The concept of validation of numerical models for consequence analysis

Abstract Numerical models such as computational fluid dynamics (CFD) models are increasingly used in life safety studies and other types of analyses to calculate the effects of fire and explosions. The validity of these models is usually established by benchmark testing. This is done to quantitatively measure the agreement between the predictions provided by the model and the real world represented by observations in experiments. This approach assumes that all variables in the real world relevant for the specific study are adequately measured in the experiments and in the predictions made by the model. In this paper the various definitions of validation for CFD models used for hazard prediction are investigated to assess their implication for consequence analysis in a design phase. In other words, how is uncertainty in the prediction of future events reflected in the validation process? The sources of uncertainty are viewed from the perspective of the safety engineer. An example of the use of a CFD model is included to illustrate the assumptions the analyst must make and how these affect the prediction made by the model. The assessments presented in this paper are based on a review of standards and best practice guides for CFD modeling and the documentation from two existing CFD programs. Our main thrust has been to assess how validation work is performed and communicated in practice. We conclude that the concept of validation adopted for numerical models is adequate in terms of model performance. However, it does not address the main sources of uncertainty from the perspective of the safety engineer. Uncertainty in the input quantities describing future events, which are determined by the model user, outweighs the inaccuracies in the model as reported in validation studies.

[1]  C. Gutiérrez-Montes,et al.  Numerical model and validation experiments of atrium enclosure fire in a new fire test facility , 2008 .

[2]  Mathieu Ichard,et al.  Validation of FLACS against experimental data sets from the model evaluation database for LNG vapor dispersion , 2010 .

[3]  Peter Hinze,et al.  Using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) for blast wave predictions , 2010 .

[4]  George Hadjisophocleous,et al.  Guidelines for the use of CFD simulations for fire and smoke modeling , 2005 .

[5]  Anders Björklund,et al.  Risks in using CFD-codes for analytical fire-based design in buildings with a focus on FDS:s handling of under-ventilated fires , 2009 .

[6]  M. Heitsch,et al.  An inter-comparison exercise on the capabilities of CFD models to predict the short and long term distribution and mixing of hydrogen in a garage , 2009 .

[7]  Yaman Barlas,et al.  Philosophical roots of model validation: Two paradigms , 1990 .

[8]  Prankul Middha,et al.  Using computational fluid dynamics as a tool for hydrogen safety studies , 2009 .

[9]  J. Tinsley Oden,et al.  Verification and validation in computational engineering and science: basic concepts , 2004 .

[10]  Alan N. Beard Fire models and design , 1997 .

[11]  Guillermo Rein,et al.  Round-robin study of a priori modelling predictions of the Dalmarnock Fire Test One , 2009 .

[12]  James G. Quintiere,et al.  Flow induced by fire in a compartment , 1982 .

[13]  Alan N. Beard Requirements for acceptable model use , 2005 .

[14]  Prankul Middha,et al.  CFD calculations of gas leak dispersion and subsequent gas explosions: validation against ignited impinging hydrogen jet experiments. , 2010, Journal of hazardous materials.

[15]  Guillermo Rein,et al.  Experimental data and numerical modelling of 1.3 and 2.3 MW fires in a 20 m cubic atrium , 2009 .

[16]  Glenn P. Forney,et al.  Fire Dynamics Simulator (Version 2) -- Technical Reference Guide | NIST , 2001 .

[17]  G. G. Back,et al.  Water Spray Protection of Machinery Spaces , 2001 .

[18]  Kevin B. McGrattan,et al.  Fire Dynamics Simulator (Version 5): User's Guide , 2007 .

[19]  Alan N. Beard On a priori,. blind and open comparisons between theory and experiment , 2000 .

[20]  Kevin B. McGrattan,et al.  Fire dynamics simulator (ver-sion 3) technical reference guide , 2001 .

[21]  Ove Njå,et al.  The concept of validation in performance-based fire safety engineering , 2013 .