Brisbane 2032: Creating lasting impact through transformative infrastructure
Aurecon shares insights on how the 2032 Brisbane Games can deliver legacy infrastructure and lasting economic, environmental and community value.
Change your location to view content tailored for you.
Often, the conversation between the lead architect and engineering team and the fire safety engineer is one of the last to be had. In my opinion it should be one of the first!
The reason for this is that, done well, fire safety engineering opens up so many design possibilities that the rest of the team may not have appreciated. Design teams so often constrain themselves by wrongly perceived building code compliance.
Fire safety engineering done poorly is passive and reactive, merely addressing problems that others bring. Fire safety engineering done well is seeking opportunity for better, safer design. Done well, fire safety can improve the overall design and amenity of the stadium.
You have to think about how the existing prescriptive codes have evolved. In a way, they arise as a result of ’codifying by catastrophe’. Historical adverse outcomes, such as loss of life in fire, are responded to (quite reasonably) by more onerous building regulations. But these regulations, built up over time, can become illogical for some types of buildings.
The English Green Guide (also known as The Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds) is a classic example of codifying by catastrophe as it was produced following the horrific Bradford and Hillsborough stadium disasters in the UK, in the 1980s.
Many building codes and regulations around the world initially evolved in the same way. Numerous modern building codes (including the Australian National Construction Code) recognise the limitations of a purely prescriptive approach and instead simply require a series of performance requirements be met.
A performance-based approach demonstrates fire safety.
This is where the expression ‘performance-based fire engineering’ emanates. As it would not be cost effective or sensible to adopt a different performance-based solution for every routine project and every fire safety system, there are also prescriptive clauses. In effect, this is a recipe book of measures that are ’deemed to satisfy’ the performance requirements.
The language of this is revealing. You can say that if you follow the prescriptive clauses, you are assuming that this gives you a safe building, because the codes are deemed to satisfy the performance codes. By comparison, a performance-based approach demonstrates fire safety.
Some people seem to think that adopting a performance-based approach is about cutting cost or getting away with things. In fact, it is about demonstrated, rather than assumed safety.
Apart from proving that the building design is safe, fire safety engineering offers:
Fire engineering has only existed in any significant form since the 1980s. Part of the reason is that fire engineering is heavily reliant on computing power and software tools.
Another part of the reason is the gradual worldwide trend away from building approval by local government and towards more uniform, performance-based codes. This is a good thing because local authorities sometimes don’t have the capability to deal with large complex projects.
The main issue is the number of people and their behaviour. The fire safety strategy in a stadium should be considered from a behavioural perspective. There are also other significant issues:
Architectural flexibility – Following prescriptive codes would limit fire compartment sizes, requiring the architect to put walls and doors where they might not otherwise be desirable. It can lead to requirements for very large fire escape stairs.
Protection of steel – Steel structures are common in stadium design and they are also often comprised of very large steel sections. So, it doesn’t make sense to clad them in fire spray, because they are never going to fail. They just can’t get hot enough in a fire.
Escape paths – Populations in stadiums are high. If escape paths are calculated in the normal way, the perimeter of the stadium can be dominated by escape stairs and concourse widths can become excessive. A better way is to simulate egress flows using computational modelling and optimise the escape paths.
A significant issue is thinking about the behaviour of the occupants and designing the fire safety systems from there.
To the contrary, panic is not usually a problem. In general, people don’t panic. In fact, in a few situations a bit of panic would have improved things – like in the Bradford Stadium fire when people remained in their seats waiting for the game to restart, when they should have been evacuating.
In a fire emergency, most people go through four behavioural steps before they even begin to evacuate:
For example, on an event day, the venue might have 52,000 patrons and 400 casual staff including about 50 back-of-house, 40-50 media, 150 catering and 150 people concerned with ticketing and ushering. The number of permanent venue staff could be as few as 20.
Therefore, it was considered safest and most efficient if the event manager controls a fire situation with as few people as possible as per the below procedure:
Fire and smoke simulation tools such as computational fluid dynamics (CFD) help predict how big a fire might become, how much smoke is generated and where the smoke and heat might go.
Pedestrian movement simulation helps design evacuation routes in an effective way. Sometimes this is counter intuitive. At RAC Arena, in Perth, Australia, we reduced the width of the corridors out of the bowl, to improve the egress time. This might sound odd, but reducing the rate that patrons entered the concourses improved the flow on the concourses, so the overall egress time was better. The image below is from that work.
Fire safety engineering is a great driver of design innovation in stadiums, if the thinking that goes with it can be employed at the earliest design stages of a project. Allowing the architects and structural engineers more freedom to design, by giving good advice as to what is possible and sensible is a key benefit.
The best fire engineering takes a good understanding of how people behave, how fires behave in large volumes and then using this understanding to look for both threats and opportunities in the unique building form that is sports stadiums.

Design Director – APAC