Advantages and Disadvantages of Fire Modelling

Dr Guillermo Rein School of Engineering University of Edinburgh & Imperial College London

Dr Guillermo Rein

9 May 2012 Chief Fire Officers Association Annual Conference 2012 Comhdhil Bhliantil Chumann Phromh-Oifigigh Ditein 2012

Fire Modelling is ubiquitous

Fire modelling is now very common for most fire safety calculations On What? Ignition, Flame, Plume, Smoke, Spread, Visibility, Toxicity, Extinction For What? Live safety, Structural behaviour, Performance based Design, Forensic investigations, Risk, When used with caution, very powerful tool Very dangerous when miss-used

FDS is king
Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS) solves well all important fire mechanisms It is the most commonly used CFD model for fire applications, because:
1. 2. 3.

It is Free Its open source nature make it excellent for Research There are hundreds of Papers showing good results

This has led to: A critical mass of industry and academic users Approval of many key infrastructure projects by the sole use of FDS The impression that FDS is fully validated

Example from web

Hamins et al, Characterization of Candle Flames, Journal of Fire Protection Engineering 15, 2005

Example from web

Video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9024280504374819454#

Example from web

Video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4830080566059919470#

Prediction or Recreation?
The previous examples on fire modelling are remarkable But these were conducted after the experiments and after having access to the experimental data of the phenomena under simulation What would be the result if the simulations are conducted before the experiment instead of after? What is the difference between forecast, prediction and recreation? The following slides are the work of The University of Edinburgh investigating these questions since 2006

The need for Round-Robin Studies

In 2006, Edinburgh organized a Round-Robin study of fire modelling using the large-scale tests conducted in Dalmarnock. International pool of experts independently provide a priori predictions of Dalmarnock Fire Test One using a common set of information describing the scenario.

Dalmarnock Fires - July 2006

N

Abecassis-Empis et al., Characterisation of Dalmarnock Fire Test One, Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 32 (7), pp. 1334-1343, 2008.

Dalmarnock Fires - July 2006

Fire

Abecassis-Empis et al., Characterisation of Dalmarnock Fire Test One, Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 32 (7), pp. 1334-1343, 2008.

Flat Layout

Abecassis-Empis et al., Characterisation of Dalmarnock Fire Test One, Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 32 (7), pp. 1334-1343, 2008.

Fuel Load

Mixed livingroom/office space Fuel load is ~ 32 kg/m2 of equivalent wood Test set-up designed for robustness and high repeatability

Heavily Instrumented
Deflection Gauges 8 Lasers 20 Heat Flux Gauges 10 Smoke Detectors 10 CCTV

ENLARGE

ENLARGE

ENLARGE

ENLARGE

14 Velocity Probes

270 Thermocouple

Average Compartment Temperature

Abecassis-Empis et al., Characterisation of Dalmarnock Fire Test One, Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 32 (7), pp. 1334-1343, 2008.

Compartment Temperature

Stern-Gottfried et al., Fire Safety Journal 45, pp. 249261, 2010. doi:10.1016/j.firesaf.2010.03.007

Aftermath

Information given to Modelling Teams

Detailed geometry (plan and dimensions) Detailed fuel load (dimensions, locations, photographs, descriptions) Ventilation conditions (including breakage of one window) Photographs of set up in the compartment HRR of sofa as measured in the laboratory Information to be complimented by the teams decisions As in any other fire modelling work

Simulations
10 Submitted simulations: 8 Field Models (FDS v4) and 2 Zone models (CFAST v6) NOTE: teams were asked to forecast as accurately as possible and not to use safety factors or applied it to design purposes

Rein et al. Round-Robin Study of a priori Modelling Predictions of The Dalmarnock Fire Test One, Fire Safety Journal 44 (4) pp. 590-602, 2009

"I always avoid prophesying beforehand because it is much better to prophesy after the event has already taken place" Sir Winston Churchill, circa 1945

Results: Heat Release Rate

Rein et al. Fire Safety Journal 44 (4) pp. 590-602, 2009

Hot Layer Temperature

Hot Layer Height

Local Temperatures

Diversity of views diversity of Behaviours

Dalmarnock Conclusions
Real fire frequently faced by Fire and Rescue Services all around the world
Large scatter around the measurements (much larger than experimental error)

During the growth phase: 20 to 500% error in hot layer temperature. 20 to 800% in local temperatures
Inherent difficulties of predicting dynamics Fire modelling vs. the fire model (=painting vs. the brush)

Degrees of Freedom
The excess in degrees of freedom Ill-defined and uncertain parameters that cannot be rigorously and uniquely determined lead to errors, doubts, curve fitting and arbitrary value selection.

