Blind versus Open Fire Model Validation: Issues, Pros & Cons: Deytec, Inc. USA Technical Report No. 2011-01, October 2011.
SKU:
$0.00
Abstract
Two international projects that examined the issue of blind (a priori) versus open (a posteriori) fire model validations, the Dalmarnock Round Robin Project and the International Collaborative Fire Model Project, have initiated a discussion in the international fire science community on the pros and cons of blind versus open fire model validations. These discussions are documented in this report and analyzed further to assist the fire science community specify a course of action for its development. The compilation and analysis of comments on the issue of open versus blind fire model validation show that although several concerns were raised against the adoption of blind fire model validations, the issues can be addressed in a standard. It is recommended that a standard be developed to phase in the use of blind fire validations, along with open validations, in performance-based designs to achieve a higher degree of confidence in the predictive capability of the models. Third party validation can address the issue of the possible bias introduced in fire model validations by providing an independent assessment and determination of the model errors. This will add credibility to performance-based regulatory systems. A policy that accounts for the given technical limitations should be developed to guide the proper evolution of performance-based fire protection regulatory systems worldwide. The policy and standard can be revised as experience with blind validations is gained, and the technical limitations of current fire models are overcome.
Report: 68 pages.
Two international projects that examined the issue of blind (a priori) versus open (a posteriori) fire model validations, the Dalmarnock Round Robin Project and the International Collaborative Fire Model Project, have initiated a discussion in the international fire science community on the pros and cons of blind versus open fire model validations. These discussions are documented in this report and analyzed further to assist the fire science community specify a course of action for its development. The compilation and analysis of comments on the issue of open versus blind fire model validation show that although several concerns were raised against the adoption of blind fire model validations, the issues can be addressed in a standard. It is recommended that a standard be developed to phase in the use of blind fire validations, along with open validations, in performance-based designs to achieve a higher degree of confidence in the predictive capability of the models. Third party validation can address the issue of the possible bias introduced in fire model validations by providing an independent assessment and determination of the model errors. This will add credibility to performance-based regulatory systems. A policy that accounts for the given technical limitations should be developed to guide the proper evolution of performance-based fire protection regulatory systems worldwide. The policy and standard can be revised as experience with blind validations is gained, and the technical limitations of current fire models are overcome.
Report: 68 pages.