Computer Fire Modeling and the Law: Application to Forensic Fire Engineering Investigations
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51501/jotnafe.v38i1.167Keywords:
Fire modeling, forensic fire engineering investigation, animations, simulations, verification and validation, admissibility of evidence, expert reports, expert testimony, Frye challenges, Daubert challengesAbstract
Computer fire modeling can be a two-edged tool in forensic fire engineering investigations. Professional standards of care recommend that fire modeling’s primary use is in examining multiple hypotheses for a fire as opposed to determining its origin. This paper covers the current acceptable benefits of computer fire models, historical and pending legal case law, and methods to use modeling results within expert reports and testimony. Particular issues reviewed are the use of animations versus simulations, evidentiary guidelines, and authentication using verification and validation studies.
References
Icove DJ, Haynes GA: Kirk’s Fire Investigation, Eighth edn. Ny, Ny: Pearson; 2018.
Mitler HE, Rockett JA: Users’ Guide to FIRST, a Comprehensive Single-Room Fire Model. In. Gaithersburg, MD: National Bureau of Standards; 1987: 138.
Salley MH, Kassawar RP: Verification and Validation of Selected Fire Models for Nuclear Power Plant Applications: Main Report. In., vol. 1, NUREG-1824 edn. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; 2007.
Salley MH, Kassawar RP: Verification and Validation of Selected Fire Models for Nuclear Power Plant Applications: Experimental Uncertainty In., vol. 2, NUREG-1824 edn. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; 2007.
Salley MH, Kassawar RP: Verification and Validation of Selected Fire Models for Nuclear Power Plant Applications: Fire Dynamics Tools (FDTS). In., vol. 3, NUREG-1824 edn. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; 2007.
Salley MH, Kassawar RP: Verification and Validation of Selected Fire Models for Nuclear Power Plant Applications: Fire-Induced Vulnerability Evaluation (FIVE-Rev1). In., vol. 4, NUREG-1824 edn. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; 2007.
Salley MH, Kassawar RP: Verification and Validation of Selected Fire Models for Nuclear Power Plant Applications: Consolidated Fire Growth and Smoke Transport Model (CFAST). In., vol. 5, NUREG-1824 edn. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; 2007.
Salley MH, Kassawar RP: Verification and Validation of Selected Fire Models for Nuclear Power Plant Applications: MAGIC In., vol. 6, NUREG-1824 edn. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; 2007.
Salley MH, Kassawar RP: Verification and Validation of Selected Fire Models for Nuclear Power Plant Applications: Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS) In., vol. 7, NUREG-1824 edn. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; 2007.
Bukowski RW, Spetzler RC: Analysis of the Happyland social club fire with HAZARD I. Journal of Fire Protection Engineering 1992, 4(4):117-130.
Babrauskas V: Fire Modeling Tools for FSE: Are They Good Enough? Journal of Fire Protection Engineering 1996, 8(2):87-96.
DeWitt WE, Goff DW: Forensic Engineering Assessment of FAST and FASTLite Fire Modeling Software. National Academy of Forensic Engineers 2000:9-19.
Emmons HW: Why fire model? The MGM fire and toxicity testing. Fire Safety Journal 1988, 13(2–3):77-85.
Christensen AM, Icove DJ: The application of NIST’s fire dynamics simulator to the investigation of carbon monoxide exposure in the deaths of three Pittsburgh fire fighters. Journal of Forensic Sciences 2004, 49(1):104-107.
Mowrer FW: The Right Tool for the Job. SFPE Fire Protection Engineering Magazine 2002, 13(Winter):39-45.
Mitler HE: Mathematical modeling of enclosure fires. In. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology; 1991.
Nelson HE, Tu K-M: Engineering analysis of the fire development in the Hillhaven Nursing Home fire, October 5, 1989: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Building and Fire Research Laboratory; 1991.
Mowrer FW: Spreadsheet Templates for Fire Dynamics Calculations. In. College Park, MD: University of Maryland; 2003: 91.
Iqbal N, Salley MH: Fire Dynamics Tools (FDTs): Quantitative Fire Hazard Analysis Methods for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Fire Protection Inspection Program. Washington, DC; 2004.
Peacock RD, Reneke PA, Bukowski RW, Babrauskas V: Defining Flashover for Fire Hazard Calculations. Fire Safety Journal 1999, 32(4):331-345.
Bailey JL, Forney GP, Tatem PA, Jones WW: Development and Validation of Corridor Flow Submodel for CFAST. Journal of Fire Protection Engineering 2002, 12(3):139-161.
Hoover JB: Application of the CFAST Zone Model to Ships — Fire Specification Parameters. Journal of Fire Protection Engineering 2008, 18(3):199-222.
Jones WW, Peacock RD, Forney GP, Reneke PA: CFAST – Consolidated Model of Fire Growth and Smoke Transport (Version 6) Technical Reference Guide. In. Edited by Fire Research Division BaFRL, NIST Special Publication 1026 edn. Gaithersburg, Maryland: National Institute of Standards and Technology; 2009.
Lee Y-H, Kim J-H, Yang J-E: Application of the CFAST zone model to the Fire PSA. Nuclear Engineering and Design 2010, 240(10):3571-3576.
Peacock RD, McGrattan K, Klein B, Jones WW, Reneke PA: CFAST – Consolidated Model of Fire Growth and Smoke Transport (Version 6) Software Development and Model Evaluation Guide. In. Edited by Fire Research Division BaFRL. Gaithersburg, Maryland: National Institute of Standards and Technology; 2008.
Chen CJ, Hsieh WD, Hu WC, Lai CM, Lin TH: Experimental investigation and numerical simulation of a furnished office fire. Building and Environment 2010, 45(12):2735-2742.
Cheong MK, Spearpoint MJ, Fleischmann CM: Calibrating an FDS Simulation of Goods-vehicle Fire Growth in a Tunnel Using the Runehamar Experiment. Journal of Fire Protection Engineering 2009, 19(3):177-196.
Rinne T, Hietaniemi J, Hostikka S: Experimental validation of the FDS simulations of smoke and toxic gas concentrations. VTT, Finland 2007.
Jahn W, Rein G, Torero JL: A posteriori modelling of the growth phase of Dalmarnock Fire Test One. Building and Environment 2011, 46(5):1065-1073.
Lan X, Liang P, Long XF: Experimental Investigation and Numerical Simulation of Road Tunnel Fire. Prog Safety Sci Tech 2008, 7:673-678.
Lock A, Bundy M, Johnsson EL, Hamins A, Ko GH, Hwang C, Fuss P, Harris Jr RH: Experimental Study of the Effects of Fuel Type, Fuel Distribution and Vent Size on Full-Scale Underventilated Compartment Fires in an ISO 9705 Room. In. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology; 2008: 168.
Ma TG, Quintiere JG: Numerical simulation of axi-symmetric fire plumes: accuracy and limitations. Fire Safety Journal 2003, 38(5):467-492.
Madrzykowski D, Vettori RL: Simulation of the Dynamics of the Fire at 3146 Cherry Road NE, Washington, DC, May 30, 1999. In: NISTIR 6510. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Center for Fire Research; 2000.
Madrzykowski D, Walton WD: Cook County Administration Building Fire, October 17, 2003. In: NIST SP 1021. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology; 2004.
McGill D: Fire Dynamics Simulator, FDS 683, Participants’ Handbook. . In. Edited by School of Fire Protection SC. Toronto, Ontario, Canada; 2003.
McGrattan K, Hostikka S, McDermott R, Floyd J, Weinschenk C, Overholt K: Fire Dynamics Simulator User’s Guide. In. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology; 2014: 268.
Babrauskas V: COMPF: A Program for Calculating Post-Flashover Fire Temperatures. In. Berkeley, CA: Fire Research Group, University of California, Berkeley; 1975.
Babrauskas V, Peacock RD, Reneke PA: Defining Flashover for Fire Hazard Calculations: Part II. Fire Safety Journal 2003, 38:613-622.
Nelson HE: Fire Growth Analysis of the Fire of March 20, 1990, Pulaski Building, 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. In: NISTIR 4489. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Center for Fire Research; 1994: 51.
Evans DD: Sprinkler fire suppression algorithm for HAZARD: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology; 1993.
Grosshandler WL, Bryner NP, Madrzykowski D, Kuntz KJ: Report of the Technical Investigation of the Station Nightclub Fire. In: NIST NCSTAR 2. vol. 1. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology; 2005.
Alpert R: Calculation of Response Time of Ceiling-Mounted Fire Detectors. Fire Technology 1972, 8(3):181-195.
Evans D, Stroup D: Methods to Calculate the Response Time of Heat and Smoke Detectors Installed Below Large Unobstructed Ceilings. Fire Technology 1986, 22(1):54-65.
Milke JA, Hulcher ME, Worrell CL, Gottuk DT, Williams FW: Investigation of multi-sensor algorithms for fire detection. Fire Technology 2003, 39(4):363-382.
Babrauskas V: Charring Rate of Wood as a Tool for Fire Investigations. Fire Safety Journal 2005, 40(6):528-554.
Bai Y, Hugi E, Ludwig C, Keller T: Fire Performance of Water-Cooled GFRP Columns. I: Fire Endurance Investigation. J Compos Constr 2011, 15(3):404-412.
Chowdhury EU, Bisby LA, Green MF, Kodur VKR: Investigation of insulated FRP-wrapped reinforced concrete columns in fire. Fire Safety Journal 2007, 42(6-7):452-460.
Malanga R: Fire endurance of lightweight wood trusses in building construction. Fire Technology 1995, 31(1):44-61.
Palmieri A, Matthys S, Taerwe L: Experimental investigation on fire endurance of insulated concrete beams strengthened with near surface mounted FRP bar reinforcement. Composites Part B: Engineering 2012, 43(3):885-895.
Richardson LR: Thoughts and observations on fire-endurance tests of wood-frame assemblies protected by gypsum board. Fire and Materials 2001, 25(6):223-239.
Vytenis B: Charring rate of wood as a tool for fire investigations. Fire Safety Journal 2005, 40(6):528-554.
Ali F, Nadjai A, Choi S: Numerical and experimental investigation of the behavior of high strength concrete columns in fire. Eng Struct 2010, 32(5):1236-1243.
Ariyanayagam A, Mahendran M: Development of realistic design fire time-temperature curves for the testing of cold-formed steel wall systems. Front Struct Civ Eng 2014:1-21.
Buchanan AH: Structural Design for Fire Safety. Chichester, England; New York: Wiley; 2001.
Cyriax GR: An Investigation of Structural Damage by Fire - Reply. Concrete 1970, 4(5):174-&.
Izydorek MS, Zeeveld PA, Samuels MD, Smyser JP: Structural Stability of Engineered Lumber in Fire Conditions. In. Edited by Gandhi PD, Backstrom B. Northbrook, IL: Underwriters Laboratories; 2009: 95.
Perricone J, Wang M, Quintiere J: Scale Modeling of the Transient Thermal Response of Insulated Structural Frames Exposed to Fire. Fire Technology 2007, 44(2):113-136.
Baker R: Smoke generation inside a burning cigarette: Modifying combustion to develop cigarettes that may be less hazardous to health. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 2006, 32(4):373-385.
Baker RR, Robinson DP: Semi-theoretical model for the prediction of smoke deliveries. In: Harare, Zimbabwe: Proceedings of CORESTA Congress. Smoke and Technology Groups; 1994: 63-72.
Barillo DJ, Brigham PA, Kayden DA, Heck RT, McManus AT: The fire-safe cigarette: a burn prevention tool. J Burn Care Rehabil 2000, 21(2):162-164; discussion 164-170.
Delichatsios M: Tenability conditions and filling times for fires in large spaces. Fire Safety Journal 2004, 39(8):643-662.
Fu Z, Hadjisophocleous G: A two-zone fire growth and smoke movement model for multi-compartment buildings. Fire Safety Journal 2000, 34(3):257-285.
Levin BC, Kuligowski ED: Toxicology of Fire and Smoke. In: Inhalation Toxicology. Edited by Salem H, Katz SA. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press (Taylor and Francis Group); 2005: 205-228.
Lin C-C, Wang L: Forecasting smoke transport during compartment fires using a data assimilation model. Journal of Fire Sciences 2015, 33(1):3-21.
Lin CS, Yu CC, Wang SC: Numerical Investigation of Fire Dynamic Behavior for a Commercial Building Basement. Advanced Materials Research 2012, 594-597:2213-2218.
Jones WW, Quintiere JG: Prediction of Corridor Smoke Filling by Zone Models. Combustion Science and Technology 1984, 35(5-6):239-253.
Muhasilovic M, Duhovnik J: CFD-Based Investigation of the Response of Mechanical Ventilation in the Case of Tunnel-Fire. Stroj Vestn-J Mech E 2012, 58(3):183-190.
Mulholland GW: Smoke Production and Properties. In: SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, 4th Edition. Edited by DiNenno PJ. Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection Association; 2008: Part 2, Chapter 13, 12-297.
NAS: Smoke and Toxicity, vol. 3. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 1978.
NAS: Flammability, Smoke, Toxicity, and Corrosive Gases of Electric Cable Materials. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 1978.
Jensen G: Wayfinding in heavy smoke: Decisive factors and safety products: Findings related to full-scale tests. IGPAS, . In.: InterConsult Group ICG; 1998.
Stewart RD, Newton PE, Hosko MJ, Peterson JE: Effect of Carbon Monoxide on Time Perception. Archives of Environmental Health: An International Journal 1973, 27(3):155-160.
Till RC: Timed egress requirements for transit and passenger rail station evacuation as described in NFPA 130. Ashrae Tran 2006, 112:246-250.
Yakush SE: Uncertainty of Tenability Times in Multiroom Building Fires. Combustion Science and Technology 2012, 184(7-8):1080-1092.
Jin T: Visibility Through Fire Smoke--Part 5, Allowable Smoke Density for Escape from Fire. In: Report No 42. Fire Research Institute of Japan; 1976: p. 12.
