Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry

, Volume 113, Issue 2, pp 641–648 | Cite as

Using thermal analysis experiment and Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS) to reconstruct an arson fire scene

  • Jen-Hao ChiEmail author


PU foam samples which had caused fire to spread in an actual arson case were collected for thermal analysis experiments. The experiments were conducted at three different heating rates to obtain thermal reaction parameters including ~3,518.23–5,127.81 J g−1 of heat release at temperatures between 395 and 433 °C. The thermal analysis data were treated as the input data for the Fire Dynamics Simulator program. Results of smoke layers falling in the simulation space were compared and verified with the heights of smoke traces at the actual fire scene to obtain heating rates which are close to the actual conditions for the reconstruction of the entire fire scene. In addition to serving as a reference for the investigation and reconstruction of other fire cases, these research findings can also increase the awareness of the harmful aspects of PU foam for fire prevention in the future.


PU foam Heating rate Thermal analysis experiment Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS) Arson fire Fire scene 

List of symbols


Characteristic fire diameter (m)


Total heat release rate (kW)


Specific heat (W s g−1 m−1)


Fire area available (m2)


Initial air density (kg m−3)


Initial temperature (K)


Gravitational acceleration (m s−2)


Size of a mesh cell (m)



During the study, Trans World University, Department of Environmental Resources Management, Prof. Sheng-Hung Wu provided valuable research data. His big help is truly appreciated.


  1. 1.
    Arson LC. From reporting to conviction. 2003 March Research bulletin No. 1. London: Arson Control Forum, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; 2003.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pert AD, Baron MG, Birkett JW. Review of analytical techniques for arson residues. J Forensic Sci. 2006;51(5):1033–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chi JH. Reconstruction of an inn fire scene using the Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS) program. J Forensic Sci. 2012. doi: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2012.02297.x.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chi JH. Metallographic analysis and Fire Dynamics Simulation for electrical fire scene reconstruction. J Forensic Sci. 2012;57(1):246–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    NIST. FDS and Smokeview. National Institute of Standards and Technology. 2010. Accessed 15 March 2010.
  6. 6.
    McGrattan K, Hostikka S, Floyd J, Baum H, Rehm R. Mathematical model. In: Fire Dynamics Simulator (version 5) technical reference guide. NIST special publication 1018-5. Maryland, USA. National Institute of Standards and Technology; 2007.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kwon JW, Dembsey NA, Lautenberger CW. Evaluation of FDS: upward flame spread. Fire Technol. 2007;43(4):255–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vidmar P, Petelin S. Analysis of the effect of an external fire on the safety operation of a power plant. Fire Saf J. 2006;41:486–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    McGrattan K, McDermott R, Hostikka S, Floyd J. Fire Dynamics Simulator (version 5) user’s guide. NIST Special Publication 1019-5. Maryland, USA. National Institute of Standards and Technology; 2010.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gilman JW. The role of flame retardants in reducing the rate of fire spread. National Institute of Standards and Technology. 2009. Accessed 15 Aug 2012.
  11. 11.
    Hill K, Dreisbach J, Joglar F, Najafi B, McGrattan K, Peacock R, Hamins A. Verification and validation of selected fire models for nuclear power plant applications. NUREG 1824. Washington, DC: United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission; 2007.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bryner N. The Station nightclub fire: testing and validation experiments to support simulation. National Institute of Standards and Technology. 2004. Accessed 15 Aug 2012.
  13. 13.
    Lentini JJ. Scientific protocols for fire investigation. 2nd ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press (Taylor & Francis) Group; 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Locke AK, Basara GJ, Sandercock PM. Evaluation of internal standards for the analysis of ignitable liquids in fire debris. J Forensic Sci. 2009;54(2):320–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wu SH, Chi JH, Huang CC, Lin NK, Peng JJ, Shu CM. Thermal hazard analyses and incompatible reaction evaluations of hydrogen peroxide by DSC. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2010;102:563–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chou HC, Wu SH, Chiang CC, Horng JJ, Chi JH, Shu CM. Effects of stirring rate for thermal runaway reaction in cumene hydroperoxide manufacturing process using calorimetric techniques. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2011;106:243–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wu SH, Chou HC, Pan RN, Huang YH, Horng JJ, Chi JH, Shu CM. Thermal hazard analyses of organic peroxides and inorganic peroxides by calorimetric approaches. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2012;109:355–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shen TS, Huang YH, Chien SW. Using Fire Dynamic Simulation (FDS) to reconstruct an arson fire scene. Build Environ. 2008;43:1036–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Christensen AM, Icove DJ. The application of NIST’s Fire Dynamics Simulator to the investigation of carbon monoxide exposure in the deaths of three Pittsburgh fire fighters. J Forensic Sci. 2004;49(1):104–7.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Fire ScienceWu Feng UniversityMinsyongTaiwan

Personalised recommendations