# Stage fire in Barcelona



## JohnD (Jul 29, 2017)

Large EDM event in Spain was evacuated. Crowd of 22,000 involved, only minor health issues. 
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4128984/tomorrowland-unite-festival-barcelona-fire-stage/


----------



## gafftaper (Jul 29, 2017)

Early speculation is Pyro overheated something. Lots of video of it out there. It's amazing that a lot of people didn't get hurt but so far everyone is apparently fine. 

https://www.google.com/amp/www.tele...orrowland-music-festival-barcelona-stage/amp/


----------



## gafftaper (Jul 29, 2017)

Multiple videos compiled together


----------



## ruinexplorer (Jul 29, 2017)

At least everyone got out safe.


----------



## JohnD (Jul 29, 2017)

Several interesting comments at ProSoundWeb forums about this:
http://forums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/topic,164322.0.html
Within seconds, the screens had safety warnings replacing original content.
The stage seems to have been properly built since it didn't collapse despite the intensity of the fire.

I also found it interesting that the earliest reports from Europe mentioned that the fire was on the left side of the stage, Thats Stage Left.


----------



## MNicolai (Jul 30, 2017)

This video shows the early stages of the fire pretty well.



Looks like they let the music keep rolling for a little while longer than they probably should have when it became apparent the portal was on fire.


----------



## Les (Jul 30, 2017)

I feel an unhealthy amount of empathy for that poor moving head at 1:25.


----------



## EdSavoie (Jul 31, 2017)

Wow. That certainly escalated quickly.

I think the next Tomorrowland will likely include piping for a fire suppression system... 

Glad nobody was hurt, a crowd that large mixed with alcohol and an emergency could have ended very badly.


----------



## Tom Andrews (Jul 31, 2017)

From the flaming pieces dropping from the fire at the very start and then continuing, it looks like some type of foam that caught fire. If that's the case, it's too bad that they either didn't use fire retardant foam (refer to articles about Grenfell apt. tower in London) or sufficiently encapsulate the foam with a fire retardant that has a sufficient thermal barrier. Once fire burns through the flame retardant exterior layer, the flammable foam underneath is exposed, which will then burn freely. So, while a fire suppression system is a good idea, starting with less flammable items is good practice. In most places, it's legally mandated, but in outdoor events, things can start to get a bit slack in terms of enforcement and strict rule interpretation. Generally, the EU is stricter with fire regulations than the US.


----------



## MNicolai (Jul 31, 2017)




----------



## EdSavoie (Jul 31, 2017)

Good to see the fire-fighters got it under control rather quickly. That doesn't look like terribly much more damage than when the video ended.


----------



## SteveB (Jul 31, 2017)

Tom Andrews said:


> Generally, the EU is stricter with fire regulations than the US.



Some of the EU. The UK, in a effort to relax the burdens on business, changed the requirement on the types of cladding that could be used on the exterior of buildings, thus the Glenfell disaster. The US actually has stronger laws about this stuff.

Not much of this is pertinent to the Barcelona fire as that's an exterior theatrical event that I would expect would have much different code requirements.


----------



## Tom Andrews (Jul 31, 2017)

Thanks for the tidbit about the change in requirements on cladding! That hasn't been presented in the news here in the US, that I've seen.
The reference to Glenfell was more to give an idea of what happens when foam burns. 

Requirements for flame resistance in the US aren't that much different between outdoors and indoors. Amongst other outdoor events, I worked on the Electric Daisy Festival in NYC last year, which is a similar type of event to Tomorrowland. Everything needs to pass NFPA 701, even outdoors. I don't know current EU code specifically for outdoor events in Spain, or where the EU Fire Code adoption process is at. I believe the UK requires similar to US certification for theatrical elements, even outdoors. We've been asked to provide certification to meet BS for both indoor and outdoor shows.


----------



## Van (Aug 1, 2017)

I built a project that went into Wynn Casino in Macao. I was ASTOUNDED at the Fire retardant regulations and certifications I had to provide the Chinese government.


----------



## gafftaper (Aug 1, 2017)

Seeing the aftermath picture I'm really impressed at the quality of truss and construction. They may have gone cheap on the fire retardant, but that structure was built right and may have saved lives in the process. So they got one thign right.


----------



## MNicolai (Aug 1, 2017)

gafftaper said:


> Seeing the aftermath picture I'm really impressed at the quality of truss construction. They may have gone cheap on the fire retardant, but that structure was built right and may have saved lives in the process. So they got one thign right.



Shame they'll probably have to take a wrecking ball to it. Any equipment that's still in good condition won't be worth risking the lives of workers trying to dismantle it the same way it went up.


----------



## Van (Aug 2, 2017)

Just saw a Pyro guy, on Facebook, blaming a spotlight that was mounted too close to a back-lit screen.....Lot's of finger pointing.


----------



## Jay Ashworth (Aug 2, 2017)

Yeah; I'm seeing that going around too -- blaming it on a Sharpy overheating something "because it was closer than 40' away".

I'm not actually supposed to believe Sharpy's can set fires within 40 feet, right?

I mean, Clay Paky are great people, and all, but...


----------



## Van (Aug 2, 2017)

Jay Ashworth said:


> Yeah; I'm seeing that going around too -- blaming it on a Sharpy overheating something "because it was closer than 40' away".
> 
> I'm not actually supposed to believe Sharpy's can set fires within 40 feet, right?
> 
> I mean, Clay Paky are great people, and all, but...


And, as I state on FB whether the Sharpy or pyro started it completely misses the point that once ignited the 'fire' should have self extinguished.


----------



## MNicolai (Aug 2, 2017)

Jay Ashworth said:


> I'm not actually supposed to believe Sharpy's can set fires within 40 feet, right?



More likely to smolder/melt something than to spark a flame. Also very unlikely to be left on and pointed at the same spot long enough during the middle of a show. Now if it was during setup and someone distracted the board op while they were updating focus palettes and one or a few of those fixtures was beaming directly at a bit of pyro nearby for an extended period, that might sound more plausible. I don't think that kind of perfect storm would exist during the middle of a show though, or that someone would manage to park their pyro that close to a heat source.


Van said:


> And, as I state on FB whether the Sharpy or pyro started it completely misses the point that once ignited the 'fire' should have self extinguished.



That's more interesting to me than what the cause of ignition was. That fire was self sustaining. With pyro involved, that all should've been built of out of non-combustible or flame retarded materials regardless of regulations or being an outdoor venue.


----------



## EdSavoie (Aug 2, 2017)

Those lights certainly wouldn't be pointed in the same spot very long. The "blasphemous" EDM music of my generation being generally as fast and upbeat as it is would have those zipping around all over the place before anything got warm*

*Aside from the motors / fixtures themselves, those would get rather hot.


----------



## Tom Andrews (Aug 3, 2017)

Van said:


> I built a project that went into Wynn Casino in Macao. I was ASTOUNDED at the Fire retardant regulations and certifications I had to provide the Chinese government.


That's interesting. I worked on a Cirque du Soleil show in Macau in 2008. Costumes near pyro. Some of the soft goods, not all of them. Cirque told me they were being cautious, and that Macau didn't make them do much or provide much by way of flame retardant treatment and documentation. The local people on the show were nice and very conscientious, and very much into treating and testing.


----------



## Tom Andrews (Aug 3, 2017)

MNicolai said:


> That's more interesting to me than what the cause of ignition was. That fire was self sustaining. With pyro involved, that all should've been built of out of non-combustible or flame retarded materials regardless of regulations or being an outdoor venue.



Well, I believe they should have been non-combustible or flame retardant "in compliance with" regulations, as well as 'regardless of'. They were neither.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Aug 3, 2017)

I'm wondering if the tests used to determine flame retardancy are even near the temperatures and pressures of pyro. 

And then I recall the CEO of one of the legacy building code organizations and a very fine fire protection engineer referring to flame retardant treatments as one of the biggest frauds in codes.


----------



## Tom Andrews (Aug 3, 2017)

It doesn't matter what the ignition temperature is. The goal is to keep items from continuing to burn on their own, that they are 'flame retardant': Pyro is a very intermittent heat and flame effect, compared to tests that materials are subjected to, which, depending on use, are either 45 seconds sustained flame, 10 minutes, and 30 minutes. FYI, the flame temperature of most of these tests are in the +/-3500F range. Some tests require a closed oven to increase the surrounding air to 1000F, with ample new air brought in to sustain the fire. There are thermo sensors within the testing unit to verify temperature. Seems somewhat higher than the outdoor, flowing air of this event, and the non-sustained temperature exposure of the pyro.

With that in mind, lab tests are not real world situations. In this situation, it seems that a lab test would maybe have been more rigorous.

Also, US codes for flame resistance aren't proscriptive any more, meaning they don't say 'items need to be flame retardant treated'. They say 'items need to meet these particular fire tests and specifications', and how you get there is not dictated by code. 

The biggest issue in my experience with flame retardant treatments is that people use them improperly for things that the FR chemicals are not designed and tested for. Like today, people wanted to apply a flame retardant designed for polyester fabrics onto urethane foam that's applied to a wall. They not only have a mismatch in the FR chemical design vs. application, they also have the a mismatch in what testing and item usage the chemical had been tested to meet.


----------



## JohnD (Aug 3, 2017)

Something of a swerve but....
Long ago food service locations usually had wood topped tables and used wood cutting boards. Then solid surface cutting boards came into play. The NSF quickly adopted that as the desired standard. A food service professor at a university in I think Wisconsin decided to do some tests to come up with a stop gap measure to provide the best way to clean wooden cutting boards for smaller institutions who couldn't afford to change right away. His first test run was he thought a total disaster, 
So he re tried his experiment several times. Still didn't give him the desired results. He found that wooden cutting boards PROPERLY scrubbed and sanitized were actually more sanitary than the solid surface ones. He thought it probably had something to do with the cellular structure of the materials. Wood has an open structure while the solid surface materials didn't allowing bacteria in the tiny crevices (from knife cuts) to live longer. Nowadays, the NSF suggests color-coded cutting boards that can be run a sanitizing dish machine. The board you use for fish is never used for chopping veggies.


----------



## JerseyMatt (Aug 15, 2017)

I have heard that also. It has something to do with the absorbent properties of the wood grain in hardwoods. However todays recommendation is bamboo. It's less absorbent than wood, less susceptible to grooving than both wood and plastic, and less dulling on the knife than plastic.


----------