Jin T, Yamada T: Irritating Effects of Fire Smoke on Visibility. Fire Science and Technology 1985, 5(1):79-90.
Rein G, Bar-Ilan A, Fernandez-Pello AC, Alvares N: A Comparison of Three Models for the Simulation of Accidental Fires Journal of Fire Protection Engineering 2006, 16(3):183-209.
SFPE: Fires-T3: A Guide for Practicing Engineers. In. Edited by Models STGoDoC. Bethesda, MD: Society of Fire Protection Engineers; 1995.
SFPE: SFPE engineering guide—The Evaluation of the Computer Model DETECT-QS. Bethesda, MD: Society of Fire Protection Engineers; 2002.
SFPE: Guidelines for Substantiating a Fire Model for a Given Application. Society of Fire Protection Engineers, Bethesda, Maryland 2011.
ASTM-E1355: ASTM E1355 - 12 Standard Guide for Evaluating the Predictive Capability of Deterministic Fire Models. In: ASTM International Subcommittee E0533 on Fire Safety Engineering. 2012.
ASTM-E1472: ASTM E1472-07 Standard Guide for Documenting Computer Software for Fire Models (Withdrawn 2011). In: ASTM International Subcommittee E0533 on Fire Safety Engineering. 2007.
ASTM-E1591: ASTM E1591 - 20 Standard Guide for Obtaining Data for Deterministic Fire Models. In: ASTM International Subcommittee E0533 on Fire Safety Engineering. 2020.
ASTM-E1895: ASTM E1895 - 07 Standard Guide for Determining Uses and Limitations of Deterministic Fire Models (Withdrawn 2011). In: ASTM International Subcommittee E0533 on Fire Safety Engineering. 2007.
NFPA-921: NFPA 921 - Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations, 2014 edn. Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection Association; 2017.
Lipson AS: Is it Admissible?: LexisNexis; 2017.
Morande DA: A Class of Their Own: Model Procedural Rules and Evidentiary Evaluation of Computer-Generated “Animations”. University of Miami Law Review 2007, 61:1069-1135.
Forney GP: Smokeview (Version 5) - A Tool for Visualizing Fire Dynamics Simulation Data: Volume I: User’s Guide. In. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology; 2010.
NFPA-1033: NFPA 1033--Standard for Professional Qualifications for Fire Investigator. In. Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection Association; 2014.
Icove DJ, Crisman HJ: Application of pattern recognition in arson investigation. Fire technology 1975, 11(1):35-41.
Morales LI, Canales DA: Discoverability and Admissibility of Electronic Evidence. Advocate 2017, 79.
Webster V, Bourn III FE: The Use of Computer-Generated Animations and Simulations at Trial. Def Counsel J 2016, 83:439.
Imwinkelried EJ: The Best Insurance Against Miscarriages of Justice Caused by Junk Science: An Admissibility Test That Is Scientifically and Legally Sound. 2017.
Easton SD: Yer Outta Here-A Framework for Analyzing the Potential Exclusion of Expert Testimony under the Federal Rules of Evidence. U Rich L Rev 1998, 32:1.
Beyea J, Berger D: Scientific Misconceptions among “Daubert” Gatekeepers: The Need for Reform of Expert Review Procedures. Law and Contemporary Problems 2001, 64(2/3):327-372.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. In: F 3d. vol. 43: Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit; 1995: 1311.
See cases: Turner v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co. In.: Dist. Court, ND Ohio; 2007 and Santos v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 28 Misc. 3d 1078, 905 N.Y.S.2d 497 (Sup. Ct. 2010) .
Kesan JP: Critical Examination of the Post-Daubert Scientific Evidence Landscape. Food and Drug Law Journal 1997, 52:225-251.
Mickus L: Discovery of Work Product Disclosed to a Testifying Expert Under the 1993 Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Creighton L Rev 1993, 27:773.
Krafka C, Dunn MA, Johnson MT, Cecil JS, Miletich D: Judge and attorney experiences, practices, and concerns regarding expert testimony in federal civil trials. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 2002, 8(3):309.
Zeigler JH, Geer JD: Recent Decisions on the FRCP Rule 26 Amendments Pertaining to Experts in Products Liability Cases. Defense Counsel Journal 2013, 80(1):59.
Wells D: In brief: Law 101: Legal guide for the forensic expert. NIJ Journal 2012(269):24-25.
Downloads
Published
Versions
- 2021-07-29 (2)
- 2021-07-25 (1)
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Journal of the National Academy of Forensic Engineers
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
All rights © Journal of the National Academy of Forensic Engineers.
Full statement regarding the author's license of copyright to the NAFE is shown on the Copyright section of the Submissions Page.
