00:28:33.021 --> 00:28:35.050
Yeah, no, I think you're right.

00:28:35.050 --> 00:28:43.932
I've got to say the ones that impressed me the most in terms of domestic maturity of a capacity and a commercial market.

00:28:43.932 --> 00:28:46.781
And we're talking best practice.

00:28:46.781 --> 00:28:48.465
Appropriate practice would be the Swiss.

00:28:48.465 --> 00:29:04.220
They've got such a mature way of doing business and regulation and contracting and building and operating it's almost like a perfect little ecosystem there to actually deliver this underground infrastructure in a really good way.

00:29:04.220 --> 00:29:09.150
So their appropriate practice and best practice converge.

00:29:09.991 --> 00:29:12.804
But interestingly, the Swiss too.

00:29:12.804 --> 00:29:14.227
They're not quite what you think.

00:29:14.227 --> 00:29:43.762
When you go on a project in Switzerland you discover, for example, during construction, that they have quite an appetite for construction risk and if you compare it with, say, in the United Kingdom, which is absolutely risk adverse, paralyzed by risk assessments and job statements of how to do things, so that technique in the United Kingdom, if you send it across to Switzerland, would cause all the chocolate to melt and all the cows to go backwards up the hills.

00:29:43.762 --> 00:29:44.806
I mean, it would be terrible.

00:29:44.806 --> 00:30:06.428
But what they do in Switzerland is fit for purpose, it is best and appropriate practice in Switzerland and I think it's a very interesting model of excellence in underground and everything about the underground, from the consulting, the design, the construction, the operation, the integration, even the digital twins and the digital modeling of the whole country.

00:30:06.567 --> 00:30:25.169
Just amazing Compared with Papua New Guinea, which has got nothing and pretty much starting from zero and just with an incredible need and a whole group of engineers and a big mining sector and cities that flood, and transport systems that don't work and power generation that's not there and water systems that aren't there and sewage that's not there.

00:30:25.169 --> 00:30:29.907
She's a wide, she's a big world out there, so we're not best practice.

00:30:29.907 --> 00:30:32.339
Swiss style will not work in Papua New Guinea.

00:30:32.942 --> 00:30:36.393
I wonder another thing you've mentioned appropriate is was appropriate in here.

00:30:36.393 --> 00:30:36.433
I would.

00:30:36.433 --> 00:30:37.250
Another thing you've mentioned appropriate is is what's appropriate in here?

00:30:37.250 --> 00:30:46.079
I would add here and here, now and tomorrow, because it's very interesting If I'm talking with the president of international tunneling association.

00:30:46.079 --> 00:30:50.460
So there's a reason why we're entering underground every second sentence.

00:30:50.460 --> 00:30:55.470
But look, the average age of railway tunnel in Germany is above a hundred years.

00:30:55.470 --> 00:31:02.509
Yeah, those constructions will live centuries and I don't think we can be ignorant of that.

00:31:02.509 --> 00:31:05.009
I think we need to recognize that.

00:31:05.009 --> 00:31:20.268
It's not that I believe we need to solve future problems that don't exist yet, but I believe we should be careful of providing space to others in the future, like we would like to have space from the ones who designed the tunnels 100 years ago.

00:31:20.268 --> 00:31:32.448
Refurbishment projects are hell, and they're mostly hell because there was not enough space or there's some limiting boundaries that don't allow you to do something very cheaply.

00:31:32.448 --> 00:31:38.107
How best practice is treating future and how appropriate practice should include future.

00:31:38.579 --> 00:31:40.067
Yeah, I think it's the biggest.

00:31:40.067 --> 00:32:11.005
It's not even an elephant in the room, it's just the elephant is the refurbishment of underground spaces and, unlike a building where you can just push it over and build another one, these underground spaces the purpose might change, the space remains, or a variational space remains, and even little things, like if you're using a tunnel boring machine and you want to put a deck in for a road or a rail, there's often a temptation just to backfill it and use the backfill as the base.

00:32:11.539 --> 00:32:14.830
And wherever I'm involved, I'm always saying are you insane?

00:32:14.830 --> 00:32:20.503
Wherever I'm involved, I'm always saying are you insane?

00:32:20.503 --> 00:32:25.813
We've just spent all of these resources to dig a hole through a mountain or wherever, and that space is incredibly valuable.

00:32:25.813 --> 00:32:29.005
We spent a lot of resources to make that space.

00:32:29.005 --> 00:32:32.553
We should keep that space even if we don't know what it's for.

