Fire Technology

, Volume 53, Issue 4, pp 1485–1508 | Cite as

Benchmarking the Single Item Ignition Prediction Capability of B-RISK Using Furniture Calorimeter and Room-Size Experiments

Article
  • 172 Downloads

Abstract

This paper benchmarks B-RISK’s capability to predict item ignition in multiple object compartment fire simulations. A series of fire experiments have been conducted which measured single item ignition times under the furniture calorimeter and in the ISO 9705 room. These experiments used mock-up armchair, TV and cabinetry furniture items created from three common materials found in most households in New Zealand exposed to a 100 kW gas burner flame. B-RISK uses the flux-time product (FTP) method as the criterion to predict ignition of items, based on radiation received using the point source model (PSM). This paper presents an analysis of the B-RISK predictions compared to the experimental measurements. Due to the mathematical formulation of the PSM and FTP method, it is found that the predicted ignition time is sensitive to the distance between the radiative source and the item. Predicted ignition times of armchairs constructed of polyurethane foam were within 14% of the ISO 9705 room experimental results. However, for the furniture calorimeter experiments it is found that to get reasonable predictions of the ignition times for the mock-up armchair and TV items there is a need to account for the burner flame movement by adjusting the radial distance by 10–30 mm. Direct flame contact was required to ignite the mock-up cabinetry items and B-RISK was unable to successfully predict this ignition time.

Keywords

Ignition Furniture Modelling Experiments 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research project was funded by the New Zealand government’s research, science and technology funding agency, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. The University of Canterbury Fire Engineering Programme would like to also acknowledge the continued financial support of the New Zealand Fire Service Commission.

References

  1. 1.
    Babrauskas V (1981) Will the second item ignite? Fire Saf J 4(4):281–292. doi: 10.1016/0379-7112(81)90031-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blomqvist P, Rosell L, Simonson M (2004) Emissions from fires part II: simulated room fires. Fire Technol 40(1):59–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Spearpoint MJ, Mowrer FW, McGrattan K (1999) Simulation of a single compartment flashover fire using hand calculations, zone models and a field model. In: 3rd International conference on fire research and engineering, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wade CA, Baker GB, Frank K, Robbins A, Harrison R, Spearpoint MJ, Fleischmann CM (2013) B-RISK user guide and technical manual, BRANZ study report SR 282, BRANZ Ltd, Porirua, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Forney GP, McGrattan KB (2007) User’s guide for Smokeview Version 5—a tool for visualizing fire dynamics simulation data. NIST Special Publication 1017.1, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MDGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baker GB, Collier PC, Wade CA, Spearpoint MJ, Fleischmann CM, Frank K, Sazegara S (2013) A comparison of a priori modelling predictions with experimental results to validate a design fire generator submodel. In: 13th International fire and materials conference, San Francisco, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fleury R, Spearpoint M, Fleischmann C (2011) Evaluation of thermal radiation models for fire spread analysis. Fire and evacuation modeling conference, Baltimore, MD, USAGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Baker G, Fleury R, Spearpoint M, Fleischmann C, Wade C (2011) Ignition of secondary objects in a design fire simulation tool. In: Fire safety science—proceedings of the 10th international symposium, College Park, MD, USA, pp 1359–1372. doi: 10.3801/IAFSS.FSS.10-1359
  9. 9.
    Baker GB, Spearpoint MJ, Fleischmann CM, Wade CA (2011) Selecting an ignition criterion methodology for use in a radiative fire spread submodel. Fire Mater 35(6):367–381. doi: 10.1002/fam.1059 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Smith EE, Satija S (1983) Release rate model for developing fires. J Heat Transf 105(2):281–287. doi: 10.1115/1.3245575 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Smith EE, Green TJ (1988) Release rates for a mathematical model. In: Mehaffey JR (ed) Mathematical modelling of fires ASTM SPT 983. American society of testing and materials SPT 983, Philadelphia, PA, pp 7–20Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Toal BR, Silcock GWH, Shields TJ (1989) An examination of piloted ignition characteristics of cellulosic materials using the ISO ignitability test. Fire Mater 14(3):97–106. doi: 10.1002/fam.810140304 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shields TJ, Silcock GW, Murray JJ (1993) The effect of geometry and ignition mode on ignition times obtained using the cone calorimeter and ISO ignitability apparatus. Fire Mater 17(1):25–32. doi: 10.1002/fam.810170105 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shields TJ, Silcock GW, Murray JJ (1994) Evaluating ignition data using the flux time product. Fire Mater 18(4):243–254. doi: 10.1002/fam.810180407 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    AS/NZS 3837:1998, Method of test for heat and smoke release rates for materials and products using an oxygen consumption calorimeter. Standards Australia and Standards New Zealand, Homebush, Australia and Wellington, New Zealand, 1998Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Baker G, Spearpoint M, Fleischmann C, Wade C (2010) Development of a radiative fire spread sub model for an enhanced zone model, Asia-Oceania Symposium on Fire Science and Technology (AOSFST), Melbourne, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fernando A, Leonard J, Webb A, Bowditch P, Dowling V (2001) Experimental derivation of material combustion properties for flame spread models. In: International conference on fire and materials, San Francisco, 22–24 Jan 2001Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Grand A (1996) The use of the cone calorimeter to assess the effectiveness of fire retardant polymers under simulated real fire test conditions. In: 7th International fire science and engineering conference, Cambridge, England, 26–28 March 1996Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Henderson A (1998) Predicting ignition time under transient heat flux using results from constant flux experiments. Report 98/4, University of Canterbury, ChristchurchGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tewarson A (2008) Generation of heat and gaseous, liquids, and solid products in fires. In: DiNenno PJ et al (eds) SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering. National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA, pp 3/109–3/194Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Baker G, Wade C, Spearpoint M, Fleischmann C (2013) Developing probabilistic design fires for performance-based fire safety engineering. Proc Eng 62:639–647. doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2013.08.109 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Beca LtdAucklandNew Zealand
  2. 2.Department of Civil and Natural Resources EngineeringUniversity of CanterburyChristchurchNew Zealand
  3. 3.SP Fire Research ASTrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations