A Comparison of Three Models for the Simulation of Accidental Fires

The assumptions and the results of applying three fire modeling approaches to study three accidental fires that occurred in single-family dwellings, are presented in this work. The modeling approaches used are: a simplified analytical model of fire growth, a zone model (CFAST) and a field model (FDS). The fires predicted are: a house fire of suspected initial location but of unknown ignition source, a small-apartment fire initiated by the ignition of a sofa which extinguished due to oxygen depletion, and a one-story house fire started by a malfunctioning gas heater. The input to each model has been kept as independent as possible from the other models while consistent with the forensic evidences. The predictions from the models of the fires’ characteristics are analyzed in the context of the forensic evidences for each accidental fire to compare the models’ predictive capabilities. It is found that in spite of the differences in the sophistication of these three modeling approaches, the results were in relatively good agreement, particularly in the early stages of the fire. Simpler models can be used as a first step towards less approximate modelling or to confirm the order of magnitude of the results from more complex models. The results of this work can be used to reach conclusions about the complexity of the model required to describe a particular fire scenario.

[1]  Glenn P. Forney,et al.  Fire dynamics simulator (version 3) :: user's guide , 2002 .

[2]  R S Alger,et al.  SHIP FIRE CHARACTERISTICS. PART 1. SEALED COMPARTMENTS , 1976 .

[3]  Glenn P. Forney,et al.  User's Guide for Smokeview Version 4.0 - A Tool for Visualizing Fire Dynamics Simulation Data | NIST , 2004 .

[4]  A. Carlos Fernandez-Pello,et al.  Fire initiation and spread in overloaded communication system cable trays , 2000 .

[5]  Yaping He,et al.  Application of Field Model and Two-zone Model to Flashover Fires in a Full-scale Multi-room Single Level Building , 1997 .

[6]  Kevin B. McGrattan,et al.  Simulating the Fires in the World Trade Center , 2004 .

[7]  Vb Novozhilov,et al.  Computational fluid dynamics modeling of compartment fires , 2001 .

[8]  G. Cox,et al.  Field Modelling of Fire in Forced Ventilated Enclosures , 1987 .

[9]  Forman A. Williams,et al.  Upward Turbulent Flame Spread on Wood Under External Radiation , 1985 .

[10]  Thomas G. Cleary,et al.  Particulate Entry Lag In Spot-type Smoke Detectors , 2000 .

[11]  Glenn P. Forney,et al.  User's Guide for Smokeview Version 3.1 - A Tool for Visualizing Fire Dynamics Simulation Data , 2000 .

[12]  R. B. Williamson,et al.  Compartment fire experiments: Comparison with models , 1995 .

[13]  James R. Lawson,et al.  Slide rule estimates of Fire Growth , 1985 .

[14]  D W. Stroup,et al.  Fire Tests of Men's Suits on Racks. Report of Test (FR 4013) | NIST , 2001 .

[15]  Santosh Kumar,et al.  Fire modelling and the King's cross fire investigation , 1989 .

[16]  Jason Floyd,et al.  Comparison of CFAST and FDS for Fire Simulation With the HDR T51 and T52 Tests , 2002 .

[17]  Henri E Mitler,et al.  Users' guide to FIRST, a comprehensive single-room fire model , 1987 .

[18]  A. Tewarson Generation of Heat and Chemical Compounds in Fires , 2002 .

[19]  Glenn P. Forney,et al.  A user's guide for FAST :: engineering tools for estimating fire growth and smoke transport , 1997 .

[20]  Douglas J. Carpenter,et al.  An Updated International Survey of Computer Models for Fire and Smoke , 2003 .

[21]  Michael L. Begeman,et al.  The right tool for the job , 1988 .

[22]  Howard W. Emmons Why fire model? The MGM fire and toxicity testing , 1988 .

[23]  Michael A. Delichatsios,et al.  Air entrainment into buoyant jet flames and pool fires , 1987 .