Fire modelling software

[Firetech]

Hello everyone. I have been looking into purchasing some fire modelling software to simulate fire environments for performance based design (rational design) the package should strongly feature evacuation tools, fluid dynamics of smoke and detector and sprinkler response times.

I would be most grateful for opinions on what is the most used package in the UK and the rest of the EC currently?

[kurnal]

Visit NIST website and download free of charge. FDs  and the simple CFAST. FDS is the business.
Fire Dynamics Simulator and Smokeview.

[Thomas Brookes]

Have you got a web link please

[kurnal]

http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/info/software.html

[Benzerari]

Hello everyone. I have been looking into purchasing some fire modelling software to simulate fire environments for performance based design (rational design) the package should strongly feature evacuation tools, fluid dynamics of smoke and detector and sprinkler response times.

I would be most grateful for opinions on what is the most used package in the UK and the rest of the EC currently?

Also have a look to 'Smart-Fire' designed by:

 FIRE SAFETY ENGINEERING GROUP    
School of Computing & Mathematical Sciences
the UNIVERSITY of GREENWICH

the link is:   http://fseg.gre.ac.uk/smartfire/

Good luck

[Firetech]

Thanks for the feedback guys, I have looked at both of those approaches and downloaded them some time ago, there are also some comprehensive products from the University of Canterbury in New Zealand.

I by far prefer the Uni of Greenwich approach. The software is more intuitive and there is comprehensive training given whilst the NIST software seems (to me) to be a bolt on approach that is common when academics build test or concept models, in fairness though it has improved a lot over the years.

No opinions out there on the most popular software in the EC countries? I would imagine that Greenwich Uni’s ‘Smartfire’ and ‘Exodus’ are the most used in the UK at least?

Fact is these models should always be used as one of many aids only, and the results regarded with a healthy dose of suspicion, not only because of the fluid dynamics associated with smoke and related properties such radiated heat, convection current and the like, but also because the person using it (like me for example) may not be competent in the usage of the software.

Sometime the fire has not read the manual and does not know how to behave…… :-D

[kurnal]

Sometime the fire has not read the manual and does not know how to behave……

Absolutely spot on. I will put that phrase in my book of memorable quotes for future use.

[Benzerari]

Thanks for the feedback guys, I have looked at both of those approaches and downloaded them some time ago, there are also some comprehensive products from the University of Canterbury in New Zealand.

I by far prefer the Uni of Greenwich approach. The software is more intuitive and there is comprehensive training given whilst the NIST software seems (to me) to be a bolt on approach that is common when academics build test or concept models, in fairness though it has improved a lot over the years.

No opinions out there on the most popular software in the EC countries? I would imagine that Greenwich Uni’s ‘Smartfire’ and ‘Exodus’ are the most used in the UK at least?

Fact is these models should always be used as one of many aids only, and the results regarded with a healthy dose of suspicion, not only because of the fluid dynamics associated with smoke and related properties such radiated heat, convection current and the like, but also because the person using it (like me for example) may not be competent in the usage of the software.

Sometime the fire has not read the manual and does not know how to behave…… :-D

Also in my understanding (I might be wrong...), fire science (dynamics, modeling, spread...etc), still unfortunately in its beginning stage, despite that a lot have been done or discovered. Probably, this is because there are fewer researchers in the field comparing to other disciplines, or researchers may still considering fire engineering is limited to fire fighters and fire officers…etc

However, the other important point is, designers of fire modeling softwares in general come from ‘IT’ and ‘Mathematical’ background, may be with no prior training about fire engineering, but if fire engineering discipline itself, is extended to run further education to masters and PHDs diploma in UK, that would put things on the right track.

And as a result, in my opinion fire engineering has to be re-shaped to include other modules into its courses particularly not only to GCSE and NVQ levels but even till PHDs and further research levels…,

All what I stated in hear is just to say, there isn’t unfortunately, enough fire modeling softwares to chose from, just use what is available hopefully things will take further better directives in the future.

[John Webb]

researchers may still considering fire engineering is limited to fire fighters and fire officers…etc

However, the other important point is, designers of fire modeling softwares in general come from ‘IT’ and ‘Mathematical’ background, may be with no prior training about fire engineering, but if fire engineering discipline itself, is extended to run further education to masters and PHDs diploma in UK, that would put things on the right track........

I have to point out that much of the current knowledge and development of computer fire models in fact comes from the work of the Fire Research Station as it was previously known, part of BRE Ltd. And they still continue to work on the subject, as a visit to www.bre.co.uk will show. FRS certainly had its mathematicians, but many of us working on modelling were practical scientists who used results from our various fire tests to help develop the models. Had successive governments made sensible investments in looking at fire safety engineering, including computer modelling, we might all be in a better position now......

[Benzerari]

researchers may still considering fire engineering is limited to fire fighters and fire officers…etc

However, the other important point is, designers of fire modeling softwares in general come from ‘IT’ and ‘Mathematical’ background, may be with no prior training about fire engineering, but if fire engineering discipline itself, is extended to run further education to masters and PHDs diploma in UK, that would put things on the right track........

I have to point out that much of the current knowledge and development of computer fire models in fact comes from the work of the Fire Research Station as it was previously known, part of BRE Ltd. And they still continue to work on the subject, as a visit to www.bre.co.uk will show. FRS certainly had its mathematicians, but many of us working on modelling were practical scientists who used results from our various fire tests to help develop the models. Had successive governments made sensible investments in looking at fire safety engineering, including computer modelling, we might all be in a better position now......

Nice to hear that, thanks John.

[wee brian]

BRE does sell its CFD models. But most engineers prefer to use the NIST freebies.

[yellowjacket]

Because of the price principally, FDS is by far the most widely used at this stage, the low cost also means that a lot of researchers and universities are using it for validation studies. An evacuation model, EVAC, is built into the latest versions of FDS, though this is still in its infancy.

Smartfire is much easier to learn than FDS in my view, but has an awful lot more CFD settings that can easily be changed by the user from the graphical interface (as opposed to in the source or input code). This can make things more difficult for saomeone trying to assess CFD based solultions. FDS was deliberately built with a command line interface for this reason, though the third-party front end for FDS, Pyrosim, also gives it a very user friendly interface.

[Benzerari]

Because of the price principally, FDS is by far the most widely used at this stage, the low cost also means that a lot of researchers and universities are using it for validation studies. An evacuation model, EVAC, is built into the latest versions of FDS, though this is still in its infancy.

Smartfire is much easier to learn than FDS in my view, but has an awful lot more CFD settings that can easily be changed by the user from the graphical interface (as opposed to in the source or input code). This can make things more difficult for saomeone trying to assess CFD based solultions. FDS was deliberately built with a command line interface for this reason, though the third-party front end for FDS, Pyrosim, also gives it a very user friendly interface.

Thanks Yellowjack for your reply, I was about to ask Weebrian on what basis engineers prefer the NIST version...

I guess there is infinity of (fire scenarios) and thus, what have been formulated up till now as (CFD models), is just a dot in space... and there is still a lot to be done in this matter...