This review highlights discrepancies in fire dynamics modeling and real-world observations, suggesting improvements for modern building designs.
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to review and summarize existing large compartment fire experiments and modeling and to address the limitations of fire models in accurately predicting fire behavior in modern, large-scale building compartments, a critical concern given current building design trends. Design/methodology/approach A comprehensive review of existing experimental studies and analytical modeling approaches for large compartment fires was conducted. This includes comparisons of test conditions, fire spread dynamics, temperature distributions and the predictive capabilities of current modeling techniques. Findings This review demonstrates significant discrepancies between classical and current fire modeling assumptions and actual experimental observations in large compartments. Specifically, fires in these compartments exhibit nonuniform temperature profiles and transient and accelerating fire spread rates. Research limitations/implications Existing analytical models predominantly rely on simplified, often one-dimensional representations and have not been sufficiently validated against extensive real-world fire experiments. Several critical gaps remain in the development of robust predictive modeling capabilities for large compartment fires. One significant need is the development of valid and analytical expressions for fire spread rate that incorporate essential compartment parameters, such as ventilation, geometry and fuel load. Originality/value This paper uniquely synthesizes findings from large compartment fire experiments, directly contrasting them against the assumptions of contemporary fire models. It highlights previously under-addressed issues, such as dynamic fire spread rates, providing a clear basis for future improvements in fire modeling for performance-based fire safety engineering.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rushton et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: