Skip to main content
Log in

Inferring and Propagating Kinetic Parameter Uncertainty for Condensed Phase Burning Models

  • Published:
Fire Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Kinetic parameters for serial pyrolysis reactions were calibrated from thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) data using Bayesian inference via Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) simulations assuming a serial reaction mechanism. Calibrations were performed for high-impact polystyrene (HIPS), bisphenol-A polycarbonate (PC), and poly(vinyl chloride) (PVC) at heating rates of 3 K/min and 10 K/min. The resulting parameter inferences are probabilistic as opposed to the point estimates calibrated in previous studies and are visualized using posterior probability density functions (PDFs) generated by kernel density estimation (KDE). Correlations between the parameters are identified and discussed. In particular, it is clear that pre-exponential constants and activation energies for a given reaction have a strong positive correlation. It is hypothesized that the degree of overlap in the posterior PDFs might be a measure of model adequacy. Point-estimates of the kinetic parameters were made by finding the mode of the posterior PDFs. For HIPS, it was determined that a one-reaction pyrolysis model is most appropriate, and that the posterior modes for \(\log \left( A_1\right) \) and \(E_1\) are \(19.5\,\log (1/s)\) and 292 kJ/mol, respectively, for the 3 K/min data. To evaluate the effect of kinetic parameter uncertainty on predictions of burning rate, samples from the posterior PDF were used to simulate gasification and cone calorimetry experiments using the fire dynamics simulator (FDS). In some cases, it was found that models with fewer parameters provided better predictions due to over-fitting associated with greater model complexity. Another important observation is that for the predictions of PVC cone calorimetry, the time to peak heat release rate can range from around 40 s to 180 s for a number of different kinetic parameter combinations that all fit the TGA data fairly well. It is argued that the proposed methodology is necessary for progress in modeling of condensed phase physics for fire problems as it supports both model validation and engineering predictions.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
Figure 13
Figure 14
Figure 15
Figure 16
Figure 17

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. McGrattan K, Hostikka S, McDermott R, Floyd J, Weinschenk C, Overholt K (2014) Fire dynamics simulator, technical reference guide volume 3: validation. Technical report, NIST

  2. McGrattan K, Hostikka S, McDermott R, Floyd J, Weinschenk C, Overholt K (2014) Fire dynamics simulator, technical reference guide volume 1: mathematical model. Technical report, NIST

  3. Lautenberger C, Fernanez-Pello C (2009) Generalized pyrolysis model for combustible solids. Fire Saf J 44:819–839

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Stoliarov Stanislav I, Lyon Richard E (2008) Thermo-kinetic model of burning. Technical Report DOT/FAA/AR-TN08/17, FAA

  5. Lautenberger C, Rein G, Fernanez-Pello C (2006) The application of a genetic algorithm to estimate material properties for fire modeling from bench-scale fire test data. Fire Saf J 41:204–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Chaos M, Khan MM, Krishnamoorthy N, de Ris JL, Dorofeev SB (2011) Evaluation of optimization schemes and determination of solid fuel properties for CFD fire models using bench-scale pyrolysis tests. Proc Combust Inst 33:2599–2606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Lautenberger C, Fernandez-Pello C (2011) Optimization algorithms for material pyrolysis property estimation. In: Fire safety ccience: 10th international symposium, College Park

  8. Rein G, Lautenberger C, Fernandez-Pello C, Torero JL, Urban D (2006) Application of genetic algorithms and thermogravimetry to determine the kinetics of polyurethane foam in smoldering combustion. Combus Flame 146:95–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bruns MC, Koo JH, Ezekoye OA (2009) Population-based models of thermoplastic degradation: using optimization to determine model parameters. Polym Degrad Stab 94(6):1013–1022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gelman A, Carlin JB, Stern HS, Rubin DB (2003) Bayesian data analysis, 2nd edn. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  11. Sivia DS (2006) Data analysis, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Moser RD, Terejanu G, Oliver TA, Simmons CS (2012) Validating the prediction of unobserved quantities. Technical Report 12–32. The Institute for Computational Engineering Sciences

  13. Overholt KJ, Ezekoye OA (2014) Quantitative testing of fire scenario hypotheses: a bayesian inference approach. Fire Technol 1–33

  14. Overholt KJ (2013) Forward and inverse modeling of fire physics towards fire scene reconstructions. PhD thesis, The University of Texas at Austin

  15. Stoliarov SI, Safranova N, Lyon RE (2009) The effect of variation in polymer properties on the rate of burning. Fire Mater 33:257–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Chaos M (2013) Application of sensitivity analyses to condensed-phase pyrolysis modeling. Fire Saf J 61:254–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Bal N, Rein G (2013) Relevant model complexity for non-charring polymer pyrolysis. Fire Saf J 61:36–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Schwarz G (1978) Estimating the dimension of a model. Ann Stat 6:461–464

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Bolstad WM (2010) Understanding computational Bayesian statistics. Wiley, Hoboken

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Metropolis N, Rosenbluth AW, Rosenbluth MN, Teller AH (1953) Equation of state calculations for fast computing machines. J Chem Phys 21:1087–1092

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hastings WK (1970) Monte carlo sampling methods using markov chains and their applications. Biometrika 57:97–109

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Haario H, Saksman E, Tamminen J (2001) An adaptive metropolis algorithm. Bernoulli 7:223–242

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Patil A, Huard D, Fonnesbeck CJ (2010) PyMC: Bayesian stochastic modelling in python. J Stat Softw 35:1–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Stoliarov SI, Crowley S, Lyon RE, Linteris GT (2009) Prediction of the burning rates of non-charring polymers. Combust Flame 156:1068–1083

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Stoliarov SI, Crowley S, Walters RN, Lyon RE (2010) Prediction of the burning rates of charring polymers. Combust Flame 157:2024–2034

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lyon RE, Safronava N, Senese J, Stoliarov SI (2012) Thermokinetic model of sample response in nonisothermal analysis. Thermochim Acta 545:82–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Scott DW (1992) Multivariate density estimation: theory, practice, and visualization. Wiley, New York, pp 125–190

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Ceamanos J, Mastral JF, Millera A, Aldea ME (2002) Kinetics of pyrolysis of high density polyethylene. comparison of isothermal and dynamic experiments. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis 65:93–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. McGrattan K, Hostikka S, McDermott R, Floyd J, Weinschenk C, Overholt K (2014) Fire dynamics simulator, user’s guide. Technical report, NIST

  30. Austin PJ, Buch RR, Kashiwagi T (1998) Gasification of silicone fluids under esternal thermal radiation part I. gasification rate and global heat of gasification. Fire Mater 22:221–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania (2007) ASTM E 1354–04a, Standard test method for heat and visible smoke release rates for materials and products using an oxygen combustion calorimeter

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Morgan C. Bruns.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bruns, M.C. Inferring and Propagating Kinetic Parameter Uncertainty for Condensed Phase Burning Models. Fire Technol 52, 93–120 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-015-0457-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-015-0457-2

Keywords

Navigation