00:32:32.553 --> 00:32:44.383
The preference should be to keep that space because in the future there may be a need and we've seen that recently with things like fiber optic cables, other data transmission.

00:32:44.824 --> 00:32:52.285
There's been recent technological developments, even little robots you know the little robot sort of scoot along.

00:32:52.285 --> 00:32:57.161
There's all sorts of things that you can do with a space that you can't, with a space that you can't imagine.

00:32:57.161 --> 00:33:00.288
Actually, we can't imagine right now, but we need the space.

00:33:00.288 --> 00:33:05.731
The one thing we don't want to do is just backfill it as if it's useless because we can't think of how to use it now.

00:33:05.731 --> 00:33:07.643
So that's an example I think of.

00:33:07.643 --> 00:33:12.541
I mean, arguably best practice might be, you just leave, you do backfill it.

00:33:12.541 --> 00:33:25.410
And yet I think appropriate practice would be try and preserve the space for the future, even if you don't quite know what that future might bring, because linear usually linear corridors are really valuable and very rare.

00:33:26.140 --> 00:33:29.287
Especially through mountains or underground right?

00:33:29.287 --> 00:33:40.280
Another thing that comes to my mind is your best practice should refer to something like there is a goal, right.

00:33:40.280 --> 00:33:41.484
Sometimes the goal would be explicitly stated.

00:33:41.484 --> 00:33:45.224
Sometimes the goal would be very ambiguous and you don't even know what it is.

00:33:45.224 --> 00:33:47.723
It's just to have a tunnel, that could be called as well.

00:33:47.723 --> 00:33:49.800
Yeah, that's that as a perfectly fine goal.

00:33:49.800 --> 00:33:54.573
But I wonder like which goals skew the practice?

00:33:54.573 --> 00:34:02.547
You know which goals perhaps shouldn't be used because they lead to this over design or overuse.

00:34:02.547 --> 00:34:15.708
I mean, for me, very specific, targeted goals, like we need to lower the temperature in the tunnel in this one specific design fire when the probability is very low, or like with the vent velocity that've designed.

00:34:15.708 --> 00:34:18.364
It's a goal right, but I think it's a stupid goal.

00:34:18.364 --> 00:34:21.188
I think it doesn't reflect the true need.

00:34:21.188 --> 00:34:28.525
It's a goal in the head of somebody, but it's not a true goal for the goodness of the project, it's not the best for society.

00:34:28.525 --> 00:34:32.304
I wonder how do you see goals and which goals we should pick?

00:34:32.304 --> 00:34:32.887
Which should we?

00:34:32.927 --> 00:34:33.228
avoid.

00:34:33.228 --> 00:34:39.309
I'm old-fashioned so I like to look at what's the functional requirement of the particular asset.

00:34:39.309 --> 00:34:50.719
So usually the functional requirement of the asset is some sort of connection, and then the use of that connection might be whether it's water or sewage, or transport or energy or whatever it is, but it's connections.

00:34:50.719 --> 00:34:52.543
That's basically connections.

00:34:52.543 --> 00:35:03.086
So if you can keep one eye on the connection aspect then, for example, some would say best practice is secondary liners.

00:35:03.086 --> 00:35:05.920
Say we're dealing with a road tunnel or sometimes even a rail tunnel.

00:35:05.920 --> 00:35:10.719
A secondary liner, that's pretty, it's like a veneer, it's something that looks.

00:35:10.719 --> 00:35:17.338
It's a liner that you put in, that you can wash and everyone can go through and say, oh, that looks pretty.

00:35:17.699 --> 00:35:19.563
Well, is that really best practice?

00:35:19.563 --> 00:35:25.677
It might look pretty, but it denies you the opportunity to look at the structure of the tunnel.

00:35:25.677 --> 00:35:26.922
It's not necessary.

00:35:26.922 --> 00:35:31.661
It's got some huge carbon footprint, it requires maintenance, it can fall in.

00:35:31.701 --> 00:35:37.949
There's a whole lot of things about it which, on its face, in many countries would view it as best practice.

00:35:37.949 --> 00:35:41.539
And yet I would strongly argue you don't need it.

00:35:41.539 --> 00:35:54.579
And in fact, in the current context of a resource-stressed world, the climate emergency, just generally, a lack of money for stuff like hospitals and schools and everything like that.

00:35:54.579 --> 00:35:56.083
How about we don't do it?

00:35:56.083 --> 00:36:13.061
We don't need it, even though some people would say that's best practice and in countries where the budgets are even more stressed and where the infrastructure is more needed, morally and ethically, why would you even promote doing something like that?

