Advertisement

Fire Technology

, Volume 50, Issue 2, pp 437–454 | Cite as

A Semi-Markov Fire Growth Model

  • Arun Veeramany
  • Elizabeth J. Weckman
  • Mahesh D. Pandey
Article

Abstract

This paper aims to describe an alternative fire growth model that allows prediction of fire development, including time to flashover. The unpredictable nature of real fire development is incorporated into the model through use of probability distributions which can be defined using appropriate fire test data, when available. By assuming that the fire goes through five different stages starting from ignition and progressing to flashover, the total time to flashover may also be estimated. The model considers potential variability in the times at which the fire will undergo transitions between the various stages of development, using a state transition method called the semi-Markov process model. Different fire data may be incorporated into the model by defining appropriate statistical distributions for the transition descriptors, making the model flexible enough for use in a variety of applications important to both product design engineers and fire safety regulators.

Keywords

Semi-Markov Fire growth Probabilistic State transition 

References

  1. 1.
    Joglar F, Mowrer F, Modarres M (2005) A probabilistic model for fire detection with applications. Fire Technol 41:151–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kui Au S, Wang Z-H, Lo S-M (2007) Compartment fire risk analysis by advanced monte carlo simulation. Eng Struct 29(9):2381–2390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hasofer AM, Beck VR (1997) A stochastic model for compartment fires. Fire Saf J 28(3):207–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Williamson RB (1981) Coupling deterministic and stochastic modeling to unwanted fire. Fire Saf J 3(4):243–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rasbash D, Ramachandran G, Kandola B, Watts J, Law M (2004) Stochastic fire risk modeling. In: Evaluation of fire safety. Wiley, Chichester, pp. 399–420Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Colbourn CJ, Nel LD, Boffey TB, Yates DF (1994) Network reliability and the probabilistic estimation of damage from fire spread. Ann Oper Res 50:173–185CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Platt DG, Elms DG, Buchanan AH (1994) A probabilistic model of fire spread with time effects. Fire Saf J 22(4):367–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ramachandran G (1991) Non-deterministic modelling of fire spread. J Fire Prot Eng 3:37–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Morishita Y (1985) A stochastic model of fire spread. Fire Sci Technol 5(1):1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hadjisophocleous GV (1992) A model for calculating the probabilities of smoke hazard from fires in multi-storey buildings. J Fire Prot Eng 4(2):67–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Watts JM (1986) Dealing with uncertainty: Some applications in fire protection engineering. Fire Saf J 11(1-2):127–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hasofer AM, Odigie DO (2001) Stochastic modelling for occupant safety in a building fire. Fire Saf J 36(3):269–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cheng H, Hadjisophocleous GV (2009) The modeling of fire spread in buildings by bayesian network. Fire Saf J 44(6):901–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Berlin GN (1985) Managing the variability of fire behavior. Fire Technol 16(4):287–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vinod G, Saraf RK, Ghosh AK, Kushwaha HS, Sharma PK (2008) Insights from fire psa for enhancing npp safety. Nucl Eng Des 238(9):2359–2368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Peacock RD, Forney GP, Reneke P, Portier R, Jones WW (1986) CFAST, the consolidated model of fire growth and smoke transport. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, USGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    McGrattan K (2004) Fire dynamics simulator (FDS). National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, USAGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Siu NO (1982) Physical models for compartment fires. Reliab Eng 3(3):77–100Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Systems Analysis Programs for Hands-on Integrated Reliability Evaluations (SAPHIRE). Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Lockheed Martin Idaho Technologies Company, USAGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Valbuena G, Modarres M (2009) Development of probabilistic models to estimate fire-induced cable damage at nuclear power plants. Nucl Eng Des 239(6):1113–1127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Siu NO, Apostolakis GE (1982) Probabilistic models for cable tray fires. Reliab Eng 3(3):213–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lee Y-H, Kim J-H, Yang J-E (2010) Application of the cfast zone model to the fire psa. Nuclear Engineering and Design 240(10): 3571–3576. In: 4th International Topical Meeting on High Temperature Reactor Technology (HTR 2008), Washington, with Regular PapersGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Safaei Arshi S, Nematollahi M, Sepanloo K (2010) Coupling cfast fire modeling and saphire probabilistic assessment software for internal fire safety evaluation of a typical triga research reactor. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 95(3):166–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hostikka S, Keski-Rahkonen O (2003) Probabilistic simulation of fire scenarios. Nucl Eng Des 224(3):301–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Frank Michael V, Moieni P (1986) A probabilistic model for flammable pool fire damage in nuclear power plants. Reliab Eng 16(2):129–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Veeramany A, Pandey Mahesh D (2011) Reliability analysis of nuclear piping system using semi-markov process model. Ann Nucl Energy 38(5):1133–1139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Veeramany A, Pandey Mahesh D (2011) Reliability analysis of nuclear component cooling water system using semi-markov process model. Nucl Eng Des 241(5):1799–1806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Veeramany A, Pandey Mahesh D (2011) Reliability analysis of digital feedwater regulating valve controller system using a semi-markov process model. Int J Nucl Energy Sci Technol 6(4):298–309Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Howard RA (1964) System analysis of semi-markov processes(systems analysis of semimarkov processes, expressing results in form of matrix flow graph). IEEE Trans Mil Electron 8:114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Howard RA (1971) Dynamic probabilistic systems, vol 1: Markov Models. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Vodvarka FJ, Waterman TE (1975) Fire behavior, ignition to flashover. Technical report, IIT Research Institute, Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Barnett CR (2002) Bfd curve: a new empirical model for fire compartment temperatures. Fire Saf J 37(5):437–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Barnett CR (2007) Replacing international temperature–time curves with bfd curve. Fire Saf J 42(4):321–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arun Veeramany
    • 1
  • Elizabeth J. Weckman
    • 2
  • Mahesh D. Pandey
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical and Mechatronics EngineeringUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations