Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Structure and Evaluation of the Process for Origin Determination in Compartment Fires

  • Published:
Fire Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 17 October 2016

Abstract

The science behind the formation of fire patterns and their ensuing use in the forensic analysis of fire scenes has been questioned since their introduction in the 1940s. This paper provides an overview of a prototype method for determining the area of origin based on fire patterns analysis, named the process for origin determination (POD). The POD is a seven step reasoning process for evaluating fire damage, which starts by identifying the value in further analysis of each surface and compartment of a structure and then procedurally evaluates each surface for use within the overall determination. This paper outlines the application of the POD with test subjects and presents an analysis of the outcomes showing its benefits. To facilitate testing the POD, numerical simulations and physical experiments were employed. The numerical simulations were completed through the use of fire dynamics simulator simulating a single compartment measuring 3.66 m × 3.66 m × 2.44 m with a single ventilation opening. The physical experiments were tests conducted specifically for fire patterns where accuracy rates had been previously identified in the literature. Sixty test subjects participated in the evaluation of thirty-two different origin scenarios. A decrease in variability, which indicates an increase in reliability, was noted in 21 of the 32 scenarios (66%) when participants used the POD. Three accuracy measurements were employed, all three of which illustrated an increase in accuracy when participants used the POD. The accuracy was shown to increase between 50% and 94% when participants used the POD.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Rethoret H (1945) Fire investigations. Recording and Statistical Corp, Ltd., Carleton Place

    Google Scholar 

  2. NFPA 921 (2014) Guide for fire and explosion investigation. National Fire Protection Association, Quincy

  3. Gorbett GE, Meacham BJ, Wood CB, Dembsey NA (2015) Use of damage in fire investigation: a review of fire patterns analysis, research and future direction. Fire Sci Rev 4:1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. National Academy of Science (2009) Strenthening forensic science in the United States: a path forward. National Research Council, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  5. Gorbett G (2015) Development and assessment of a decision support framework for enhancing the forensic analysis and interpretation of fire patterns. Dissertation, Worcester Polytechnic Institute

  6. Gorbett GE, Morris S, Meacham BJ, Wood CB (2014) A new method for the characterization of the degree of fire damage to gypsum wallboard for use in fire investigations. J Forensic Sci. doi:10.1111/1556-4029.12616

    Google Scholar 

  7. Mealy C, Gottuk D (2012) A study of calcination of gypsum wallboard. paper presented at the international symposium on fire investigations. Investigations Institute

  8. Mann D, Putaansuu N (2010) Studies of the dehydration/calcination of gypsum wall board. International Association of Arson Investigators 61:38–44

  9. Ngu C (2004) Calcination of gypsum plasterboard under fire exposure. Dissertation, University of Canterbury

  10. Riahi S (2012) Development of tools for smoke residue and deposition analysis. NIJ Grant No. 2007-DN-BX-K236. Department of Justice

  11. Riahi S, Beyler C (2011) Measurement and prediction of smoke depsoition from a fire against a wall. Fire Safety Sci 10:641–654

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Riahi S, Beyler C, Hartman J (2013) Wall smoke deposition from a hot smoke layer. Fire Technol 49:395–409. doi:10.1007/s10694-012-0273-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Taroni F, Aitken C, Garbolino P, Biedermann A (2006) Bayesian networks and probabilistic inference in forensic science. Wiley, West Sussex

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Babrauskas, V. (1980). Estimating room flashover potential. Fire Technol 16(2):95–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. McCaffrey B, Quintiere J, Harkleroad M (1981) Estimating room temperature and likelihood of flashover using fire test data correlation. Fire Technol 17(2):98–119. doi:10.1007/BF02993495

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Thomas P (1981) Testing products and materials for their contribution to flashover in rooms. Fire Mater 5(3):103–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Carman S (2008) Burn pattern development in post-flashover fires. International symposium on fire investigation science and technology

  18. Oullette J (2008) ATF FRL fire test report 3589, 3593, 3595. ATF, Ammendale

  19. Tinsley A, Gorbett G (2012) Fire investigation origin determination survey. Fire Arson Invest J IAAI 63(4):24–40

    Google Scholar 

  20. Qualtrics, Version 40829, Copyright © 2013, Qualtrics Labs, Inc., Provo

  21. Smith S (2013) 4 ways to ensure valid responses for your online survey [Web Log Comment]. Retrieved from http://www.qualtrics.com/blog/online-survey-valid-responses/

  22. Giannelli P (1980) The admissibility of novel scientific evidence: Frye v. United States. A half-century later. Columbia Law Rev 80:1197–1250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Upton G (1992) Fisher’s exact test. J Roy Stat Soc 155(3):395–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Conover W, Iman R (1981) Rank transformations as a bridge between parametric and nonparametric statistics. Am Stat 35(3):124–129

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. McGrattan K, McDermott R, Weinschenk C, Overholt K, Hostikka S, Floyd J (2013) Fire dynamics simulator technical reference guide volume 3: validation. NIST Special Publication 1018, 6th edition

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Fire Protection Engineering, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, 100 Institute Road, Worcester, MA, 01609, USA

    Gregory E. Gorbett, Brian J. Meacham, Christopher B. Wood & Nicholas A. Dembsey

  2. Department of Fire Protection and Paramedicine Sciences, Fire, Arson, and Explosion Investigation Program, Eastern Kentucky University, 521 Lancaster Avenue, Richmond, KY, 40475, USA

    Gregory E. Gorbett

  3. FireLink, LLC, 1501 Main Street, Suite 17, Tewksbury, MA, 01876, USA

    Christopher B. Wood

Authors
  1. Gregory E. Gorbett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Brian J. Meacham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christopher B. Wood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nicholas A. Dembsey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gregory E. Gorbett.

Additional information

An erratum to this article is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10694-016-0626-y.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gorbett, G.E., Meacham, B.J., Wood, C.B. et al. Structure and Evaluation of the Process for Origin Determination in Compartment Fires. Fire Technol 53, 301–327 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-015-0553-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-015-0553-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation