ArticlePDF Available

Machine learning-based surrogate model for calibrating fire source properties in FDS models of façade fire tests

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Calibration is an important step in the development of predictive numerical models that involves adjusting input parameters not easily measured in experiments to improve the predictive accuracy of the numerical model compared to the real system. For complex models of façade fires, model calibration can be difficult due to the large number of input parameters that need to be calibrated simultaneously. This paper proposes a machine-learning-based surrogate modelling technique to help with calibrating the fire source in simulations of façade fire tests. Two case studies are presented to assess the feasibility of the proposed method: a simple fire source with a single burner surface based on the JIS A 1310:2015 test, and a complex fire source of a wooden crib based on the BS 8414-2:2015 test. The properties of the fire sources are calibrated based on thermocouple temperatures measured near the cladding surface. In both case studies, the ML-based surrogate model successfully calibrated the fire source properties, resulting in a high level of agreement between the calibrated model and results for experiments (average error = 2.8% and 14.3% for case studies 1 and 2). The proposed method can be applied for various optimisation problems in fire engineering research and design.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Accepted for publication in Fire Safety Journal (April 9, 2022)
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2022.103591
Machine learning-based surrogate model for calibrating
fire source properties in FDS models of façade fire tests
Hoang T. Nguyen1, Yousef Abu-Zidan1,2,*, Guomin Zhang1, Kate T. Q. Nguyen1
1 Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, RMIT University, VIC 3001, Australia
2 Department of Infrastructure Engineering, The University of Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia
* Corresponding author. Email address: yousef.abu-zidan@rmit.edu.au
Abstract
Calibration is an important step in the development of predictive numerical models that involves
adjusting input parameters not easily measured in experiments to improve the predictive accuracy of
the numerical model compared to the real system. For complex models of façade fires, model calibration
can be difficult due to the large number of input parameters that need to be calibrated simultaneously.
This paper proposes a machine-learning-based surrogate modelling technique to help with calibrating
the fire source in simulations of façade fire tests. Two case studies are presented to assess the feasibility
of the proposed method: a simple fire source with a single burner surface based on the JIS A 1310:2015
test, and a complex fire source of a wooden crib based on the BS 8414-2:2015 test. The properties of
the fire sources are calibrated based on thermocouple temperatures measured near the cladding surface.
In both case studies, the ML-based surrogate model successfully calibrated the fire source properties,
resulting in a high level of agreement between the calibrated model and results for experiments (average
error = 2.8% and 14.3% for case studies 1 and 2). The proposed method can be applied for various
optimisation problems in fire engineering research and design.
Keywords
Surrogate model, Numerical simulations, Model calibration, Artificial neural networks, Façade test,
Fire Dynamics Simulator, Machine learning
2
1 Introduction
Modern façades provide an excellent solution for high-performance building envelopes with superior
structural characteristics, high energy efficiency, and aesthetic appeal. However, because of increased
requirements for thermal and acoustic insulation, modern façade systems often include flammable
components, making them a primary contributor to the rapid spread of building fires [1]. The
performance of façade systems is an important factor that affects the overall fire safety of buildings.
The most reliable method for assessing the fire performance of façade is by conducting experiments
according to established fire testing procedures (e.g. [2, 3]), but these are often costly and time-
consuming. Numerical modelling of façade fire tests has emerged as a cost-efficient alternative that has
allowed researchers to perform sensitivity analysis on a wide range of empirical factors [4]. While there
have been several attempts to develop numerical models for façade fire tests [5-11], the accuracy of
such models is often limited by uncertainty in the fire source properties used in the simulations. Despite
the availability of experimental data, calibrating the fire source in numerical models of façade fire tests
has proved challenging.
Model calibration is an important step in the development of numerical models that involves adjusting
input parameters to improve agreement between the simulation results and the real system. Calibration
is often needed to address uncertainty with input parameters, some of which are empirical properties
that relate to the physical system while others are numerical. However, calibrating input parameters of
fire models in Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS) software can be very difficult and time-consuming due
to the high computational cost of these models and the large number of input parameters involved.
Optimisation algorithms can help automate the calibration process (e.g. Bayesian inversion framework
[12-15], Bayesian inversion framework combined with polynomial chaos expansions surrogate
modelling technique [16-21], posterior predictive distribution [22], variance decomposition techniques
[23, 24], genetic algorithm [25-27]) but these are impractical to use directly with computationally
expensive models. Optimisation algorithms generally require computations to be performed in series,
where the outcome of the previous iteration is needed to guide computations for the following iteration.
These algorithms can require thousands of iterations before arriving at a solution, and convergence is
not guaranteed in many cases. If optimisation algorithms are coupled directly with computationally
expensive FDS models, then the total computation cost will be excessive since the fire model will need
to be solved repeatedly for each iteration of the optimiser function.
To overcome this issue, this paper proposes a Machine Learning (ML) based surrogate modelling
approach for calibrating computationally-expensive FDS models of façade fire tests. Rather than
coupling the FDS model with the optimisation algorithm directly, the proposed approach involves
substituting the FDS model with a ML-based surrogate that can be efficiently combined with
optimisation algorithms for the purposes of calibration. The surrogate model is developed using
Machine Learning methods and trained using data from an array of randomly generated FDS
simulations. Because there is no dependency between the generated cases, they can be solved in parallel
using a high-performance computing (HPC) facility to reduce simulation time. The results obtained
3
from the surrogate model are verified in FDS, and the process is repeated until the calibration of the
FDS model is deemed suitable for the application of interest.
Two case studies are presented in this paper to demonstrate the practical implementation of the proposed
method for calibrating fire source properties in FDS models of façade fire tests. The first case study
involves a simple model with a single burner surface based on the Japanese façade fire test method JIS
A 1310:2015 [3]. The second case study involves a complex model with a wooden crib as the fire source
placed inside the combustion chamber of the British façade fire test BS 8414-2 [2].
1.1 Surrogate model using machine learning
Machine learning (ML) is a subset of artificial intelligence that allows for constructing statistical models
by providing sufficient sample data and employing a series of algorithms to carry out predictions. A
number of prominent studies have demonstrated the efficacy of utilising ML in the fire safety domain,
such as in making predictions on the evolution of soot mass fraction, temperature, and pressure in case
of high-rise fires [28], identifying the stages of fire growth in residential room fires with an average of
85% accuracy [29], developing early-warning systems for smoke-detection and smoke movement with
the support of support vector machines [30, 31], estimating the temperatures and velocities inside a
compartment fire model using a convolutional neural network given the input of fire location, fire sizes,
ventilation configurations, and compartment geometries [32], providing rapid and accurate predictions
of fires to support hazard or risk assessments utilising data-driven techniques [33, 34], using data mining
techniques such as artificial neural networks and support vector machines to forecast the occurrence of
wildfires [35], developing an ML-based model to predict the probability of flashover in multiple rooms
on a single floor during the compartment fire [36], and proposing a data-driven methodology to estimate
temperature-dependent material properties and determine the fire resistance of timber structures [37].
Numerical models for solving engineering problems have increased in accuracy and complexity over
the past few decades. However, the computing time necessary to run these models has not always been
reduced, making it difficult to finalise engineering tasks dependent on such models [38]. The surrogate
modelling approach has emerged to replace computationally expensive numerical simulations to
address the limitation in terms of the computational time, allowing engineers to complete tasks (e.g.,
design optimisation, sensitivity analysis) more quickly while achieving the required degree of accuracy.
Several surrogate modelling approaches can be found in the literature including Fourier surrogate
modelling [39, 40], random forests [41], support vector machines, space mapping [42], and Bayesian
neural networks [43]. The process of constructing a surrogate model for the design optimisation consists
of the following steps:
Selecting samples or generating the training dataset based on available experimental data or
simulations cases.
Constructing the surrogate model to predict the output variable of interest.
Optimising the model parameters.
Evaluating the accuracy of the surrogate model with new data.
Surrogate modelling is frequently applied in engineering design to substitute costly experiments and
time-consuming simulations. In this study, surrogate modelling is used to help automate the calibration
4
of fire source properties in FDS models of façade fire tests. The proposed modelling procedure is based
on machine learning algorithms that include the multiple linear regression (MLR) model and artificial
neural networks (ANN). Details of these models are provided in the following subsections.
1.2 Multiple linear regression
The critical steps in building an ML-based model include collecting sufficient data points to form a
valid dataset, selecting relevant input variables, dividing the dataset into training and test sets, choosing
suitable algorithms (e.g. multiple linear regression, artificial neural networks) and controlling the
complexity of the model, training the ML model with the training data, and assessing the predictive
capability of the model with the test data that it has never seen before [44].
One of the most fundamental machine learning techniques is the multiple linear regression (MLR)
model [45]. The mathematical assumption behind the MLR model is a linear relationship between the
independent and dependent variables. The linear regression formula can be expressed as given in
Equation (1):
ŷ=0+
=1
(1)
where ŷ is the predicted value of the dependent variable, 0 and are the intercepts and regression
coefficients of each independent variable , and is the total number of independent variables.
To assess the accuracy of an ML-based model, it is recommended to use the coefficient of determination
(R2), root mean square error (RMSE) or mean absolute error (MAE) on the test set. These indices are
commonly utilised to measure the difference between the predicted values obtained from the model and
the actual values of output. The way to compute these indexes can be found in Nguyen et al. [44]. It is
strongly suggested that R2 should be used in combination with RMSE or MAE when evaluating the
prediction capacity of an ML-based model. In the case of two ML-based models with the same R2
values, the model with the lower value of RMSE/MAE determined on the test set is regarded as the
better model. An ML model that provides an R2 value approaching 1.0 and an RMSE value close to 0
is considered a well-forecasting model [44].
1.3 Artificial neural networks
Among commonly used ML algorithms, artificial neural networks (ANNs) have received significant
interest and have been widely applied for solving many engineering problems in the area of fire
engineering and sciences [44, 46-50]. ANN is a powerful method for identifying parameters for model
calibration [51, 52] and has been successfully utilised to approximate the inverse output-input
relationship of calibrated models. In fire engineering-related research, great attempts have been made
to calibrate numerical models with the integration of ANN, including the prediction of transient
temperatures at specified locations in a compartment fire [46], determining the fire origin in
compartment fires [48], estimating the smoke temperature in a single-room fire [47], and evaluating the
temperature-deformation history of reinforced-concrete beams exposed to fire [49].
5
The basic structure of a three-layer ANN is shown in Figure 1 consisting of input, hidden, and output
layers. The neurons (or nodes) in the input layer correspond to the input variables in the model, while
the output layer corresponds to the predicted variables. The number of hidden layers and topology of
the ANN affects the performance of the model, and the optimal configuration will vary depending on
the application of interest. Each of the nodes is assigned an initial weight and bias, which are then
modified through iterative computations as the model is being trained until an acceptable level of
predictive performance is achieved.
Figure 1. Structure of artificial neural network with three layers
2 Methodology
This paper proposes a ML-based surrogate modelling approach for calibrating fire source properties in
FDS models of façade fire tests. Rather than coupling optimisation algorithms with FDS models
directly, which would be very time-consuming, the proposed approach involves coupling the optimiser
with a ML-based surrogate model (e.g. MLR, ANN) instead. The optimisation results are verified by
running an FDS simulation using the calibrated values of FDS parameters suggested by the surrogate
model and optimiser. The calibration process is repeated until the performance of the calibrated FDS
model is deemed suitable for the application of interest. A flowchart of the proposed method is presented
in Figure 2, and details of each step in the process are described as follows:
Step 1: An initial FDS model of the problem being solved is developed, where the input and output
parameters of interest are explicitly defined. The FDS model should sufficiently capture the underlying
physics of the system being simulated.
Step 2: A series of preliminary sensitivity studies are performed with the initial FDS model to assess
the influence of each input parameter on the output variables of interest. The sensitivity analyses are
performed using a trial-and-error approach that involves varying the input parameters individually and
comparing FDS results against the calibration target values (e.g. from experiment). The aim is to
identify an appropriate value range for each input parameter that produces FDS results which fully
encompasses calibration target values of the output parameters of interest. This is to avoid having to
extrapolate the surrogate model beyond the range of the training dataset during the calibration process.
Input layer Hidden layer Output layer
i
1
i
2
h
1
h
2
h
3
h
4
o
1
w
1
w
2
w
3
w
4
w
5
w
6
w
8
weights
w
9
w
10
w
11
w
12
w
7
6
Step 3: Once the initial FDS model has been developed and appropriate ranges for input parameters
have been identified, the third step involves generating an array of simulation cases with randomised
values of input parameters within the specified range. In this study, a random case generator is
developed using a Python script to automate this process. For some applications, it may be necessary to
introduce physics-based constraints to define the relationship between input parameters. Each randomly
generated simulation case will provide an additional data point for training and testing the surrogate
model. There are no restrictions on the maximum number of generated cases, but increasing the number
of cases will require additional computing resources. As a rule of thumb, at least 10 simulation cases
are needed for each input parameter being considered for calibration. This number can be increased if
the size of the dataset is deemed inadequate for training and testing the surrogate model.
Step 4: The randomly generated cases in step 3 are solved in parallel using multiple compute cores.
This is ideally performed with the aid of a high-performance computing (HPC) facility, although a
standalone workstation with a large number of computing cores can be used depending on the size of
the FDS model. Solving the cases in parallel is possible because there is no dependency between the
generated cases. This allows for a considerable reduction in computational time that can be scaled
directly with available cores/nodes in the HPC facility. For each simulation case, the output of the FDS
model is saved along with the corresponding values of the input parameters to create a valid dataset for
training the surrogated model.
Figure 2. Flowchart of proposed model calibration procedure using ML-based surrogate model
Step 5: The machine learning-based surrogate model is constructed and trained using the dataset
generated in step 4. The dataset is split into a training set and a test set. The training set (~65-80% of
total data points) is used to train the model, while the test set is used to assess the predictive accuracy
of the model. Here, the aim is to identify an ML model that can adequately replicate the results from
Step 1
Build initial
FDS model
Perform
sensitivity
analyses
Step 3
Generate
simulation
cases
Step 4
Solve cases
in parallel
Step 5
Construct and
train ML-based
surrogate
model
Step 6
Calibrate input
parameters
Step 7
Validate input
parameter
calibration
Yes
No
Start
End
Acceptable
accuracy?
(iv)
Address
limitations
of initial
model
(i)
Improve
accuracy of
surrogate
model
(iii)
Identify
additional
parameters
affecting
results
(ii)
Increase
number of
cases
7
the FDS models. For ANN models, the complexity of the model can be controlled by changing the
number of hidden layers (depth of the network) as well as the number of neurons within each layer
(width of the network). Other ML-based models can also be assessed until an adequate model is
identified.
Step 6: Once an adequate ML-based surrogate model is constructed and trained, the next step involves
combining the surrogate model with an optimisation algorithm to calibrate the input parameters
identified in step 1. The basic approach is to define an optimisation function as some measure of
deviation between the output of the surrogate model and the target values of interest (e.g. experimental
data). The most used metrics are the Mean Absolute Error (MAE) and the Root Mean Square Error
(RMSE). An optimisation algorithm is then used to identify optimal values of input parameters for
which the optimisation function is minimised. Physics-based constraints that define the relationship
between values of input parameters may be introduced in the optimiser algorithm to avoid non-realistic
results.
Step 7: Once the calibration has been completed, the next step involves validating the outcomes of the
calibration effort by running an additional FDS case with input values obtained from step 6. The results
from the calibrated FDS model are compared with the target values (e.g. experimental data) to assess
whether the calibrated FDS model achieves an acceptable level of accuracy. If the accuracy of the FDS
model is deemed adequate, then the entire procedure is completed. Otherwise, the calibration can be
further improved in the following ways:
(i) Improve the accuracy of the ML-based surrogate model by changing the algorithms or
managing its complexity (e.g. adjust the width/depth of ANN)
(ii) Increase the number of randomly generated simulation cases to create a larger dataset for
training and testing the ML-based surrogate model.
(iii) Perform additional sensitivity studies to identify additional input parameters that influence
the output of the FDS model, or modify the range selected for existing input parameters.
(iv) Modify the initial FDS model to address underlying limitations.
It should be noted that the acceptable level of accuracy from the FDS model will vary depending on
numerous parameters, some of which are project-specific, such as the consequence of failure or
underperforming systems and the risk tolerance of decision-makers involved. These are best left up to
the modeller to decide on a case-by-case basis.
It should also be stressed that the intended deliverable of the proposed framework is not the ML-based
surrogate itself, but rather the calibrated FDS model. The ML surrogate has a very limited scope of
application because, unlike the FDS model which is physics-driven, the surrogate model is data-driven
and does not account for the underlying physical constraints of the problem being addressed. The
surrogate model is merely used to assist with the calibration of the FDS model and can be discarded
once the calibration process is complete.
8
3 Results and discussion
Having provided a general description of the proposed method, results from two case studies are
presented in this section to assess the feasibility of the proposed method for calibrating the fire source
properties in FDS simulations of façade fire tests. Case study 1 involves calibrating a simple model
with a single burner surface for the Japanese façade fire test JIS A 1310:2015 [3], while case study 2
involves calibrating a more complex fire source of a wooden crib for the BS 8414-2:2015 [2] test. The
models are constructed using FDS v6.7.5 with the aid of the graphical user interface pre-processing tool
PyroSim 2020.5. For both case studies, experimental results are available for a case of non-combustible
cladding that will be utilised for calibrating the fire source properties in the simulation. A detailed
description of each case study is provided in the following subsections.
3.1 Case study 1: Calibrating FDS model with simple heat source
Case study 1 demonstrates the use of the proposed ML-based surrogate modelling approach for
calibrating the heat release rate per unit area (HRRPUA) of a simple fire source inside a combustion
chamber of a façade fire test. Experimental results from a façade fire test by Zhou et al. [10] with a non-
combustible cladding material were adopted for the purpose of calibrating the fire source properties.
The fire test was performed according to the Japanese façade fire testing method JIS A 1310:2015,
which determines the fire propagation over building facades exposed to flames ejected from an opening.
The JIS A 1310 testing layout (Figure 3a) involves a single façade surface with a 910x910 mm opening
that is attached to a combustion chamber. At the floor of the combustion chamber, a single gas burner
with a stable heat release rate is provided as the fire source. The surface area of the burner is 0.36 m2
with dimensions L × W = 600 mm × 600 mm. An FDS model was constructed with an equivalent test
layout as shown in Figure 3c. Temperatures from 5 thermocouples (M1-M5) above the combustion
chamber were used to calibrate the burner surface in the FDS model.
Results from a preliminary sensitivity analysis revealed that the heat release rate per unit area
(HRRPUA) of the burner surface has a direct influence on the temperature profiles of the
thermocouples. Hence, a single input parameter was considered in the calibration of the FDS model,
which is the HRRPUA of the burner surface. A total of 5 output parameters were defined which
correspond to the temperatures of the 5 thermocouples in the fire test (M1-M5).
9
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 3. Façade fire test based on JIS A 1310. (a) Test layout. (b) Experiment setup [10].
(c)FDS model
3.1.1 Generating random cases
Based on preliminary sensitivity analysis (step 2 in Figure 2), an appropriate range of HRRPUA was
defined to be between 2500 7500 kW/m2. Using the rule of 10 simulation cases per parameter, and
given that the model has a single input parameter, a total of 10 simulation cases were generated with
randomised values of HRRPUA within the specified range of 2500 7500 kW/m2. To automate this
process, a random case generator script was developed using Python 3.8 (step 3 in Figure 2). The
resulting range of the input variable is shown in Table 1. The 10 simulation cases were solved in parallel
to reduce the total simulation time (step 4 in Figure 2), and results of the simulation cases are plotted in
Figure 4 against the experimental measurement from Zhou et al. [10].
Table 1. List of input and output values for 10 randomly generated cases
Case No.
Input
HRRPUA
(kW/m2)
Output
Temperature (oC)
M1
M2
M3
M4
M5
1
2740
445.7
272.4
196.3
166.0
143.8
2
3025
491.7
314.2
223.6
187.6
158.6
3
4861
786.5
573.9
424.3
345.3
282.2
4
4944
708.5
492.7
381.9
314.8
256.0
5
5324
811.0
592.0
443.4
368.9
314.7
6
5990
862.1
676.1
511.0
422.3
362.0
7
6056
885.3
702.6
538.9
458.4
391.6
8
6740
902.3
724.8
559.2
474.9
399.4
9
7393
954.6
834.0
675.8
569.1
473.3
10
7399
943.6
797.4
666.4
584.8
495.5
Range (2740 – 7399) (446 – 955) (272 – 834) (197 – 676) (166 – 585) (144 – 496)
Non-combustible
10
Figure 4. Results of 10 randomly generated cases in case study 1
Figure 4 shows that the input parameter values of the randomly generated cases produce results (grey
plots) that fully encompass the target values from the experiment of Zhou et al. [10] (yellow dots). This
confirms that the target value of HRRPUA will fall within the previously defined range of 2500 7500
kW/m2. The calibration process can therefore be performed without the need to extrapolate the
performance of the ML surrogate model beyond the range of the training dataset.
3.1.2 Constructing and training the surrogate model
Due to the simplicity of this case study, a Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) algorithm was used for
constructing the surrogate model (step 5 in Figure 2). The surrogate model was composed of an array
of 5 separate models, each corresponding to an output variable of thermocouple temperature (M1-M5).
The HRRPUA was specified as the input variable, and the model was trained using results from the 10
randomly generated cases, which were split into a training set (7 cases) and a test set (3 cases). The
trained MLR model achieved an R2 value of 0.93 indicating a high level of predictive accuracy.
3.1.3 Calibrating fire source parameter
Having trained the surrogate model, the next step involved calibrating the input parameter of HRRPUA
to achieve agreement with experimental results (step 6 in Figure 2). An optimisation function based on
the RMSE was selected to quantify the level of divergence between the surrogate model predictions
and the experimental results. The optimisation function is minimised using the minimizefunction
from the SciPy v1.7.1 library in Python 3.8. The Sequential Least Squared Programming (SLSQP)
algorithm is selected with bounds from 2500 - 7500 kW/m2 and an initial value of 4000 kW/m2. The
optimisation algorithm successfully converged to a solution with HRRPUA = 4917 kW/m2 with a
corresponding local minimum value of RSME = 35.4oC. The surrogate model predictions corresponding
to the optimised value of HRRPUA shows a high level of agreement with experimental results (Figure
5a) with an average error of 7.1%.
11
(a)
(b)
Figure 5. Prediction of ML-based surrogate model (a) and FDS model (b) for the calibrated value
of input parameter HRRPUA = 4917kW/m2 showing good agreement with experiment.
Having calibrated the value of the HRRPUA in the surrogate model, the final step is to verify the results
of the FDS model using this calibrated value (step 7 in Figure 2). Hence, an additional FDS case is
solved with HRRPUA = 4917 kW/m2. The results shown in Figure 5b demonstrate a high level of
agreement with the target values from the experiment where the average error was 2.8%. This indicates
the validity of the proposed approach of using a surrogate model to calibrate input parameters of the
FDS model.
It should be noted that the calibration of the single input parameter in case study 1 could have been
performed manually due to the simplicity of the problem. A more complex case with multiple
interrelated input parameters is presented in case study 2.
3.2 Case study 2: Calibrating FDS model with complex heat source
Having demonstrated a simplified problem in case study 1, the second case study presents the
application of the ML-based surrogate modelling approach for calibrating the properties of a complex
fire source in the BS 8414-2:2015 façade fire test. The façade system consisted of a vertical main wall
that includes the combustion chamber at the bottom, and a perpendicular wing wall located on one side
of the main wall. A total of 16 thermocouples were installed at two levels on both the main and wing
walls in accordance with the BS 8414 testing standard.
Unlike case study 1 using a gas burner surface, the heat source for the façade test in case study 2 is a
wooden crib with multiple surfaces, making this case more complicated due to ambiguity in the
HRRPUA of each surface and size of the wooden crib. The schematic of thermocouple locations, the
system installation before the fire test, and the FDS model are shown in Figure 6. The calibration of the
heat source was carried out based on experimental data from Dréan et al. [7] performed for a non-
combustible cladding material (plasterboard). The temperature of 16 thermocouples at the top and
bottom levels marked in Figure 6a were considered in the calibration of the heat source.
12
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 6. Façade fire test based on BS8414-2. (a) Test layout showing the location of
thermocouples. (b) Experiment setup. (c). FDS model.
Based on preliminary sensitivity analyses (step 2 in Figure 2), two fire source properties in the numerical
model were identified to affect the temperatures at the thermocouples. These include the HRRPUA and
the location of the fire source surface. To provide control over the temperatures achieved at different
locations on the façade, four surfaces of the wooden crib were assigned individual parameters of
HRRPUA and location within the combustion chamber, resulting in a total of 8 parameters to be
calibrated. These parameters are listed in Table 2 along with appropriate ranges identified from
sensitivity analyses. The locations of the crib surfaces are defined in terms of Cartesian coordinates
with the origin shown in Figure 6c. The selected ranges in Table 2 fully encompassed the results of
thermocouple temperatures from the experiment.
Table 2. Calibration range of heat source parameters in case study 2
Parameter
Range
HRRPUA (kW/m2)
Top surface
0 - 1500
Front surface
0 - 1500
Left surface
0 - 1500
Right surface
0 - 1500
Location of surface (m)
Top surface (z max)
1.30 – 1.50
Front surface (y max)
0.0 – 0.30
Left surface (x min)
0.35 – 0.55
Right surface (x max)
1.90 – 2.10
13
3.2.1 Generating random cases
Given a total of 8 input parameters to be calibrated, and using the rule of 10 simulation cases per
parameter, a total of 80 simulation cases were generated using the random case generator script in
Python 3.8 (step 3 in Figure 2). The cases were generated based on random combinations of input
variables with the ranges shown in Table 2. Because there was no dependency between the cases, the
cases were solved in parallel using HPC to reduce the total simulation time (step 4 in Figure 2). The
results of the 80 randomly generated cases are presented in terms of temperature-time histories (Figure
7) and peak temperatures at t = 1000 s (Figure 8) for the 16 thermocouples in the façade test. The plots
in Figure 7 and Figure 8 show a wide range of variability in output temperature. Critically, the range of
output profiles fully encompasses the experimental profiles plotted in yellow. Results of peak
temperatures at t = 1000s were extracted from the randomly generated cases to create a valid dataset for
training the surrogate.
Figure 7. Results of 80 randomly generated cases showing temperature-time histories
for the 16 thermocouples in case study 2
14
Figure 8. Results of 80 randomly generated cases showing peak temperature at t= 1000s for the 16
thermocouples in case study 2
3.2.2 Constructing and training the surrogate model
An ANN-based surrogate model was selected in this case study due to the complexity of the calibration
problem and the large number of interrelated parameters involved (step 5 in Figure 2). For constructing
the surrogate model, a densely connected ANN was created using Python 3.8 using TensorFlow v2.3.0
library with Keras API. This network included 8 nodes in the input layer, which corresponds to the
number of FDS model parameters to be calibrated, and 16 nodes in the output layers corresponding to
the temperatures of the 16 thermocouples. Based on preliminary trials, 4 hidden layers were provided
with 2048 neurons in each layer. The rectified linear ('relu') activation function was used for the hidden
layer, and the ‘linear’ function was applied for the output layer.
To train the ANN model, the dataset generated from the 80 randomised cases was partitioned into a
training set of 56 cases (70%) and a test set of 24 cases (30%). The values of input parameters were
normalised using a scaling function to fall with a uniform range of 0 to 1. This was done to address the
variability of units and scales between the input parameters. The training set was used to solve the ANN
and the performance was monitored based on the mean absolute error (MAE) of the predicted values.
A maximum of 2000 training epochs was specified with a batch size of 80, and early stopping was
implemented to avoid overfitting the model. Overfitting implies that the ANN might produce a good
prediction on the training set but a bad predicted result given the test data. Hence, the ANN model was
trained with an increase in the number of epochs and the training was terminated once the MAE of the
test set no longer improved. A delay of 100 epochs was used before triggering the early stopping
15
function. This was done to avoid the early stopping function being triggered by spikes in the MAE of
the test set. Results of the MAE during the training process are shown in Figure 9. The training process
aborted after 374 training epochs beyond which the MAE of the test set showed no further improvement.
Figure 9. Mean absolute error per epoch on the training set and the test set
The predictive power of the ANN-based surrogate model is evaluated based on predictions of data
points not seen during the training process. The test set is used for this purpose. Figure 10 compares the
surrogate model predictions of peak temperatures at the 16 thermocouples with results from the FDS
model. The ANN model achieved R2 values of 0.976 and 0.819 for the training and test sets,
respectively. This indicates that the ANN-based surrogated model is capable of predicting results from
the FDS model with a reasonable degree of accuracy.
(a)
(b)
Figure 10. Comparison of FDS results and ANN model predictions of temperature at 16
thermocouples in case study 2. (a) Training set. (b) Test set.
3.2.3 Calibrating fire source parameters
Having developed a surrogate model that adequately predicts results from the FDS simulation, the next
step (step 6 in Figure 2) involves combining the surrogate model with an optimisation algorithm to
calibrate input values of heat source parameters. An optimisation function is selected based on the
16
RMSE between ANN predictions and experimental measurements. The optimisation function is then
minimised using an optimisation algorithm to determine the optimal values for the 8 input parameters.
The SLSQP algorithm used in case study 1, which is based on local minima, did not converge to an
adequate solution when calibrating the ANN model in this case study. Hence a more computationally
demanding global optimisation algorithm was adopted that is based on the differential evolution (DE)
method. The DE algorithm successfully minimised the optimisation function, achieving an RMSE value
of 55.6 oC. The resulting optimal values for the 8 input parameters are presented in Table 3, and the
corresponding predictions of the ANN-based surrogate model are compared against the target
experimental values in Figure 11.
It is noted that the HRRPUA of the wood crib is a dynamic parameter to be changed over time and is
difficult to measure in reality. Therefore, the HRRPUA values provided in Table 3 are not the actual
properties of the fire source but rather the FDS input parameters found by the DE algorithm to offer a
near-optimal agreement between FDS model predictions and experimental measurements. The
interaction of the surrounding air with the burning chamber may explain the significant difference in
HRRPUA values on the left and right surfaces of the wood crib. The left surface of the wood crib, closer
to the corner of the facade, is likely to get less air than the right side. However, more research is needed
to acquire a deeper understanding of the problem. In reality, the experimental results may differ even
when tested under repeatable testing conditions. As a result, the HRRPUA suggested by the ML-based
surrogate model should be interpreted as average values over the range of test conditions considered.
Table 3. Initial and calibrated values of heat source parameters in case study 2
Parameter
Initial values
Calibrated values
HRRPUA (kW/m2)
Top surface
513
745.8
Front surface
513
1437.2
Left surface
513
2.7
Right surface
513
1481.9
Location of surface (m)
Top surface (z max)
1.40
1.30
Front surface (y max)
0.00
0.00
Left surface (x min)
0.46
0.37
Right surface (x max)
2.00
2.10
17
Figure 11. Comparison of ANN predictions and experiment results of thermocouple temperatures
at t=1000s
3.2.4 Validation of the calibrated model
Once the optimal parameter values have been obtained from the surrogate model, the model is validated
by running additional cases in FDS using the initial and calibrated parameter values as listed in Table
3 (step 7 in Figure 2). The initial model is based on nominal values specified in the BS 8414 standard
for the maximum HRR and the size of the wooden crib.
Results of peak temperature at t = 1000s and temperature-time histories for the 16 thermocouples are
presented in Figure 12 and Figure 13, respectively, for both the initial and calibrated FDS model. The
results show a considerable improvement in the predictive performance of the calibrated model (average
error = 14.3%) compared to the initial model (average error = 40.7%). Before calibration (Figure 12a),
the temperature curves are seen to follow the overall trend of the experimental results, but there is a
considerable discrepancy in thermocouple readings at the centre of the main wall (M2-M4, M7-M9).
After calibration (Figure 12b), the FDS model is able to closely replicate experimental results for all 16
thermocouples, where the RMSE value fell from 240.7 oC to 59.8 oC. Similar conclusions can be drawn
from the results of temperature-time histories shown in Figure 13.
18
(a) before calibration
(b) after calibration
Figure 12. Thermocouple temperatures at t = 1000s in case study 2 before and after calibration
19
(a) before calibration
(b) after calibration
Figure 13. Time histories of thermocouple temperatures in case study 2 before and after calibration
20
4 Conclusions
This work describes the development of a surrogate modelling approach integrated with machine
learning techniques for calibrating the fire source in FDS simulations of façade fire tests. Two case
studies are presented to assess the applicability of the proposed approach; the first is an FDS model
with a single burner surface that involved the calibration of a single parameter (HRRPUA of a single
fire source), and the second is a complex FDS model with a wood crib as the fire source with 8
parameters to be calibrated (HRRPUA and location of 4 fire source surfaces). In both case studies,
experimental measurements of thermocouples temperatures from a case of non-combustible cladding
were used to calibrate the properties of the fire source.
The proposed approach involves generating and solving an array of FDS cases with randomised values
of input parameters within a specified range obtained from preliminary sensitivity analyses. Because
there is no dependency between the generated cases, the FDS cases can be solved in parallel using a
high-performance computing (HPC) facility to reduce simulation time. Results from the FDS cases are
used to train a machine learning-based surrogate model, which is then combined with an optimisation
algorithm in order to calibrate input parameters to achieve a high level of agreement with experimental
results.
The study assessed two different ML algorithms for constructing the surrogate model: the multiple
linear regression (MLR) model and artificial neural networks (ANN). The MLR model was used in case
study 1 to predict 5 output parameters from a single input parameter, while ANN was used in case study
2 to predict 16 output parameters for 8 input parameters. Both models achieved acceptable predictive
accuracy with R2 = 0.930 and 0.819 for MLR and ANN, respectively.
For calibrating the input parameters, the sequential least squared programming (SLSQP) optimisation
algorithm was used in case study 1, while the different evolution (DE) algorithm was used in case study
2. Being a global optimisation function, the DE algorithm was more suitable for optimising the large
number of interrelated input parameters in case study 2 despite requiring larger computational
resources. The optimisation algorithms in both case studies converged successfully, and the resulting
ML predictions demonstrated reasonable agreement with the target values from the experiment. Results
from the FDS model based on the calibrated values of input parameters also achieved reasonable
agreement with the experiments, with an average error of 2.8% and 14.3% for case studies 1 and 2,
respectively.
Overall, the study demonstrates the validity of the proposed surrogate modelling approach for
calibrating fire source properties in FDS models of façade fire tests. The calibrated fire source properties
can be adopted by fire safety modellers to improve confidence in the simulation of combustible
cladding, which has practical value in terms of assessing fire safety risk for various cladding materials
used in real-life buildings.
The proposed approach may be used to calibrate other model parameters in FDS models of façade fire
tests, and more generally, for solving optimisation problems in the field of fire engineering where
computationally expensive models cannot be feasibly coupled with optimisation algorithms. It should
be stressed however that the success of the framework will ultimately depend on whether an appropriate
21
ML surrogate can be found that can adequately replicate the FDS model for the specific application of
interest, and further research is needed to investigate the limitations of extending the proposed approach
to different features to those presented in this study.
Acknowledgments
This research was undertaken as part of a PhD program in Civil Engineering at RMIT University,
Melbourne, Australia. We gratefully acknowledge the support of the Australian Research Council, grant
number DE190100217. There is no conflict of interest declared by the authors.
Author Contributions
Hoang Nguyen: Conceptualisation; Methodology; Formal analysis; Investigation; Data curation;
Writing - original draft.
Yousef Abu-Zidan: Conceptualisation; Methodology; Software; Investigation; Data curation;
Writing - review & editing.
Guomin Zhang: Writing - review & editing; Supervision.
Kate Nguyen: Conceptualisation; Resources; Investigation; Writing - review & editing; Supervision;
Project administration; Funding acquisition.
References
1. Nguyen, K.T., et al., Performance of modern building façades in fire: a comprehensive
review. Electronic Journal of Structural Engineering, 2016. 16(1): p. 69-86.
2. British Standard, BS 8414-2: 2015 Fire performance of external cladding systems. Test
method for non-loadbearing external cladding systems fixed to and supported by a structural
steel frame. 2015.
3. Japanese Standards Association, JIS A 1310:2015 Test method for fire propagation over
building facades. 2015.
4. Nguyen, Q.T., et al., Experimental and numerical investigations on the thermal response of
multilayer glass fibre/unsaturated polyester/organoclay composite. Fire and Materials, 2016.
40(8): p. 1047-1069. https://doi.org/10.1002/fam.2364.
5. Anderson, J., et al., Modeling of fire exposure in facade fire testing. Fire and Materials, 2018.
42(5): p. 475-483. https://doi.org/10.1002/fam.2485.
6. Anderson, J. and R. Jansson. Façade fire tests–measurements and modeling. in MATEC Web
of Conferences. 2013. EDP Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/20130902003.
7. Dréan, V., et al., Numerical simulation of the fire behaviour of facade equipped with
aluminium composite material‐based claddings‐Model validation at large scale. Fire and
Materials, 2019. 43(8): p. 981-1002. https://doi.org/10.1002/fam.2745.
8. Guillaume, E., et al., Reconstruction of Grenfell Tower fire. Part 3—Numerical simulation of
the Grenfell Tower disaster: Contribution to the understanding of the fire propagation and
22
behaviour during the vertical fire spread. Fire and Materials, 2020. 44(1): p. 35-57.
https://doi.org/10.1002/fam.2763.
9. Guillaume, E., et al., Reconstruction of Grenfell Tower fire. Part 2: A numerical investigation
of the fire propagation and behaviour from the initial apartment to the façade. Fire and
Materials, 2020. 44(1): p. 15-34. https://doi.org/10.1002/fam.2765.
10. Zhou, B., et al., Numerical and experimental study of cedar façade fire. Fire and Materials,
2021. https://doi.org/10.1002/fam.2983.
11. Abu-Zidan, Y., et al., Effect of wind speed and direction on facade fire spread in an isolated
rectangular building. Fire Safety Journal, 2022. 129: p. 103570.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2022.103570.
12. Beck, J.L. and L.S. Katafygiotis, Updating models and their uncertainties. I: Bayesian
statistical framework. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 1998. 124(4): p. 455-461.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1998)124:4(455).
13. Hewson, P., Bayesian Data Analysis 3rd edn A. Gelman, JB Carlin, HS Stern, DB Dunson, A.
Vehtari and DB Rubin, 2013 Boca Raton, Chapman and Hall–CRC 676 pp.,£ 44.99 ISBN 1-
439-84095-4. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, 2015. 178(1): p. 301-301.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-985X.2014.12096_1.x.
14. Yu, B., R. Tang, and B. Li, Probabilistic calibration for development length models of
deformed reinforcing bar. Engineering Structures, 2019. 182: p. 279-289.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.12.047.
15. Wagner, P.-R., et al. Surrogate-based bayesian inversion for the model calibration of fire
insulation panels. in SIAM Conference on Uncertainty Quantification (UQ18). 2018. ETH
Zurich. https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-b-000279670.
16. Blatman, G., Adaptive sparse polynomial chaos expansions for uncertainty propagation and
sensitivity analysis. 2009, Clermont-Ferrand 2.
17. Blatman, G. and B. Sudret, An adaptive algorithm to build up sparse polynomial chaos
expansions for stochastic finite element analysis. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, 2010.
25(2): p. 183-197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.probengmech.2009.10.003.
18. Blatman, G. and B. Sudret, Adaptive sparse polynomial chaos expansion based on least angle
regression. Journal of Computational Physics, 2011. 230(6): p. 2345-2367.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2010.12.021.
19. Guo, X., et al., Reliability analysis of embankment dam sliding stability using the sparse
polynomial chaos expansion. Engineering Structures, 2018. 174: p. 295-307.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.07.053.
20. Sudret, B., Global sensitivity analysis using polynomial chaos expansions. Reliability
Engineering & System Safety, 2008. 93(7): p. 964-979.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2007.04.002.
21. Wagner, P., et al., Bayesian calibration and sensitivity analysis of heat transfer models for
fire insulation panels. Engineering Structures, 2020. 205.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.110063.
22. Gelman, A., X.-L. Meng, and H. Stern, Posterior predictive assessment of model fitness via
realized discrepancies. Statistica Sinica, 1996: p. 733-760.
23. Arwade, S.R., M. Moradi, and A. Louhghalam, Variance decomposition and global sensitivity
for structural systems. Engineering Structures, 2010. 32(1): p. 1-10.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.08.011.
23
24. Chan, K., A. Saltelli, and S. Tarantola. Sensitivity analysis of model output: variance-based
methods make the difference. in Proceedings of the 29th conference on Winter simulation.
1997. http://doi.org/10.1109/WSC.1997.640407.
25. Lautenberger, C., G. Rein, and C. Fernandez-Pello, The application of a genetic algorithm to
estimate material properties for fire modeling from bench-scale fire test data. Fire Safety
Journal, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2005.12.004.
26. Rein, G., et al., Application of genetic algorithms and thermogravimetry to determine the
kinetics of polyurethane foam in smoldering combustion. Combustion and Flame, 2006.
146(1-2): p. 95-108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2006.04.013.
27. Yuen, A.C.Y., et al., Utilising genetic algorithm to optimise pyrolysis kinetics for fire
modelling and characterisation of chitosan/graphene oxide polyurethane composites.
Composites. Part B, Engineering, 2020. 182: p. 107619.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.107619.
28. Buffington, T., S. Bilyaz, and O. Ezekoye, Brain-STORM: A deep learning model for
computationally fast transient high-rise fire simulations. Fire Safety Journal, 2021. 125: p.
103443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2021.103443.
29. Fang, H., et al., Development of a machine-learning approach for identifying the stages of fire
development in residential room fires. Fire Safety Journal, 2021. 126: p. 103469.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2021.103469.
30. Gubbi, J., S. Marusic, and M. Palaniswami, Smoke detection in video using wavelets and
support vector machines. Fire Safety Journal, 2009. 44(8): p. 1110-1115.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2009.08.003.
31. Hong, Y., J. Kang, and C. Fu, Rapid prediction of mine tunnel fire smoke movement with
machine learning and supercomputing techniques. Fire Safety Journal, 2021: p. 103492.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2021.103492.