00:36:13.202 --> 00:36:16.007
You need to get the connections to enable these people.

00:36:16.007 --> 00:36:21.717
You don't have to build a tunnel that they all want to get selfies in because it's the most pretty tunnel.

00:36:21.717 --> 00:36:23.300
We want connections.

00:36:23.300 --> 00:36:26.106
We're trying to help our people and planet.

00:36:26.106 --> 00:36:33.166
We're not a beauty competition, and I think that's something that the Scandinavians are doing pretty well at the moment.

00:36:33.166 --> 00:36:39.027
I've noticed they've done some very creative artistic things with primary structural liners.

00:36:39.027 --> 00:36:53.387
You typically wouldn't think a best practice because it's just concrete or spray-applied concrete or whatever, and yet they do it beautifully, and I think actually in Poland I've seen some pretty wild ones as well in the metro.

00:36:53.387 --> 00:37:03.463
This is where I get back to your best practice doesn't have to be what is done in the richest country or as promoted by a particular vendor.

00:37:03.463 --> 00:37:12.932
What would work around here, what makes sense here and what gives our community the best value in terms of what they want from this underground connection or space?

00:37:13.675 --> 00:37:16.983
And what if you're like here?

00:37:16.983 --> 00:37:28.362
We were talking about how to choose what's the goal, right, but in many places of the world the goals would be just clauses in your code and you cannot really discuss with them or the expectations of the investor.

00:37:28.362 --> 00:37:43.108
In Poland, you would have a specific law that defines what you have to have in tunnels and you would have a specific sub clauses that are defined for per contract every single time, and I usually just find them annoying.

00:37:43.108 --> 00:37:55.485
But I would love to just have a general functional requirements to which I can engineer my tunnel, instead of having said that my escape exit has to be every 250 meters period, right?

00:37:55.485 --> 00:38:00.802
Is there anything we can advise to people working in in those kind of contracts?

00:38:00.802 --> 00:38:03.809
Like we're engineers, we strive to do the best.

00:38:03.809 --> 00:38:07.626
It's like you're not a tunnel vendor.

00:38:07.626 --> 00:38:15.608
You want to create something that will outlive you and people in 100 years will benefit from that, something that can transform society.

00:38:15.608 --> 00:38:21.086
Like, if you're in such a rigid boundaries, how can you strive for that?

00:38:21.086 --> 00:38:22.657
Because I find it's really challenging.

00:38:22.777 --> 00:38:36.103
Well, I think it is challenging and I would be lying if I said I had a magic solution for this and I think the burden lies on us differently depending on what role we're playing.

00:38:36.103 --> 00:38:45.469
If we're sitting on the side of the client who's making specifications, and then I'd love to blow a whistle and sort of, just in case anybody's here, just blow a whistle like, okay, simulated whistle, blow whistle, blow right, there's the whistle.

00:38:45.469 --> 00:38:55.847
Any of you listening to this who act for the clients who are setting specifications for projects, don't do a Google search to work out what you want in your tunnel, right?

00:38:55.847 --> 00:39:06.221
Don't copy paste what someone else has had in their project and fake it to your boss that you've just done two months really difficult work when you haven't.

00:39:06.221 --> 00:39:12.188
You rang up your friend who was doing a job in another country on your private email, sent the schedule.

00:39:12.188 --> 00:39:13.291
You've copied it out.

00:39:13.291 --> 00:39:16.101
You've actually been going to the beach for the last whatever.

00:39:16.101 --> 00:39:17.849
Come on, don't do that.

00:39:17.849 --> 00:39:18.932
That's not cool.

00:39:18.932 --> 00:39:31.458
Actually, be an engineer, because your table of specifications are the burden other people are going to have to carry and if you try and deviate from it then people go oh, why are you trying to deviate from that?

00:39:31.458 --> 00:39:41.228
Oh, maybe they've got some devious reason, maybe there's some money under the table, maybe, whatever it is, when in fact it might be.

00:39:41.976 --> 00:39:48.030
One of my favorite ones is cross-passage separations, particularly in metro, newsflash metros.

00:39:48.030 --> 00:39:59.742
Nothing happens in a modern metro Like we have got our metros, our modern metros, if you actually build one and you've got decent rolling stock and you maintain it properly.

00:39:59.742 --> 00:40:06.447
Okay, there are caveats there that you've got to do it properly, but it's really really, really, really, really reliable.

00:40:06.447 --> 00:40:12.322
And when you look at the data around the world, nothing happens, really nothing happens.

00:40:12.322 --> 00:40:16.277
It's just so good these days as long as you've done it correctly.

