Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ranking the Level of Openness in Blind Compartment Fire Modelling Studies

  • Published:
Fire Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The paper considers what is meant by, and the purpose of, blind modelling in the context of fire engineering. A discussion is presented on the very important interaction between the model and the model users, and five generic groups of model users are defined. The paper goes on to provide details of previous blind modelling studies from the literature, as well as a recent blind modelling programme that was conducted in New Zealand. A so-called ‘Openness Assessment Framework’ is proposed as a way of scoring or ranking existing or planned blind modelling programmes, with the recent New Zealand programme forming the case study for the evaluation. This framework is then applied to a range of evaluation definitions that are given in the literature, the five generic model user groups, as well as the range of blind modelling exercises already identified. Finally, a seven-step methodology for designing blind modelling studies and experimental comparisons in the context of full-scale multi-item compartment fire experiments is proposed.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In English the word ‘oaf’ means a ‘stupid person’ and it has been suggested the word might derive from the French word for egg (œuf) and the similar sounding Gaelic word (ubh), i.e. an unborn being that therefore has no knowledge.

References

  1. Baker, G., Frank, K., Spearpoint, M., Fleischmann, C., & Wade, C. (2013). The Next Generation of Performance-Based Fire Safety Engineering in New Zealand. In S. Kajewski, K. Manley, & K. Hampson (Ed.), Proceedings of the 19th International CIB World Building Congress. Brisbane, Queensland University of Technology, QLD, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Wade, C., Baker, G., Frank, K., Robbins, A., Harrison, R., Spearpoint, M., & Fleischmann, C. (2013). B-RISK User Guide and Technical Manual, BRANZ Study Report SR 282. Porirua, New Zealand: BRANZ Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Baker G, Fleury R, Spearpoint M, Fleischmann C, Wade C (2011) Ignition of Secondary Objects in a Design Fire Simulation Tool. Fire Safety Science—Proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium. International Association for Fire Safety Science, College Park, MD, pp 1359–1372. doi:10.3801/IAFSS.FSS.10-1359

  4. Baker GB, Collier PC, Wade CA, Spearpoint MJ, Fleischmann CM, Frank KM, Sazegara S (2013) A comparison of a priori modelling predictions with experimental results to validate a design fire generator submodel. Proceedings Fire and Materials 2013-Thirteenth International Conference. Interscience Commuincations Ltd, San Francisco, pp 449–460

  5. Frank K, Spearpoint, M, Fleischmann, CM, Wade C (2011) A comparison of sources of uncertainty for calculating sprinkler activation. Fire safety science—proceedings of the tenth international symposium. International Association for Fire Safety Science, College Park, MD, pp 1101–1114. doi:10.3801/IAFSS.FSS.10-1101

  6. Keski-Rahkonen O, Hostikka S (1998) CIB W14 round robin of code assessment: design report for scenario B, Internal Report RTE119-IR-2/1998 Part 1. Espoo. VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Finland

  7. Dey MK (2011) Blind versus open fire model validation: Issues, Pros & Cons, Deytec Technical Report No. 2011-01. Deytec, Inc, Yellow Springs

  8. Beard, A. N. (2000). On A Priori, Blind and Open Comparisons Between Theory and Experiments. Fire Safety Journal, 35(1), pp. 63-66. doi:10.1016/S0379-7112(00)00015-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Beard AN (2008) Reliability of computer models in fire safety design. Industrial Fire Journal, hemmingfire.com/news/printpage.php/aid/131/Reliability_of_computer_models_in_fire_safety_design.html. Accessed Sept 2013

  10. ASTM. (2012). ASTM E1355 Standard Guide for Evaluating the Predictive Capability of Deterministic Fire Models. West Conshohocken, PA, USA: American Society of Testing and Materials.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Cooper, L. Y., Harkleroad, M., Quintiere, J., & Rinkinen, W. (1982). An Experimental Study of Upper Hot Layer Stratification in Full-Scale Multiroom Fire Scenarios. Journal of Heat Transfer, 104(4), 741-749. doi:10.1115/1.3245194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Beard, A. (2005). Problems with Using Models for Fire Safety. In A. Beard, & R. Carvel (Eds.), The Handbook of Tunnel Fire Safety. London, UK: Thomas Telford Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Phillips WG, Beller DK, revised by Fahy RF (2008) Section 5, Chapter 9, computer simulation for fire risk analysis. In DiNenno PJ, Drysdale D, Beyler CL, Walton WD, Custer RL, Hall Jr. JR, Watts Jr. JM (Eds) The SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering. National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, pp 5-155 to 5-167

  14. McGrattan K, Peacock, R, Overholt K (2014) Fire model validation—eight lessons learned. 11th International symposium on fire safety science. University of Canterbury, New Zealand

  15. Wald F, Burgess I, Kwasniewski L, Horová K, Caldová E (Eds) (2014) Benchmark studies: experimental validation of numerical models in fire engineering. CTU Publishing House, Czech Technical University in Prague, Prague

  16. Miles SD, Kumar S, Cox G (2000) Comparison of ‘blind predictions’ of a CFD model with experimental data. In: Curtat M (Ed) Fire safety science—proceedings of the sixth international symposium. International Association for Fire Safety Science, Potiers, pp 543–554. doi:10.3801/IAFSS.FSS.6-543

  17. Rein, G., Torero, J. L., Jahn, W., Stein-Gottfried, R. N., Desanghere, S., Lazaro, M., Mowrer, F., Coles, A., Joyeux, D., Alvear, D., Copte, J. A., Jowsey, A., Reszka, P. (2009). Round-Robin Study of A Priori Modelling Predictions of the Dalmarnock Fire Test One. Fire Safety Journal, 44(4), 590-602. doi:10.1016/j.firesaf.2008.12.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Keski-Rahkonen O, Hostikka S (2003) Zone model validation of room fire scenarios, NISTIR 6986. International collaborative project to evaluate fire models for nuclear power plant applications: summary of 5th meeting. Appendix C. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, pp C/59–72

  19. Beard, A. N. (2005). Short Communication: Requirements for Acceptable Model Use. Fire Safety Journal, 40(5), 477-484. doi:10.1016/j.firesaf.2004.10.003.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  20. Rein G, Abecassis-Empis C, Carvel R (Eds) (2007) The Dalmarnock fire tests: experiments and modelling. The School of Engineering and Electronics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh

  21. Dey MK (2010) Lessons learned in ICFMP project for verification and validation of computer models for nuclear plant fire safety analysis, Deytec Technical Report No. 2010-01. Deytec Inc, Yellow Springs

  22. ISO. (1993). International Standard ISO 9705:1993(E), Fire Tests - Full-Scale Room Test for Surface Products. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization.

    Google Scholar 

  23. ISO. (2002). International Standard ISO 5660-1:2002 (E), Reaction-to-fire tests—heat release, smoke production and mass loss rate—Part 1: heat release rate (cone calorimeter method). International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

    M. J. Spearpoint

  2. BRANZ Ltd, Porirua, New Zealand

    G. B. Baker

Authors
  1. M. J. Spearpoint
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. G. B. Baker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to G. B. Baker.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Spearpoint, M.J., Baker, G.B. Ranking the Level of Openness in Blind Compartment Fire Modelling Studies. Fire Technol 52, 25–50 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-014-0431-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-014-0431-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation