This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Reneke, P. A. Articles by Richards, R. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

A Comparison of CFAST Predictions to USCG Real-Scale Fire Tests

Building and Fire Research Laboratory, National Institute for Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8642

Michelle J. Peatross

Hughes Associates, Inc., Fire Science and Engineering, Baltimore, MD

Walter W. Jones

Building and Fire Research Laboratory, National Institute for Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8642; walter.jones{at}nist.gov

Craig L. Beyler

Hughes Associates, Inc., Fire Science and Engineering, Baltimore, MD

Rob Richards

U.S. Coast Guard Research and Development Center, Marine Fire and Safety Research Branch, Groton, CT

The zone model CFAST was used to make predictions of single room preflashover fire tests conducted in a steel enclosure. These results were then compared with previously published measurements obtained in fire tests. Tests included diesel pool fires, polyurethane slab fires, and wood crib fires. Half of these tests used natural ventilation (window, 1/4 door, and full door) while the remaining tests used forced ventilation (0.25 m3/s, 0.38 m3/s, and 0.61 m3/s). With the exception of heat release rates, all CFAST inputs were selected without knowledge of the experimental results. Key variables compared include the upper layer temperature, the hot layer interface location, and ceiling temperatures. Overall, predictions made by CFAST were in good agreement with the data. There was a general tendency to over predict both the hot gas layer temperature and the boundary surface temperature which may be due to under prediction of boundary heat losses. Experimental results showed that heat release rates varied with ventilation configurations by as much as a factor of 3. This observation indicates that thewide practice of using free burn heat release rate data in compartment fire predictions can result in over prediction of compartment fire conditions.

Key Words: fire modeling • real-scale testing • verification and validation • pool fires • furniture calorimeter • CFAST

Journal of Fire Protection Engineering, Vol. 11, No. 1, 43-68 (2001)
DOI: 10.1106/HH4D-0CKM-J53X-FQK1


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				K. Remesh and K.H. Tan Performance Comparison of Zone Models with Compartment Fire Tests Journal of Fire Sciences, July 1, 2007; 25(4): 321 - 353. [Abstract] [PDF]

				K. Remesh and K. H. Tan Field Model Analysis and Experimental Assessment of Fire Severity and Smoke Movement in a Partitioned and a Non-partitioned Dwelling Unit Journal of Fire Sciences, September 1, 2006; 24(5): 365 - 391. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. Lundin Quantifying Error and Uncertainty in CFAST 2.0 Temperature Predictions Journal of Fire Sciences, September 1, 2005; 23(5): 365 - 388. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. Lundin On Quantification of Error and Uncertainty in Two-zone Models used in Fire Safety Design Journal of Fire Sciences, July 1, 2005; 23(4): 329 - 354. [Abstract] [PDF]