00:40:16.818 --> 00:40:30.918
So if you've got one of those sort of metros and you're building it in really horrible ground conditions and you're going to specify cross passage separations, say of depends which standard, but let's just, I'll pick one out of the air.

00:40:30.918 --> 00:40:34.766
I'll say 150 meters, 500, oh, you want 500.

00:40:34.766 --> 00:40:36.088
500 is pretty.

00:40:36.088 --> 00:40:38.155
That's generous you're being.

00:40:38.155 --> 00:40:42.179
You know some of them are down, like in the hundreds of meters, the crosspass.

00:40:42.179 --> 00:41:02.253
I have pulled more bodies out of collapses in building cross passages in metros than anything else, because the process of building those cross passages in altered ground between, say, two tunnel boring machine bores and it's like a spacewalk and the bloody things collapse.

00:41:02.253 --> 00:41:16.496
So probability of killing someone doing that is much higher than the hypothetical probability of an incredibly unlikely event one day, maybe in the future, for using the cross passages in an emergency.

00:41:16.496 --> 00:41:25.402
So in cases like that I'd want greater cross-passage separation, just to minimize the risk during construction that sort of stuff.

00:41:26.155 --> 00:41:29.945
Let's be a bit more grown up about how we balance risk.

00:41:29.945 --> 00:41:33.606
Let's stop being so microscopic.

00:41:33.606 --> 00:41:38.222
Back up a little bit and look at the bigger picture of risk and be engineers doing that.

00:41:38.222 --> 00:41:39.922
I think there's a case for that.

00:41:39.922 --> 00:41:42.914
I'm not suggesting everyone just do whatever they feel like.

00:41:42.914 --> 00:41:45.340
I'm not suggesting a free-for-all, but we're engineers.

00:41:45.340 --> 00:41:46.503
This is what we do.

00:41:46.503 --> 00:41:49.838
This risk stuff is what we're really good at.

00:41:50.119 --> 00:41:50.840
So let's do it.

00:41:50.840 --> 00:41:54.978
I've asked the question because I feel I have some sort of an answer to it.

00:41:54.978 --> 00:41:55.380
Actually.

00:41:55.380 --> 00:41:57.126
Oh, tell me, I'm ready.

00:41:57.126 --> 00:42:13.302
Yeah, what to do in countries where the system is rigid and it's a longer observation, like when the system is very rigid, to bring the discussion about the very obvious things, like what you've just said let's replace one technology with another, because the benefits are obvious.

00:42:13.302 --> 00:42:15.523
You face, oh, it's not possible.

00:42:15.523 --> 00:42:16.096
Why?

00:42:16.096 --> 00:42:19.822
Because we cannot do it, why Because there's no practice that allows that?

00:42:19.822 --> 00:42:20.644
And why is that?

00:42:20.644 --> 00:42:22.179
Because we're not allowed.

00:42:22.179 --> 00:42:30.438
And that's the discussion you will have right, and I feel changing within the system is not possible.

00:42:30.458 --> 00:42:37.324
But I think there are opportunities to change the context of the discussion, to change the entire framework in which we discuss.

00:42:37.324 --> 00:42:46.605
Like, look, you could not talk about many things related to energy efficiency of systems, even though you knew that it's important to have energy efficient systems.

00:42:46.605 --> 00:42:55.007
And then the UN sustainability goals came and we're talking about sustainability and it's obvious that for sustainability, you need a more energy efficient systems.

00:42:55.007 --> 00:43:00.661
The framework has changed, the context has changed, the background has changed and now you're allowed to talk to that.

00:43:00.661 --> 00:43:07.184
Background has changed and now you're allowed to talk to that.

00:43:07.204 --> 00:43:11.074
And I believe that if you want to change a part of the system, a clever way to change it is changing the narrative.

00:43:11.074 --> 00:43:11.856
And I'll tell you.

00:43:11.856 --> 00:43:20.581
It's something that I'm trying to do here to put some things in the tunnels that I would like more and get rid of the things that I know that do not contribute.

00:43:20.581 --> 00:43:24.989
And the narrative that I try to impose is resilience.

00:43:24.989 --> 00:43:25.789
Why?

00:43:25.789 --> 00:43:37.543
Because I believe that if you build a truly resilient system, it includes life safety, it includes efficiency, it includes everything, because you cannot build a resilient system which kills people.

00:43:37.543 --> 00:43:39.186
It's not resilient.

00:43:39.186 --> 00:43:39.927
You know what I mean.

