Ralph Bless, Executive Vice President of Innovation & Excellence at Telgian Engineering & Consulting, shares insights into how engineering can shift fire safety from compliance to risk-led thinking
Industry leaders pushing for more meaningful testing protocols and a sharper focus on managing actual risk – chief among them is Ralph Bless, Executive Vice President of Innovation & Excellence at Telgian Engineering & Consulting.
Bless has been in the fire protection industry for over 43 years, beginning in sprinkler system design before moving into code consulting and engineering.
He is a licensed engineer in six states, holds multiple certifications and sits on six NFPA technical committees – currently chairing three, including NFPA 13’s Installation (SSI).
Now managing Telgian’s fire test program, he oversees all large- and medium-scale testing.
Drawing on decades of experience, including 26 years at Telgian, Bless shares how the industry can shift from a compliance-based mindset to one grounded in real-world performance and risk awareness.
In this interview, we discuss why fire testing methods need to change, how advocacy influences standards and what role engineering has in helping clients make better-informed safety decisions.
What types of clients or sectors does your team typically support in fire protection engineering?
It’s a wide range – commercial, retail, supply chain, warehousing, healthcare and some utility infrastructure, mainly power plants and similar facilities.
We also support governmental clients.
For testing, the primary focus has been on manufacturing, storage and retail.
While testing is an important part of our work, it’s actually a relatively small part in terms of revenue and overall effort.
Testing for our clients tends to be targeted on those cases that can affect one very large project or multiple sites..
Most of our testing is done at UL’s lab in Northbrook, Illinois, near Chicago, but we also test globally.
I have tests scheduled in China next month, we’re planning for Europe next year and we’re working on setting up our first test in Japan.
How would you describe the current state of fire testing within the industry?
I’d say there’s increased interest and use of fire testing across clients worldwide.
There’s growing recognition that many codes and standards are based on testing done 10 to 50 years ago and a lot has changed since then.
We wouldn’t use a 10-year-old phone today, let alone rely only on standards built on tests from 50 years ago.
While much of that data is still valid and works well for typical scenarios, technology, commodities and methods of storage and use has moved on.
We now have automated storage and retrieval systems, new healthcare setups and changes in how goods are delivered – often within hours.
That means packing more into smaller spaces and past testing doesn’t always reflect that.
One major challenge is access to nationally recognised labs that have the space, time and expertise to do the testing.
We currently test about half the year – somewhere between 20 and 25 weeks annually.
This year, we’ll probably hit 24, maybe even 26 weeks, depending on whether we can find lab space.
That’s a real issue – we’re not the only ones trying to run tests.
Where do you think current testing methods fall short in addressing real-world risk?
One of the positives with lab testing is that you can test exactly what you want – how you plan to use a space.
That’s great, but it takes time.
It can take three to nine months just to develop the test plan, agree on the scope and secure lab space.
A big challenge is limited access to labs.
Not many new labs are being built and the ones we have are getting older.
Most aren’t as tall as needed.
We’re designing buildings that are 30 meters or more – 45 meters is the tallest I’ve worked on – but most labs are capped at 15 to 20 meters.
So you have to find ways to simulate those conditions.
Lab space is one issue and having people with experience – both in the lab and on your team – is another.
You need people who understand the testing process and can guide you through it.
One of the biggest mistakes I’ve seen is clients rushing into tests without a clear plan.
Some come to us after the fact because they didn’t know what they were trying to learn or how to use the results.
You need to ask: What are the benefits, what are the risks and how will I use this data, even if the outcome isn’t what I expected?
What does a risk-informed approach to fire protection mean in practice?
When I think about a risk-based approach to fire protection, I reflect on how most systems – sprinklers, alarms – are designed using prescriptive methods.
You open a code, a standard, or a data sheet and follow what it says.
But that’s not truly assessing risk.
A risk-based approach asks: where is the fire most likely to start and where should the sprinklers go to ensure early activation and control – not because that’s what the code says, but because it’s the most effective placement.
It’s about using the tools we have and understanding how the facility operates, so we can apply risk management methods in a meaningful way.
You need to prioritise protection based on the highest risks.
Some areas have minimal fire risk or limited operational impact.
A small corner store fire is serious, but it likely won’t affect the wider community.
But a fire in a hospital or utility could disrupt services for thousands.
That’s why the risk context matters.
We use Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) modelling to evaluate sprinkler placement and large-scale testing to validate those models.
The models have improved over the past 10–15 years, but they’re still not enough on their own.
You can’t yet rely on a model to predict how a fire will behave and be suppressed.
You still need real-world proof.
Lastly, risk-based protection requires continuous improvement.
Countless customers we’ve worked with on fire testing have returned with new innovations.
These companies want faster throughput, more compact storage and larger buildings.
All of that changes the original assumptions, which brings them back to testing again – to verify protection and reduce business interruption.
You can meet code with a prescriptive system, but that doesn’t always mean you’ve reduced risk the way you need to.
In what ways does advocacy play a part in improving fire safety standards?
Advocacy is huge.
Most of our clients are in industries that have nothing to do with fire protection – healthcare, retail distribution, manufacturing.
Their core business isn’t fire safety, but every business has a risk appetite.
Some are willing to take more risk, others are more cautious.
To advocate effectively – for the client and for the community – you first have to understand where the client is coming from and explain the benefits in clear terms.
For example, I can say: if there’s an incident, reopening this building might take six months.
But if you do it right, it might only take three or four days.
That kind of impact matters to both the business and the community.
We can reduce the size of the fire, the risk to emergency responders and the impact to the business.
In allowing the business to return to functioning quicker, the community can still be served by the business.
Advocacy happens in two parts.
First, with the client – building a relationship, helping them understand their risks and showing how fire protection helps meet their business goals.
Then, once we’ve done the testing and have results, we advocate to the broader community – explaining why our approach, even if different from the code, is appropriate and more effective.
One example comes from sprinkler design.
Codes are written around either controlling or suppressing a fire – not extinguishing it.
Control means the fire holds steady until the fire department arrives.
Suppression reduces it, but doesn’t fully put the fire out.
Extinguishment goes beyond that and although it’s not a design requirement, interest in it is growing.
Advocacy matters – not just for the client, but also to show the community that doing something beyond the code can make a real difference.
How can building owners or facility managers better use fire testing data in their risk decisions?
First, they need to start using it.
There’s growing interest, but many don’t realise this is even an option.
Every building code, fire code and standard I’ve worked with around the world allows for fire testing.
They need to understand where the value is and how to engage with the process.
It starts with recognising their specific risks.
Then they need to ask: how is what I’m doing different from the current standard and how can I improve protection? This ties back to the earlier risk question – just because a system is code compliant doesn’t mean it meets your risk appetite.
A code-compliant system might mean you lose everything inside the building, but the structure stays intact.
That might be acceptable in some temporary-use cases, but for most facilities we work with, that level of risk – even if technically compliant – isn’t really acceptable.