32. Hodges, J.L., B.Y. Lattimer, and K.D. Luxbacher, Compartment fire predictions using
transpose convolutional neural networks. Fire Safety Journal, 2019. 108: p. 102854.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2019.102854.
33. Lattimer, B., J. Hodges, and A. Lattimer, Using machine learning in physics-based simulation
of fire. Fire Safety Journal, 2020. 114: p. 102991.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2020.102991.
34. Lau, C.K., et al., Fire risk assessment with scoring system, using the support vector machine
approach. Fire Safety Journal, 2015. 78: p. 188-195.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2015.10.003.
35. Sayad, Y.O., H. Mousannif, and H. Al Moatassime, Predictive modeling of wildfires: A new
dataset and machine learning approach. Fire Safety Journal, 2019. 104: p. 130-146.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2019.01.006.
36. Wang, J., et al., P-Flash - A machine learning-based model for flashover prediction using
recovered temperature data. Fire Safety Journal, 2021. 122: p. 103341.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2021.103341.
37. Naser, M., Fire resistance evaluation through artificial intelligence - A case for timber
structures. Fire safety journal, 2019. 105: p. 1-18.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2019.02.002.
38. Bouhlel, M.A., et al., A Python surrogate modeling framework with derivatives. Advances in
Engineering Software, 2019. 135: p. 102662.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2019.03.005.
24
39. Bliek, L., et al., Online optimization with costly and noisy measurements using random
Fourier expansions. IEEE transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 2016.
29(1): p. 167-182. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNNLS.2016.2615134.
40. Manzoni, L., et al., Surfing on fitness landscapes: A boost on optimization by Fourier
surrogate modeling. Entropy, 2020. 22(3): p. 285. https://doi.org/10.3390/e22030285.
41. Dasari, S.K., A. Cheddad, and P. Andersson. Random forest surrogate models to support
design space exploration in aerospace use-case. in IFIP International Conference on
Artificial Intelligence Applications and Innovations. 2019. Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19823-7_45.
42. Bandler, J.W., et al., Space mapping: the state of the art. IEEE Transactions on Microwave
Theory and Techniques, 2004. 52(1): p. 337-361.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TMTT.2003.820904.
43. Chivatá Cárdenas, I., On the use of Bayesian networks as a meta-modelling approach to
analyse uncertainties in slope stability analysis. Georisk: Assessment and Management of
Risk for Engineered Systems and Geohazards, 2019. 13(1): p. 53-65.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17499518.2018.1498524.
44. Nguyen, H.T., et al., Review on the use of artificial intelligence to predict fire performance of
construction materials and their flame retardancy. Molecules, 2021. 26(4): p. 1022.
https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26041022.
45. Gareth James, D.W.T.H.R.T., An introduction to statistical learning : with applications in R.
2013: New York : Springer.
46. Buffington, T., et al., Deep-learning emulators of transient compartment fire simulations for
inverse problems and room-scale calorimetry. Fire Technology, 2020: p. 1-27.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-020-01037-2.
47. Di, S., et al., Temperature predictions of a single-room fire based on the CoKriging model.
Journal of University of Science and Technology of China, 2021. 51(1): p. 75.
https://doi.org/10.52396/JUST-2020-1140.
48. Li, N., et al., Multi-fidelity surrogate algorithm for fire origin determination in compartment
fires. Engineering with Computers, 2020. 36(3): p. 897-914. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-
019-00738-9.
49. Naser, M., H. Hostetter, and A. Daware. AI modelling & mapping functions: a cognitive,
physics-guided, simulation-free and instantaneous approach to fire evaluation. in The 11th
International Conference on Structures in Fire. 2020. Brisbane, Australia.
https://doi.org/10.14264/a0b3b36.
50. Nguyen, H.T., et al., Predicting heat release properties of flammable fiber-polymer laminates
using Artificial Neural Networks. Composites Science and Technology, 2021: p. 109007.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compscitech.2021.109007.
51. Mareš, T., E. Janouchová, and A. Kučerová, Artificial neural networks in the calibration of
nonlinear mechanical models. Advances in Engineering Software, 2016. 95: p. 68-81.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2016.01.017.
52. Novák, D. and D. Lehký, ANN inverse analysis based on stochastic small-sample training set
simulation. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 2006. 19(7): p. 731-740.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2006.05.003.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
This paper investigates the influence of wind speed and direction on external fire spread in an isolated rectangular building using computational fluid dynamics models validated with wind tunnel data and facade fire tests. Two wind speeds (2 m/s, 4 m/s) are considered for each of four wind directions (0°, 45°, 90°, 180°) and compared to a reference case of no wind. Results indicate that facade fire spread is heavily influenced by the near-wall flow fields generated by the building geometry. These flow fields explain counterintuitive findings such as the upstream tilting of flames under the influence of reverse flow near the side walls. The presence of external wind was found to inhibit the initial development of facade fires, but can greatly exacerbate fire spread once the fire has fully developed. The largest fire occurred for the case of no wind (7.5 GJ in 15 minutes) while the smallest fire occurred for the 4m/s diagonal wind case (2.2 GJ). An additional case with temporally varying wind conditions demonstrated a 50% increase in fire spread area compared to no wind. The study provides valuable insight into wind and fire interaction in building facades that can help improve the fire safety of buildings.
Article
Full-text available
Research was conducted to examine the use of Support Vector Regression (SVR) to build a model to forecast the potential occurrence of flashover in a single-floor, multi-room compartment fire. Synthetic temperature data for heat detectors in different rooms were generated, 1000 simulation cases are considered, and a total of 8 million data points are utilized for model development. An operating temperature limitation is placed on heat detectors where they fail at a fixed exposure temperature of 150 C and no longer provide data to more closely follow actual performance. The forecast model P-Flash (Prediction model for Flashover occurrence) is developed to use an array of heat detector temperature data, including in adjacent spaces, to recover temperature data from the room of fire origin and predict potential for flashover. Two special treatments, sequence segmentation and learning from fitting, are proposed to overcome the temperature limitation of heat detectors in real-life fire scenarios and to enhance prediction capabilities to determine if the flashover condition is met even with situations where there is no temperature data from all detectors. Experimental evaluation shows that P-Flash offers reliable prediction. The model performance is approximately 83 % and 81 %, respectively, for current and future flashover occurrence, considering heat detector failure at 150 C. Results demonstrate that P-Flash, a new data-driven model, has potential to provide fire fighters real-time, trustworthy, and actionable information to enhance situational awareness, operational effectiveness, and safety for firefighting.
Article
Full-text available
The evaluation and interpretation of the behavior of construction materials under fire conditions have been complicated. Over the last few years, artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a reliable method to tackle this engineering problem. This review summarizes existing studies that applied AI to predict the fire performance of different construction materials (e.g., concrete, steel, timber, and composites). The prediction of the flame retardancy of some structural components such as beams, columns, slabs, and connections by utilizing AI-based models is also discussed. The end of this review offers insights on the advantages, existing challenges, and recommendations for the development of AI techniques used to evaluate the fire performance of construction materials and their flame retardancy. This review offers a comprehensive overview to researchers in the fields of fire engineering and material science, and it encourages them to explore and consider the use of AI in future research projects.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Artificial intelligence (AI) is a computational technique that exploits hidden patterns between seemingly unrelated parameters to draw solution(s) to a given phenomenon. From this view, we believe that AI has the highest potential to deliver unique and modern solutions to the fire engineering community, noting that: 1) fire spans multiple fields (i.e. engineering, materials science, etc.) and hence its effects on structures require a holistic understanding, and 2) in a given fire engineering problem, a large number of variables exist with high variability and varying degrees of interdependency. The above clearly infers how structural fires represent a complex phenomenon in which traditional assessment methods struggle to resolve and hence an attempt to integrate AI could be promising. As a proof-of-concept, this paper showcases how AI can be used to develop a cognitive, simulation-free and instantaneous approach to evaluate fire response of reinforced concrete (RC) beams by using Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) and surrogates of Genetic Algorithms (GA). The presented approach is expected to open the door for new opportunities in fire engineering-related research, practice and education in the years to come.
Article
A method and a thorough demonstration combining supercomputing and machine learning (ML) were proposed to help quickly predict the spread of fire in mine tunnels. 1000 cases of a three-dimensional mine tunnel fire problem under different ventilation, thermal, and geometric conditions were numerically simulated using supercomputing. Then four ML models were trained and applied to predict fire dynamics in the tunnel. It is revealed that all ML models performed well in predicting the occurrence of backflow and the back-layering length of the smoke. In particular, the random forest (RF) and support vector machine (SVM) models have the best performance for predicting whether backflow of fire smoke will occur, while the artificial neural networks (ANN) model shows the best performance in predicting the back-layering length. In addition, the ML models were used to evaluate the factors that affect the fire dynamics in the tunnel. The results show that the ventilation velocity and tunnel inclination angle are the most critical factors under the investigated ranges of ventilation, thermal, and geometric conditions. Owing to the high performance in numerical simulations and prediction, the proposed method combining supercomputing and ML may provide a novel and efficient way for rapid prediction of mine tunnel fire dynamics.
Article
Recognizing the stages of fire development is essential for fire emergency operations. It allows firefighters to predict what will happen next, potential fire spreads, and the likely effect of tactical actions. Currently, firefighters recognize the fire stages mainly by observing and judging the signs and symptoms of fire development changing on-site. However, this kind of approach highly relies on firefighters’ knowledge and experience, making them difficult to operate. Therefore, a machine learning (ML)-based approach automatically identifying the stages of fire development in residential room fires is proposed in this paper. Modeled by Gaussian Mixture Models and Hidden Markov Models (GMM-HMM), the approach enables identifying the stages of fire development from short-term field temperature collections. To provide adequate data for model training, the two-zone fire model--CFAST and a non-parametric fire design method are applied to generate the temperature observations in many random fire scenarios. Taking the fire in a typical single-story residential construction as a case study, we establish an GMM-HMM-based recognition model with the simulated temperature data. It presents an average of 85% accuracy on identifying the fire stages within the 2 minutes error range. Moreover, tested with the experimental fire data, the established model also presents successful recognitions.
Article
This paper presents a deep learning model for quickly predicting the temporal evolution of smoke, temperature, and pressure during a high-rise fire scenario. The deep learning model, titled Brain-STORM, serves as a fast and accurate surrogate model of Fire-STORM, a previously developed physics-based fire model. To build the training set, a generative model is built to produce randomly drawn simulation inputs that are designed to resemble potential use cases. These inputs are run in Fire-STORM and the results are used to train Brain-STORM to predict the output that Fire-STORM would produce for new input cases. Once trained, Brain-STORM produces nearly identical results to Fire-STORM and runs over 100 times faster. To evaluate the accuracy of Brain-STORM for realistic use cases, Fire-STORM and Brain-STORM results are compared for multiple cases involving heat release rate curves that are not present in the training set including a t-squared fire ramp and a fire ramp from NIST’s single office workstation fire tests. Finally, given that Brain-STORM can learn inverse mappings directly, the utility of Brain-STORM as a fast heat release rate inversion tool is evaluated.
Article
Heat release rate is an important fire reaction property used to quantify the flammability of composite materials in fire. In this study, an artificial neural network (ANN) model was developed to predict the heat release properties of composites. The ANN model was trained using 10,419 data points for heat release rate extracted from the results of cone calorimetry tests performed on 14 sets of composite laminates. Two machine learning algorithms of Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) and Bayesian regularized artificial neural network with Gaussian prior (BRANNGP) are compared. The composites used to demonstrate the predictive accuracy of the ANN model were phenolic-based laminates containing different types and amounts of flame retardant additives. The BRANNGP model is capable of predicting the heat release rate-time curve, peak heat release value and total heat release of the composites. In addition, the BRANNGP model with outlier-elimination strategy can estimate with good accuracy the complex non-linear relationship between heat release rate and heat flux exposure time without considering the mechanistic interactions between the input and output parameters.
Article
An Introduction to Statistical Learning provides an accessible overview of the field of statistical learning, an essential toolset for making sense of the vast and complex data sets that have emerged in fields ranging from biology to finance to marketing to astrophysics in the past twenty years. This book presents some of the most important modeling and prediction techniques, along with relevant applications. Topics include linear regression, classification, resampling methods, shrinkage approaches, tree-based methods, support vector machines, clustering, deep learning, survival analysis, multiple testing, and more. Color graphics and real-world examples are used to illustrate the methods presented. Since the goal of this textbook is to facilitate the use of these statistical learning techniques by practitioners in science, industry, and other fields, each chapter contains a tutorial on implementing the analyses and methods presented in R, an extremely popular open source statistical software platform. Two of the authors co-wrote The Elements of Statistical Learning (Hastie, Tibshirani and Friedman, 2nd edition 2009), a popular reference book for statistics and machine learning researchers. An Introduction to Statistical Learning covers many of the same topics, but at a level accessible to a much broader audience. This book is targeted at statisticians and non-statisticians alike who wish to use cutting-edge statistical learning techniques to analyze their data. The text assumes only a previous course in linear regression and no knowledge of matrix algebra. This Second Edition features new chapters on deep learning, survival analysis, and multiple testing, as well as expanded treatments of naïve Bayes, generalized linear models, Bayesian additive regression trees, and matrix completion. R code has been updated throughout to ensure compatibility.
Article
This article presents a large eddy simulation and experimental study of cedar façade behavior exposed to a 900 kW window spilled flame. The experiments used for validation were carried out in the Building Research of Institute of Japan in Tsukuba according to JIS A 1310 method. The compartment fire was modeled by using the modified eddy dissipation model with a diffusion mixing time scale for the near wall laminar region of combustion model, oneEqEddy model of turbulence model, pyrolysis chemistry mode of pyrolysis model, and finite volume discrete ordinates method of radiation model. The fire flame is treated as optically thin, and a fixed radiant fraction 0.35 is used to calculate the radiation source term. The pyrolysis model of cedar was modeled and optimized according to the results of fire propagation apparatus test. The influence of cedar parameters on time‐to‐pHRR (peak HRR), pHRR, and (total heat release rate) THR curves of facade fire were clarified by a series of simulation varying from thermal density, conductivity, heat capacity, and pyrolysis reaction parameters. It indicates the simulation results show a reasonable good quantitative agreement with experimental measurements. The activation energy of cedar pyrolysis shows a great influence on the time‐to‐pHRR, low pHRR, and THR of cedar facade.