00:43:39.927 --> 00:43:43.217
It's a higher goal that I see.

00:43:43.217 --> 00:44:02.652
And I see those discussions only possible, not within the context of the discussion that has been ongoing, but saying, okay, let's stop this discussion, it's irrelevant now, because today we have sustainability, today we have resiliency, today we have environmental goals, today we're treating this as a socio-technical system.

00:44:02.652 --> 00:44:12.269
Now, and I find only those spaces as opportunity to truly change the tiny fractions which are rigid within my current framework.

00:44:13.275 --> 00:44:23.108
I like your idea because what you're saying is the engineer needs the narrative to show off their tools.

00:44:23.108 --> 00:44:31.244
It needs the leadership, the thought leadership, to encourage the sort of solutions that are necessary.

00:44:31.244 --> 00:44:38.545
And in the case that you're describing, that's that resilience requirement and I like it.

00:44:38.545 --> 00:44:40.628
I mean the issue that we've faced.

00:44:40.628 --> 00:44:43.802
I'll just speak for the International Telling Underground Space Association.

00:44:43.802 --> 00:44:47.521
As you mentioned, I happen to be the president, so I am being presidenty now.

00:44:48.115 --> 00:45:02.355
We're really troubled that inappropriate use of tools developed for buildings that are in the sustainability space don't capture the performance of underground infrastructure.

00:45:02.355 --> 00:45:15.628
Space don't capture the performance of underground infrastructure Because actually, while the words are correct and the narratives correct, the tools aren't developed to actually capture and quantify the peculiar benefits of the underground.

00:45:15.628 --> 00:45:20.898
So, for example, as we've already discussed, our underground infrastructure lasts hundreds of years.

00:45:20.898 --> 00:45:21.219
Buildings don't.

00:45:21.219 --> 00:45:22.679
Our underground infrastructure lasts hundreds of years.

00:45:22.679 --> 00:45:23.000
Buildings don't.

00:45:23.000 --> 00:45:31.786
In fact, our underground infrastructure effectively lasts forever because you tend to refurbish them and they come along, whereas buildings you just tend to push them down.

00:45:32.586 --> 00:45:34.648
So what you're saying is right.

00:45:34.648 --> 00:45:40.012
You need almost permission to give everyone permission to talk about resilience.

00:45:40.012 --> 00:45:52.365
One of my favorite objects that doesn't get used and I don't think works are little manual telephones in tunnels, the little old-fashioned telephones, because most people don't even remember what they are.

00:45:52.365 --> 00:45:58.010
Virtually no one's ever used them anymore, because they're not as old as us and in an emergency no one uses them anyway.

00:45:58.010 --> 00:46:07.559
So in terms of resilience, they're in there and a whole lot of resources often go into having them there and keeping them running, but in emergencies no one uses them.

00:46:07.559 --> 00:46:09.382
No one even knows where they go.

00:46:09.382 --> 00:46:28.938
So it's a really interesting example of something which would compromise resilience, because perhaps in a matrix you'd say oh yeah, we've got a communication system, we've got these little phones all the way through our tunnel, but actually no one even knows what they are and people don't even know how to use them.

00:46:29.762 --> 00:46:32.817
But you're surely to be fined if you use one incorrectly.

00:46:32.817 --> 00:46:36.626
That's one thing to be sure right, yeah, so it's really.

00:46:36.646 --> 00:46:38.456
or the other thing that I found in buildings.

00:46:38.456 --> 00:46:55.699
I shouldn't mention buildings, but the number of times I've got into trouble by using the emergency stairwells and I get to the bottom of the building to discover that the doors to go out are locked and alarmed and now I'm trapped in an emergency stairwell when I was just wanting to use the stairs and not the lifts.

00:46:55.699 --> 00:47:12.864
So there's an example in the building space where there's a disconnection between what you're wanting people to do in an emergency, the use of a staircase, the fire and emergency safety concept and little old Arnold deciding to use the stairs and ending up becoming a criminal regularly.

00:47:13.826 --> 00:47:23.574
And there's a skeleton of a guy next to you that didn't want to break social influence and opened the door with an alarm, and then you're pretty worried that you're the next one.

00:47:23.574 --> 00:47:24.617
Yeah, it's it's.

00:47:24.757 --> 00:47:27.181
it's ridiculous, but um arnold.

00:47:27.181 --> 00:47:40.840
One last thing that I wanted to to mention is that I would say that every technical system that we develop can be improved by definition, and especially if the goals are objective or the criteria change.

00:47:40.840 --> 00:47:47.289
Like we also have to agree on the fact that the best is not the best.

00:47:47.289 --> 00:48:07.822
Like every single system, you can tweak and improve, like I could do endless revisions on my projects and come with endless amount of new iterations of those projects, and there's just simply a need to stop at some point because we need to build the goddamn building, not to revise the location of JetFence for the 70th time, right.

00:48:07.822 --> 00:48:19.943
And I believe there's also like a value in the guidance the best practice guidance here that it gives you some boundaries, that you know that this will work.

00:48:19.943 --> 00:48:23.003
How about this value that you implement the best practice?

00:48:23.003 --> 00:48:31.346
It may cost too much, but at least you can implement it quickly because it's not tailor-made, it's ready shelf solution that you put into your project and you're done with it.

00:48:31.346 --> 00:48:34.505
How do you feel about this dynamic?

00:48:35.034 --> 00:48:37.905
Well, of course, that's the argument that vendors love.

00:48:37.905 --> 00:48:41.304
I mean, that's how you get your sales, isn't it?

00:48:41.304 --> 00:48:43.021
And it's true.

00:48:43.021 --> 00:48:58.465
And the premium you pay for being able to deliver a project quickly is that it may well be over-specified and it may well be over-engineered, and I think that's why there's no answer to this.

00:48:58.465 --> 00:49:01.945
I just wanted to raise it to toss it around with you.

00:49:01.945 --> 00:49:02.929
But on, say, your ventilation.

00:49:02.929 --> 00:49:03.175
I'm a barbarian when it comes to this.

00:49:03.175 --> 00:49:04.123
I just wanted to raise it to toss it around with you, but on, say, your ventilation.

00:49:04.123 --> 00:49:06.246
I'm a barbarian when it comes to ventilation.

00:49:06.246 --> 00:49:09.936
I go in tunnels and I just say to people turn your fans on.

00:49:09.936 --> 00:49:14.306
And I, literally, I'm going to do the visuals because hell I can.

00:49:14.306 --> 00:49:25.713
But even though it's a podcast, I measure my light with my light meters, I've got my anemometer and I'm just, you know, for the podcast, I'm pulling the anemometers out.

00:49:25.914 --> 00:49:31.947
Yeah, he actually like pulled an anemometer and a light density meter out of his goddamn pocket.

00:49:31.947 --> 00:49:32.829
This is ridiculous.

00:49:33.235 --> 00:49:38.208
Yeah, and like, that's the kind of nerdy guy I am and I want to see it work.

00:49:38.208 --> 00:49:40.382
Isn't that the appropriate thing?

00:49:40.382 --> 00:49:45.518
Like, when it all said and done, have we got enough jet fans here to move the air?

00:49:45.518 --> 00:49:46.981
Can we turn them on?

00:49:46.981 --> 00:49:48.585
Can we turn them on fast enough?

00:49:48.585 --> 00:49:50.938
Can we turn them on in the right direction?

00:49:50.938 --> 00:49:55.918
Hello, how many tunnels have I been into when they're not even wired correctly?

00:49:55.918 --> 00:49:57.201
But anyway, that's another thing.

00:49:57.201 --> 00:50:00.288
And can we do it in a reasonable timeframe?

00:50:00.288 --> 00:50:02.559
And that's the real stuff.

00:50:02.559 --> 00:50:12.882
And it all boils down If you're in a tunnel, you just want it to work, and if there's not enough power to fire up those fans, the whole exercise has been worthless.

00:50:13.342 --> 00:50:15.596
So maybe you shouldn't have bothered in the first place.

00:50:15.596 --> 00:50:24.465
Maybe you should have been looking at a concept that didn't rely on it if you haven't got the power to run them, or if you haven't got the money to maintain the systems.

00:50:24.465 --> 00:50:50.085
I've been in countries I can't name them because for sure they'll send people with little guns and shoot me but I've been in countries where the systems in the tunnels have never been turned on, they have never been connected, the alarms have never been energized, and yet the consultants have signed them off, and it's just more luck than anything else that nothing's gone wrong.

00:50:50.085 --> 00:51:10.295
Looking at desks pretending that all the comms is working between the tunnels and the control room, and it's a lie.

00:51:10.315 --> 00:51:11.277
A whole lot of the systems are not connected.

00:51:11.277 --> 00:51:11.599
This is obscene.

00:51:11.599 --> 00:51:21.525
This is the disconnection between best practice and appropriate practice, because people have prescribed best practice and in that or those particular countries they can't deliver it.

00:51:21.525 --> 00:51:23.628
So what can they deliver?

00:51:23.628 --> 00:51:25.682
What would be reliable?

00:51:25.682 --> 00:51:28.744
Because I want to see systems that work.

00:51:28.744 --> 00:51:38.141
I don't want to see some mind game or mind experiment and then the reality is just a mess and I get really upset about that.

00:51:38.141 --> 00:51:39.780
I just see the look on your face.

00:51:39.780 --> 00:51:42.284
You're thinking, oh what, I know what he's talking about.

00:51:42.755 --> 00:51:44.838
No, no, I know exactly what you're like.

00:51:45.960 --> 00:51:58.239
Designing a system that there is no way you can maintain is ridiculous, like it's, like you would be good enough with not having the system at all and introducing new complexities.

00:51:58.239 --> 00:52:01.045
People also don't think about simplicity.

00:52:01.045 --> 00:52:02.148
I love simplicity.

00:52:02.148 --> 00:52:13.664
I love to have less points of failure, and the less points of failure I have, the more sure I am about the system, and I believe the most refined solutions are the most elegant ones.

00:52:13.664 --> 00:52:25.702
You know, the simplest, like in science, the most beautiful formulations are ones that you can put on a t-shirt right, not a seventh level polynomial on on the critical velocity.

00:52:25.702 --> 00:52:38.257
I find that ridiculous, and the same goes into engineering and, I believe, also being honest with yourself about what you can support over the years, continuously.

00:52:38.257 --> 00:53:03.346
This is an exercise that's necessary to the authorities, the people who define what the best practice is, because the life cycle of building, the life cycle assessment, I think it's critical, and there's no point of installing a 10 million euro jet van system if you are not planning to have a technician twice a year visit it and check it out, right.

00:53:04.215 --> 00:53:12.601
My favorite ventilation system for a rail tunnel was one I did a design review pulled out all the jet fans.

00:53:12.601 --> 00:53:16.722
It was a cut and cover, right and it was in a remote location.

00:53:16.722 --> 00:53:21.487
Pulled out all the jet fans, took the lid and put it on an angle.

00:53:21.487 --> 00:53:33.356
Fans took the lid and put it on an angle and so had an angled cover that actually ventilated to the atmosphere and then, using CFD, was able to demonstrate that the bigger the fire, the better it worked.

00:53:33.356 --> 00:53:39.217
No active ventilation system, a bit like what was done in the olden days with steam trains.

00:53:39.217 --> 00:53:41.742
Hello, it just worked.

00:53:42.282 --> 00:53:47.702
And the CapEx and OpEx savings for that just simple, elegant design were huge.

00:53:47.702 --> 00:53:49.750
But it's not according to the standard.

00:53:49.750 --> 00:54:01.702
And then in another country, where I was punching a tunnel between some mountains, I discovered that there was a a consistent pressure differential between the two sides of the mountain, a consistent pressure differential between the two sides of the mountain.

00:54:01.702 --> 00:54:05.007
I didn't do this by some fancy thing.

00:54:05.007 --> 00:54:07.429
Oh, if I had it in my desk I'd hold it up.

00:54:07.429 --> 00:54:19.543
I had two watches with pressure gauges and over a period of about a month I was able to document, before the tunnel was built, the pressure differential between the two sides of the mountain.

00:54:19.543 --> 00:54:28.405
And then I suggested that the normal mode of operation was not to fight the natural flow but to augment.

00:54:28.507 --> 00:54:35.527
It Must be better because it's elegant and simple and you can develop a safety strategy.

00:54:35.527 --> 00:54:44.878
If you think about it long enough, you can actually develop a safety strategy which requires almost no ventilation system if you take advantage of the natural pressure differential.

00:54:44.878 --> 00:54:46.797
It's still excellent.

00:54:46.797 --> 00:54:50.586
Fire engineering, it's just not best practice.

00:54:51.715 --> 00:54:55.501
Anyway, arnold, I knew that you sent me one sentence.

00:54:55.501 --> 00:55:03.702
I do podcast episodes, I know it's going to be good and we just talked one hour on this subject of best practice, appropriate practice.

00:55:03.702 --> 00:55:05.963
I think I enjoyed this discussion a lot.

00:55:05.963 --> 00:55:25.561
It's kind of painful because the world will not change over a day, but I think it's a nice reality check for a lot of engineers and I know that the moment people were listening to this conversation, people went into passionate arguments, with us having their own opinions of what's best, what's appropriate.

00:55:25.561 --> 00:55:27.686
I actually would love to hear those opinions.

00:55:27.686 --> 00:55:32.925
If you, the dear listener, have your own opinion, let's talk about it.

