Fire Technology

, Volume 51, Issue 3, pp 645–665 | Cite as

A Study of Reproducibility of a Full-Scale Multi-Room Compartment Fire Experiment

  • Nils JohanssonEmail author
  • Stefan Svensson
  • Patrick van Hees


A study of 45 pool fire tests is presented in this paper. All tests have been conducted in the same experimental setup but with four different ventilation scenarios. The experimental setup consisted of a three-room compartment connected to a stairway. The tests have been conducted during a 6-year period under slightly different ambient conditions. The purpose of this paper is to study and quantify the reproducibility of these tests with the aim to illustrate the degree of variability that can be expected in this kind of experiment and how the variability is affected by different ventilation scenarios. The 95% confidence interval of the measured temperature rise in the tests covered ±7% to 35% around the mean, depending on place of measurement and studied scenario. The variation in the results is due to both the variation of different weather conditions and other unknown parameters. It has not been possible to statistically distinguish between these two sources of variation. The data set allows to estimate the effect of random variations in experiments of fire behavior and smoke movement across compartments. The fuel of the pool fires is well defined and the mass loss is known, which makes the data of use in validation of multi-room compartment fire models.


Compartment fires Reproducibility Fire dynamics Functional analysis 



The authors would like to acknowledge Sven-Ingvar Granemark, Technician at the Department of Fire Safety Engineering, Lund University for providing the data studied in this paper. We would also like to acknowledge Associate Professor Daniel Nilsson and Dr. Enrico Ronchi at Department of Fire Safety Engineering, Lund University for valuable comments on this work. Also, a large number of students have contributed in obtaining data used in this work, which should be acknowledged.

Supplementary material

10694_2014_408_MOESM1_ESM.xls (662 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (XLS 662 kb)
10694_2014_408_MOESM2_ESM.xls (696 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (XLS 696 kb)
10694_2014_408_MOESM3_ESM.xls (670 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (XLS 670 kb)
10694_2014_408_MOESM4_ESM.xls (630 kb)
Supplementary material 4 (XLS 630 kb)
10694_2014_408_MOESM5_ESM.xls (31 kb)
Supplementary material 5 (XLS 31 kb)


  1. 1.
    Holmstedt, G, Bengtsson, S, Blomqvist, P, Dittmer, T, Hägglund, B, Tuovinen, H, van Hees, P (2008) Quality assurance of accident and injury prevention with fire safety in buildings. Department of Fire Safety Engineering and System Safety, Lund University, LundGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hamins A, McGrattan K (2007) Verification & validation of selected fire models for nuclear power plant applications, vol 2: experimental uncertainty. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Rockville, MDGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jahn W, Rein G, Torero JL (2011) A posteriori modelling of the growth phase of dalmarnock fire test one. Build Environ 46(5):1065–1073. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2010.11.001
  4. 4.
    Najafi D, Jolgar F, Dreisbach J (2007) Verification and validation of selected fire models for nuclear power plant applications, vol 1: main report. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, RockvilleGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    International Standardisation Organisation (1994) Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results. Part 2: Basic method for the determination of repeatability and reproducibility of a standard measurement method. ISO 5725-2:1994, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Regan H, Colyvan M, Burgman M (2002) A taxonomy and treatment of uncertainty for ecology and conservation biology. Ecol Appl 12:618–628. doi: 10.1890/1051-0761(2002)012[0618:ATATOU]2.0.CO;2
  7. 7.
    Getka R (2010) Reproducibility and correlation of fire test methods applied for floor coverings. Arch Combust 30: 435–444Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Madrzykowski D, Fleischmann C (2010) Fire pattern repeatability: a laboratory study on gypsum wallboard. In: International symposium on Fire Investigation Science and Technology, HayattsvilleGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (2000) CPSC Interlaboratory study on upholstered furniture small open flame test method. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    International Standardisation Organisation (2001) Reaction-to-fire tests—full-scale room tests for surface products—part 2: technical background and guidance. ISO/TR 9705-2, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Janssens ML (2000) Heat release rate (HRR). Measurement needs for fire safety. In: Proceedings of an international workshop, NISTIR 6527. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, pp 186–206Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Karlsson B, Quintiere JG (1999) Enclosure fire dynamics. CRC Press, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute (2014) Personal communicationGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Blevins LG (1999) Behavior of bare and aspirated thermocouples in compartment fires. In: Proceedings from the 33rd national heat transfer conference, Albuquerque, New MexicoGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pitts, WM, Braun, E, Peacock, RD, Milter, HE, Johnsson, E., Reneke, Blevins, LG (2003) Temperature uncertainties for bare-bead and aspirated thermocouple measurements in fire environments. In: Gritzo LA, Alvares N (eds) Thermal measurements—the foundation of fire standards. American Society for Testing and Materials International, Dallas, Texas, pp 3–15Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hamins A, McGrattan K (2007) Verification & validation of selected fire models for nuclear power plant applications, vol 2: experimental uncertainty. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, RockvilleGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bryant RA, Ohlemiller TJ, Johnsson EL, Hamins, A, Grove, BS, Guthire, WF, Maranghides, A, Mullholland, GW (2003) The NIST 3 megawatt quantitative heat release rate facility. National Institute of Standards and Technology, GaithersburgGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Andersson Ö (2012) Experiment: planning, implementing and interpreting. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Peacock RD, Reneke PA, Davis WD, Jones WW (1999) Quantifying fire model evaluation using functional analysis. Fire Saf J 33:167–184. doi: 10.1016/S0379-7112(99)00029-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ronchi E, Reneke PA, Peacock RD (2013) A method for the analysis of behavioural uncertainty in evacuation modelling. Fire Technol. doi: 10.1007/s10694-013-0352-7 Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Galea ER, Deere S, Brown R, Filippidis L (2013) An evacuation validation data set for large passenger ships. In: Proceedings of the pedestrian and evacuation dynamics 2012 conferenceGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    McCaffrey BJ, Quintiere JG, Harkleroad MF (1981) Estimating room temperatures and the likelihood of flashover using fire test data correlations. Fire Technol 17:98–119. doi: 10.1007/BF02993495 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Johansson N, van Hees P (2012) A correlation for predicting smoke layer temperature in a room adjacent to a room involved in a pre-flashover fire. Fire Mater 38:182–193. doi: 10.1002/fam.2172 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nils Johansson
    • 1
    Email author
  • Stefan Svensson
    • 1
  • Patrick van Hees
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Fire Safety EngineeringLund UniversityLundSweden

Personalised recommendations