Give me four parameters, and I will draw an elephant for you; with five I will have him raise and lower his trunk and his tail Carl F Gauss (1777 1855)

Postmorten
General classification of input files yields these groups: Means to input/predict the HRR: 2 simulations used fully prescribed HRR (***) 7 simulations used partially prescribed HRR (**) 1 simulations used fully predicted HRR (*) Means to input the ignition source: 3 simulations used provided sofa HRR but extrapolated it (**) 5 simulations did not used provided sofa HHR but other (**) 1 simulation used provided sofa HRR as measured (*)

a Priori vs. a Posteriori

a Priori
Fire Modelling Safety, Design and Engineering Maximum error

a Posteriori
Fire Model Model development and Research Minimum error

a Posteriori of Dalmarnock
Simulations conducted after having full access to all the measurements
using FDSv4

Jahn et al, 9th IAFSS Symp, 2008

Grid Dependency

Jahn et al, Fire Safety Science 9, pp. 1341-1352, 2008. http://hdl.handle.net/1842/2696

Ensemble of HHR curves

slow fire medium fire

Local Temperature Predictions

A Priori vs. A Posteriori

Hot Layer Temperature Predictions

a priori

a posteriori

A Posteriori Modelling
When HRR is unknown, an assemble of possible HRR can be considered and results reported as upper and lower bounds A posteriori level of agreement reached with measurements is:

A priori was:

10 to 50% for average hot layer temperature 20 to 200% for local temperatures 20 to 500% for average hot layer temperature 20 to 800% for local temperatures

Drastic reduction of the uncertainty from a priori to a posteriori after adjusting uncertain parameters

Final Remarks
CFD is a cost effective and powerful tool but potentially misleading Parameter values used can be as important as the mathematical model used Fire modelling is one decade behind empirical knowledge

What to ask from a fire modelling study

1. 2. 3. 4.

Sensitivity to other parameter values? Can results be confirmed by alternative means? Validated model & modeller for similar scenarios? Ask for 3rd party review from experts

Example
Application of FDS in large compartments to study smoke movement The scenario can be compared to analytical solutions, thus allowing for an informed grid selection Also, experiments are available to the same scenario so validation and checking for order of magnitude is possible

A Simple yet Meaningful Fire Scenario

Cubic enclosure of sides 20 m long Scenario related to smoke movement and life safety in atria Pool fires in the range from 1 to 3 MW (measured mass loss rate)

Gutirrez-Montes, Experimental Data and Numerical Modelling of 1.3 and 2.3 MW Fires in a 20 m Cubic Atrium, Building and Environment 44, pp. 18271839, 2009

20-m Cubic Enclosure

Gutirrez-Montes, Experimental Data and Numerical Modelling of 1.3 and 2.3 MW Fires in a 20 m Cubic Atrium, Building and Environment 44, pp. 18271839, 2009

Grid effects vs. Plume Theory

1.3 MW fire

2.3 MW fire

Gutirrez-Montes, Experimental Data and Numerical Modelling of 1.3 and 2.3 MW Fires in a 20 m Cubic Atrium, Building and Environment 44, pp. 18271839, 2009

2006 Murcia Fire Tests in a 20-m cube

Gutirrez-Montes, Experimental Data and Numerical Modelling of 1.3 and 2.3 MW Fires in a 20 m Cubic Atrium, Building and Environment 44, pp. 18271839, 2009

Experiments vs. Modelling: Plume Temperature

for a 1.3 MW fire
height of 4.5 m height of 8.5 m

height of 12.5 m

height of 20 m

Gutirrez-Montes, Experimental Data and Numerical Modelling of 1.3 and 2.3 MW Fires in a 20 m Cubic Atrium, Building and Environment 44, pp. 18271839, 2009

Experiments vs. Modelling: Temperature near the walls

height of 15 m height of 10 m

for a 1.3 MW fire

height of 5 m

Gutirrez-Montes, Experimental Data and Numerical Modelling of 1.3 and 2.3 MW Fires in a 20 m Cubic Atrium, Building and Environment 44, pp. 18271839, 2009

Conclusions
Sensitivity to reasonable grid sizes shows numerical uncertainly range Grid chosen based on analytical solution (~confirmation via alternative means) HRR curve is known we do not predict this but implement it as input Results show predictions improved with distance from flames Gas and wall temperatures in the far field are much better than in the near field

Thanks!
Villemard, 1910, National Library of France

Paleofuture: prediction made in 1900 of the fire-fighting of the year 2000

What to ask of a CFD study

1.

Grid independence study? Time step independence study? Boundary independence study? Sensitivity to Parameters? The results have been confirmed by alternative means (calculation and/or experiments)? Validation of the code and users in similar scenarios?

2.

3.

4.

5.

Aftermath

Tests One and Two: Repeatability