Modelling the Growth Phase of

Dalmarnock Fire Test One

Guillermo Rein
Wolfram Jahn
Jose L. Torero
University of Edinburgh

Fire and Materials 2011

 Fire Modelling is ubiquitous

Fire modelling is used
frequently in fire
safety engineering

What: Ignition, Flame, Plume,

Smoke, Spread, Visibility, Toxicity,
Extinction…

Where: Live safety, Structural

behaviour, Performance based
Design, Forensics, Risk analysis, …
 Dalmarnock Round Robin, 2006

Validation and comparison to experiments is a hot
topic since 1980. This is an ongoing debate.

As the field advances, progressively more mature
topics are discussed

a Priori vs. a Posteriori

Edinburgh conducted in 2006 fire tests in a real high-
rise building, Dalmarnock

Test One involved a typical residential fire scenario

Round-robin teams independently simulated the test
a priori using a common high-level detail description
of the scenario
 Glasgow, Scotland
N

Abecassis-Empis et al., Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 32, 2008.

Dalmarnock - July 2006

Fire

Abecassis-Empis et al., Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 32, 2008.

 Compartment Test

Fuel load is ~ 32 kg/m2

of ‘equivalent wood’

Abecassis-Empis et al., Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 32, 2008.

 High Density Instrumentation
Deflection 10 Smoke
Gauges
20 Heat Flux Detectors 10 CCTV
8 Lasers Gauges

ENLARGE ENLARGE ENLARGE ENLARGE

14 Velocity
Probes
CCTV 270
Thermocouple
Abecassis-Empis et al., Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 32, 2008.
Average Compartment Temperature

Abecassis-Empis et al., Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 32, 2008.

Rein et al. Fire Safety Journal 44, 2009

Compartment Temperature

Stern-Gottfried et al., Fire Safety Journal 45, 2010.

Aftermath
Aftermath
"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
8x FDSv4 & 2x CFAST

Rein et al. Fire Safety Journal 44, 2009

 Hot Layer Avg. Temperature

Rein et al. Fire Safety Journal 44, 2009

 Conclusions

Large prediction scatter around measurements
(>>experimental error)

Growth phase: 20 to 500% error in avg. temperature
and 20 to 800% in local temperature

Main source of scatter is the excess in degrees of

freedom

Predictions of fire growth does not provide good results

“Complex” modelling scenario… but faced frequently

by fire services

Great opportunity for further research
 Degrees of Freedom

The excess in degrees of freedom has also been
termed “user effects” (ie. NIST)

Ill-defined and uncertain parameters that cannot be

rigorously and uniquely determined can lead to
doubt, 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)

 Fire Model vs. Fire Modelling
a Posteriori a Priori
Fire Model Fire Modelling
Code development and Engineering, Design and
Research Forensics
Minimum error range Maximum error?

This an ongoing debate

 A Posteriori Modelling

Simulations were conducted while having full access
to all the measurements

No previous fire simulation had this very large
amount of data available for comparison

Fire growth phase only - governed by sofa fire

HRR is unknown: can it be reconstructed?

Similar problem in accidental fires where the HRR is
unknown
 Improved Domain

using FDSv4
Jahn et al, 9th IAFSS Symp, 2008
 The Fire Source

Fist lab test did not take into account the blanket

Experiment repeated
 Ensemble of HHR curves
slow fire medium fire
 A Priori vs. A Posteriori
Hot Layer Temperature Predictions

A priori A posteriori
 CFD is 3D

Rack 7, next to ignition Rack 11, middle of room

Gas-phase Temperature Predictions
 A Posteriori Modelling

Realistic scenario frequently faced by fire services

Within upper and lower HRR bounds and after
adjusting uncertain parameters, level of agreement
reached with measurements is
 10 to 50% for average hot layer temperature
 20 to 200% for local temperatures

1. Drastic reduction of the uncertainty from a priori to a

posteriori (20-500% vs. 10-50%, and 20-800% vs. 20-200%)
2. Agreement is different for average than for local
measurements
3. When HRR is unknown, an assemble of possible HRR
can be considered and results reported as upper and
lower bounds
Thanks!
Research Sponsors:
 Grid Independence Study

10 cm was chosen
(<11 cm for plume resolution)
Jahn et al, 9th IAFSS Symp, 2008
Tests One and Two: Repeatability