00:55:32.925 --> 00:55:37.961
That's interesting, it's intriguing, it moves us forward, it's inspiring.

00:55:37.961 --> 00:55:42.961
So I would love to hear you, arnold, anything you want to close up with from your side.

00:55:43.976 --> 00:55:50.028
Tell me what they say as well, because this is a dialogue between intelligent thinking people.

00:55:50.028 --> 00:55:55.543
There is no right answer here, and this is our job as professionals.

00:55:55.543 --> 00:55:56.585
We've got to help our people.

00:55:56.585 --> 00:56:01.626
So I'm just happy you liked my one sentence and you've spent this time talking with me.

00:56:02.275 --> 00:56:06.304
It's lovely when you can turn one sentence into an hour of content.

00:56:06.304 --> 00:56:07.996
Brilliant, arnold.

00:56:07.996 --> 00:56:16.105
Thanks so much for coming in the podcast and we have more stuff to talk about which you're very well aware of and will do in the future.

00:56:16.105 --> 00:56:22.518
So looking forward to meeting you in person sooner than later, hopefully somewhere Somewhere.

00:56:22.518 --> 00:56:23.623
Thank you very much.

00:56:23.623 --> 00:56:25.581
Thanks, arnaud, and see you around.

00:56:25.581 --> 00:56:28.356
Hey, thanks for having me, and that's it.

00:56:28.356 --> 00:56:30.867
Is there even a need to wrap this up?

00:56:31.309 --> 00:56:41.978
I can just tell you that I've really spent a lot of time preparing for this interview to try and find as many angles on the subject of the discussion as I could.

00:56:41.978 --> 00:56:44.215
Arnold knew only the topic.

00:56:44.215 --> 00:56:51.422
I did not give him a chance to prepare, but I think he excelled in his opinions and I love that we've reached so many practical conclusions.

00:56:51.422 --> 00:56:57.001
I also knew and expected that from Arnold, that he's going to present a global point of view.

00:56:57.001 --> 00:57:01.842
This is not an episode about Great Britain or US.

00:57:01.842 --> 00:57:15.025
This was a global episode bringing experiences across the globe between the polish guy and australian guy in a principle, uh, which does not mean what we've said is not applicable to uk I.

00:57:15.025 --> 00:57:19.277
I think it's very, perhaps even more applicable to contexts like this.

00:57:19.277 --> 00:57:22.585
Of course, a bigger challenge, bigger challenge.

00:57:22.585 --> 00:57:30.327
But hey guys, we really have our best practices wrong in many spaces and we really don't use appropriate practices.

00:57:30.327 --> 00:57:47.317
And for many of our engineering projects in the developed countries, where you have all the money, you have all the technology, you have all the consultancy, all the tools you can dream of, and yet we're doing stupid things which are not appropriate for the context for which they're designed.

00:57:47.777 --> 00:57:53.659
I know I would be naive if I thought we can change this with you know podcast episode and just talking it over.

00:57:53.659 --> 00:57:55.583
I'm sure it's not that easy.

00:57:55.583 --> 00:57:58.876
It's a process, as I said in the episode.

00:57:58.876 --> 00:58:02.306
From my perspective, it requires changing the narrative at which we discuss.

00:58:02.306 --> 00:58:09.088
Otherwise the contents of the discussion are meaningless because it's hard to reach an agreement to establish a new status quo.

00:58:09.088 --> 00:58:22.590
But anyway, I believe that participating in discussions like this helps us growing and perhaps someone will end up in a position where they will have a true ability to shift the paradigms in their countries and make a big change.

00:58:22.795 --> 00:58:24.882
And if you do that, we would be super happy.

00:58:24.882 --> 00:58:38.626
We'd also be extremely happy with Arnold if you share your opinions with us, if you have an opinion about what is best practice, what's appropriate practice, if you share that with us, we would be delighted, and we invite you to this conversation with us.

00:58:38.626 --> 00:58:41.099
You know our state of mind.

00:58:41.099 --> 00:58:43.166
We're looking forward to learn yours.

00:58:43.166 --> 00:58:46.503
That will be it for today's Fire Science Show episode.

00:58:46.503 --> 00:58:47.826
Thank you for being here with me.

00:58:47.826 --> 00:58:57.844
Next week, next Wednesday, another Fire Science Show episode with another dose of fire science, and I hope you'll enjoy that dose as well.

00:58:57.844 --> 00:58:59.168
Thank you for being here with me.

00:58:59.168 --> 00:59:00.391
See you, bye.